Subscribe via RSS Feed

Foreign Entanglements: A Red Line Here, a Bombing Campaign There…

[ 11 ] October 2, 2012 |

On the latest episode of Foreign Entanglements, Matt speaks with Jamie Fly about Bibi’s Bomb Cartoon speech:

Comments (11)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Njorl says:

    We can counter that weapon quite well with some of these

  2. Another Halocene Human says:

    So why is it so bad if Iran gets a/the bomb?

    Every regional analysis I’ve seen since, like, the 1990s has concluded that they’d be crazy NOT to. They’re fucking next to Pakistan.

    The US invasion of Iraq only reinforces that.

    And don’t forget Libya. But it’s not just the current craven leaders.

    Is the Green movement against nuclear proliferation? Maybe some of them individually, but not en masse.

    Because look at who their neighbors are.

    How can we condemn them for doing something we would do ourselves?

    • avoidswork says:

      How can we condemn, AHH?

      Because we are Americans.

      We want to eat our sh*tty food, watch our sh*tty TV, bitch about how eeeevil unions are on one hand while being in distress about NFL scab-ref calls on another, while discussing which nation beginning with a vowel we’d like to go to war next with, while driving our gas guzzlers and crying about how much prices in sh*t has gone up.

  3. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons against another. Still.

  4. avoidswork says:

    Haven’t conservatives figured out that their Foreign Policy sucks the big one?

    Every time I hear them quaking in their boots about Iran, I think of the Green Revolution. As in, *those* are the people we will truly be hurting with our shows of force.

    Then there is our relationship with Israel and the odious/batshit Bibi N.

    We f*cked Iraq up.

    There are awful growing pains with Egypt/Libya, so naturally the Arab Spring is a failure. Naturally, the fact that post-Mubarek there were Muslim Brotherhood Islamists elected is a problem. That’s right, Egypt. Since *we* believe you voted wrong, we must give up hope.

    It just goes on and on and on. I know the world is f*cked up, that the Middle East is f*cked up, etc. What I do know is that Republican/Conservative POVs on foreign policy want to take these already f*cked up positions and exacerbate them. And that, like, we share this planet with others.

    You know who we don’t talk about? Saudi Arabia. Or our dependence on oil from the Middle East.

    And when we talk nuclear proliferation, we seem to always forget that we’re the only nation to have dropped not one, but two nuclear weapons onto civilian populations. But you better believe we can wag a finger and tell others that they cannot obtain a weapon.

    Delicacy and diplomacy are two skills absent in the Conservative POV on foreign policy. They just want to swagger on out, shoot first and aim later.

  5. jon says:

    This years long push on Iran is ill conceived and unlikely to produce positive outcomes, such as deterring Iran from pursuing production of nuclear weapons. There is exactly zero proof that Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon. However Iran is being systematically pressured, encircled, embargoed, and otherwise threatened on the assumption that they are trying to produce a nuclear weapon. This will lead the mullahs to decide that a nuclear weapon will be the only thing that can keep them from being attacked.

    Iran has gotten through Stuxnet and can now enrich uranium to twenty percent. great. But twenty is a long way from the ninety-plus percent enrichment that a nuclear weapon requires; and there are enormous technical barriers to get to that enrichment level that Iran has not started to contend with. And you need more than a supply or highly enriched uranium to create a functional nuclear weapon. REalistically, they may be decades away from that capacity, if they ever decide to create a priority program.

    What could be done to box in Iran and make further nuclear research and technical ability indefensible? A Middle East Nuclear Free Zone. Unfortunately, that would require Israel participating in the protocols and inspection regimes, and then they would have to come clean about their nuclear weapons program and stockpile – one achieved by espionage on the US, and the participation of the apartheid regime of South Africa. Our attention and efforts might be more productively focused on the ability and intent of Israel’s submarines that are now patrolling off of Iran’s Persian Gulf coast.

    • Another Halocene Human says:

      What is up with the claim that it’s easier to go from 20% to 90% than from 5% to 20%? Have they discovered Maxwell’s Demon? Has the Second Law of Thermodynamics been overturned?

      Kelvin wept.

      • njorl says:

        It might be justified in the specific circumstances. While it would require more work units, Iran has more equipment. It isn’t an easier problem in the abstract, but it is an easier goal to achieve for Iran.

  6. SpiderBat says:

    Rob,

    I know it’s a bit off topic, but I was wondering whether you had a sense if Fly’s degree of airpower kookiness is common among neocons. I ask because the man doesn’t seem particularly crazy or stupid, yet he thinks dropping a few JDAMs on Tehran will uncork the green freedom geyser or something.

  7. Leinad says:

    I am curious as to whether Jamie thinks there are any global issues that aren’t resolvable by the delivery of several tonnes of US ordnance.

  8. para says:

    Not sure what Kelvin has to do with it, but the claim is correct. “Enrichment” does not add stuff, it sorts out undesired parts. The first step means to produce an amount containing 20% useful material, up from near zero, this step removes the vast majority of undesired parts. From 20 to 90% the effort to remove “dirt” is vastly reduced, hence quicker, resulting in a rapid breakout capability, once enough 20% “enriched” material has been created.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site