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

[DontSayBanana]

Ugh, NPR. I'm surprised Banana didn't slip into a coma while listening.

My commute in all directions is an hour, give or take.  Sometimes I zone out on NPR, but it's still better than the shock jocks on the music stations, which don't seem to play all that much music in the morning.

[Ed Anger]

Driving while listening to NPR? LOCK THAT MAN UP.

[Admiral Yi]

I love NPR.  Except for the weekend crap.

Iowa Public Radio sucks though.

[Malthus]

In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?

As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.

Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.

That's a great argument for Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. Don't know how likely that is, though.

Israel is differently positioned. Though I agree that it currently faces no truly existential threat from a conventional state (assuming of course Iran's use of its pending nuke is "rational"). When it acquired its nukes, though, it did face such a threat.

What would Israel gain from a realist perspective from giving up nukes it already has, though?

[Berkut]

I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.

Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.

A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.

A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.

In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?

Of course not - but they might threaten to nuke Tel Aviv if the US doesn't stay out of their intervention into Kuwait, or whatever. Using the Gulf War analogy, would Saudia Arabia risk having Riyadh nuked if Saddam had nukes, and he said any intervention in response to his invasion of Kuwait would result in him taking out Riyadh?

As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.

Israel cannot, but that doesn't mean that Iran cannot. Nobody would take such a threat from Israel seriously - it is well understood that Israel nuclear arms are to be used only to deter an existential threat. Other regional powers may not be so reserved.

Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.   

I don't think that is the case at all, at least not for these kind of regional powers.

[Jacob]

Israel is differently positioned. Though I agree that it currently faces no truly existential threat from a conventional state (assuming of course Iran's use of its pending nuke is "rational"). When it acquired its nukes, though, it did face such a threat.

What would Israel gain from a realist perspective from giving up nukes it already has, though?

About the same as Iran would lose from getting nukes, I reckon.

[Malthus]

Israel is differently positioned. Though I agree that it currently faces no truly existential threat from a conventional state (assuming of course Iran's use of its pending nuke is "rational"). When it acquired its nukes, though, it did face such a threat.

What would Israel gain from a realist perspective from giving up nukes it already has, though?

About the same as Iran would lose from getting nukes, I reckon.

Not really, no.

Iran is paying a stiff international price to obtain nukes - ongoing sanctions, problems from its neigbours, attacks of various sorts by shadowy spooks (most likely US and Israeli).

To the extent Israel paid a price to obtain nukes, it was paid years ago; it does not face ongoing sanctions, problems from its neighbours, or attacks because it has nukes.

[Jacob]

Not really, no.

Iran is paying a stiff international price to obtain nukes - ongoing sanctions, problems from its neigbours, attacks of various sorts by shadowy spooks (most likely US and Israeli).

To the extent Israel paid a price to obtain nukes, it was paid years ago; it does not face ongoing sanctions, problems from its neighbours, or attacks because it has nukes.

But Israel enjoys a more secure position because it has nukes. It may seem worthwhile to go through the current difficulties, to get to that more secure position with nukes.

[Ed Anger]

I love NPR.  Except for the weekend crap.

Iowa Public Radio sucks though.

fag

[Malthus]

Not really, no.

Iran is paying a stiff international price to obtain nukes - ongoing sanctions, problems from its neigbours, attacks of various sorts by shadowy spooks (most likely US and Israeli).

To the extent Israel paid a price to obtain nukes, it was paid years ago; it does not face ongoing sanctions, problems from its neighbours, or attacks because it has nukes.

But Israel enjoys a more secure position because it has nukes. It may seem worthwhile to go through the current difficulties, to get to that more secure position with nukes.

Israel had a more secure position from owning nukes, when its existence was threatened by Syrian and Egyptian tanks.

Right now, the threats to Israel come from 'unconventional warfare' attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah. So I would agree with your original point, that right now Israel has nothing much to gain in security from owning nukes - but also, nothing much to lose from owning 'em, as nobody will give Israel anything to give them up, and no-one is imposing any cost on Israel to keep them.

In contrast, Iran has nothing much to gain, but a high price to pay to own 'em.

[DontSayBanana]

fag

Admittedly, NPR's a lot better in the morning than it is late at night.  News from the BBC >>> Q.

[The Brain]

I think given US conventional military hegemony, it is perfectly natural for mid range powers who see themselves as being largely in opposition to US interests (and vice versa) to seek out a equalizer, something that allows them to act with more freedom than they would otherwise.

Right now, at the end of the day, the US can and will hold over the head of any power like Iran the threat that we can militarily step in and stop anything they want to do.

A nuclear armed Iran has more freedom to act, even if that is regionally, as they have their own stick to use to threaten against intervention, even if that threat is intended against those who would, for example, host US forces.

A nuke it the "big stick". Having the big stick means you get to use your other sticks with great impunity.

In theory - in practice, future great-power intervention is unlikely in any case to take the form of direct "Desert Storm"-style military intervention: Iran is simply too horrible a quagmire for a great power to want to get bogged down in. Rather, it is more likely to be in the form of offering support to participants already engaged in a conflict - "advisors", cash, weapons and the like. This is true whether the target has nukes or not. What's the target gonna do, threaten to nuke Washington if the US doesn't stop providing (say) the Iraqis with cash and guns?

As the Israelis have discovered in the case of Iranian support for Hezbollah, having nukes simply doesn't deter that sort of meddling - even against a mid-ranked, regional power that lacks nukes itself. Israel simply can't crediibly threaten Tehran with nuclear armageddon for supporting its enemies.

Having nukes is a bit of a military dud really - they are only good for deterring a truly existential threat to the country from a conventional force, which is the least likely threat to Iran, currently.

It's only a little over 10 years ago that the US invaded Iraq. You don't make nuclear plans based on the weather but on the climate.

[The Minsky Moment]

It's only a little over 10 years ago that the US invaded Iraq. You don't make nuclear plans based on the weather but on the climate.

Remind me again, what was the stated reason for that attack?

[The Brain]

It's only a little over 10 years ago that the US invaded Iraq. You don't make nuclear plans based on the weather but on the climate.

Remind me again, what was the stated reason for that attack?

If you're gonna do the time you may as well do the crime.

[Siege]