It's Bibipalooza! Live, from Congress! One show only!

[Neil]

I was saying that at this point in time, a nuclear weapons program is a reasonable move.  I made no judgement on the origins of anybody's nuclear program.  No matter how or when it got started, it's a good idea now.

[Admiral Yi]

I was saying that at this point in time, a nuclear weapons program is a reasonable move.  I made no judgement on the origins of anybody's nuclear program.  No matter how or when it got started, it's a good idea now.

To which I responded that "the constant threats of attack from the US" are about eliminating the weapons program, which defeats that argument. 

To which you responded that they started with the Axis of Evil speech.

To which I responded by showing that the weapons started before the speech.

[Neil]

I mentioned a number of times that the US has threatened to attack Iran.  US-Iranian hostility dates back to long before the Axis of Evil speech.

[Admiral Yi]

You mentioned Axis of evil, the current letter and "various statements made by politicians."

[Razgovory]

Ah, so because Neil mentioned the Axis of Evil speech Iran's nuclear program is aimed at Israel.  I'm not sure I follow that idea.  I mean, Reagan approved strikes against Iran at one point.  Also there was that thingy with the Vinccennes.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't follow that idea either Raz.

[Razgovory]

I don't follow that idea either Raz.

Then what is your argument?  You focus on the Axis of Evil speech, what relevance does it have beyond Neil mentioning it?

[Valmy]

I guess he is saying that Iran does not regard the US as a threat or, that they do but it has zero to do with their nuclear program.

[Jacob]

I guess he is saying that Iran does not regard the US as a threat or, that they do but it has zero to do with their nuclear program.

As far as I can tell, Yi's argument is that when Iran started its nuclear program it was apparently not worried about the US, which means there is no rational reason for Iran to pursue a nuclear program now.

That makes no sense to me, so maybe he means something else.

[Admiral Yi]

Then what is your argument?  You focus on the Axis of Evil speech, what relevance does it have beyond Neil mentioning it?

My argument is that by the time the US was making "constant threats of attack," Iran had already started its nuclear weapons program.

[The Minsky Moment]

There is no rational reason for Iran to have a nuclear program, Yi is right about that.

[The Minsky Moment]

Let's say Iran is afraid of a US attack.  Then building nukes is a terrible idea, it makes it far more likely that the US would use its far more devastating and reliable nuclear arsenal against Iran which even if it developed weapons would be hard pressed to hit the USA.

Let's say Iran thinks that the US will attack conventionally but will not if Iran has nukes.  Nope - not rational.  Because:
(1) It takes time to develop nukes so developing them only increases the likelihood of the feared for attack.  And the fact that attack has nonetheless materialized despite years and multiple presidencies proves that the initial fear of attack was horribly misplaced to begin with.
(2) The US attacked Iraq despite -- nay, BECAUSE of --  the fact that the US believed the Iraq had developed deployable weapons of mass destruction.

QED

[Razgovory]

Then what is your argument?  You focus on the Axis of Evil speech, what relevance does it have beyond Neil mentioning it?

My argument is that by the time the US was making "constant threats of attack," Iran had already started its nuclear weapons program.

The previous Iranian nuclear program was dismantled shortly after the Shah was overthrown.  The US making constant threats of attacks occur shortly after the Iranian revolution with an attempted actual attack (Operation Eagle Claw), Reagan approved a bombing of Iran in 1985, In 1987 the US attacked Iranian offshore oil facilities and attacked the Iranian navy in 1988 and shot down one airliner.  When exactly do you think that Iran started it's Nuclear weapons program?

[Admiral Yi]

If you're going to call the hostage rescue attempt an attack I'm not going to bother fact checking the others.

[Razgovory]

Let's say Iran is afraid of a US attack.  Then building nukes is a terrible idea, it makes it far more likely that the US would use its far more devastating and reliable nuclear arsenal against Iran which even if it developed weapons would be hard pressed to hit the USA.

Let's say Iran thinks that the US will attack conventionally but will not if Iran has nukes.  Nope - not rational.  Because:
(1) It takes time to develop nukes so developing them only increases the likelihood of the feared for attack.  And the fact that attack has nonetheless materialized despite years and multiple presidencies proves that the initial fear of attack was horribly misplaced to begin with.
(2) The US attacked Iraq despite -- nay, BECAUSE of --  the fact that the US believed the Iraq had developed deployable weapons of mass destruction.

QED

Let's quantify the chances of attack.  Let's say that every year there is a 3% chance the US will attack Iranian targets.  If Iran is building a nuclear weapon it increases the chance of attack to 6% every year.  Let us say it takes five year to build a bomb.  After which, chance of the US attacks on Iran are only .1% every year.  Is it rational to build this weapon now?

Now of course I made these numbers up.  I'm not good with stats, the US has attacked targets of the Iranian republic in the 1980's several times and zero times in the 1990's, 2000's and 2010's that I know of. So statistically the chance of an overt military attack may actually go down while they are building a bomb.