Hermes wrote:

Cactus Flower wrote:

Notwithstanding use of uranium tipped missiles in the past, and may it
never happen, in my view a nuclear strike on Iran would be result in
destabilisation of the US position as a world power.

That's a possibility, that's for sure. The problem being that there are lots of possibilities. Maybe this loss of position could be viewed in another light. It might be an event of a transitory nature rather than an issue of shrinkage. The US as a nation is not a lot more than 200 years old and it's fought a war nearly every decade or so (and god only knows how many proxy wars). It would be my position to suggest that this is more akin to Toto pulling the blanket away from the little old man pulling the strings of the wizard than an actual loss of potency. Look at what the world has accepted thus far; preemptive wars. With DU, some of these wars can be described as 'low level nuclear wars.' And the world has accepted it and still sees the US as the world's primary example of democracy. Add to this that the US is close to being insolvent and you get powerful motivation to be in a position of power as Global warming and Peak Oil begin to assert themselves. I think we're at a very dangerous time, Bush is on the way out, we may get a sting from a dying wasp. It'll then be up to the next president to sort it out coupled with a powerful incentive to continue the 'War On Terror.' In other words: there was no decade of softening up Iran with genocidal sanctions. The consequences of 'pushing democracy' in Iran would be much more severe than those experienced in Iraq and a new president of the US would not have the luxury of ignoring them.

The days of the nuclear deterrent are over.

Cue the scary music

I agree with you, that we are at a very dangerous time for our species. And for quite a few other species too if we wan't to look at it that way.

I've bin posting on P.ie and here a while about the tension between the US as essentially a spent economic power and its huge arsenal and military capacities.
Resource issues are piling on top of that situation and the pressure is building up. China is building up its deterrence, but is no where near equal to the States nor could be for a while. There is a growing instability.

Anyone who cares to look can see how close we came to a 'preemptive nuclear strike' by the US against Russia and Eastern Europe in the early 1980s (Abel Archer period): it would have happened if Reagan hadn't seen an anti-nuke film ('The Day After'?) and if the USSR hadn't been very ready to retaliate. Also, there was the issue of the european NATO members pulling back - but I reckon if that had been all we would have been looked on as collateral damage.

I hope we can have a discussion on this site about what do we do in the situation.

Not to worry, isn't the Government preparing to send everyone a pack containing instructions on what to do in the event of a disaster. (we need an emoticon for kissing one's nether regions goodbye)

I'll sleep better for it.

Seriously though, and I don't want to come off as a conspircy theorist, but it looks to me like an endgame scenario is being played out, where the major players have been positioning themselves for quite some time. I suppose, on the brighter side, we're a tough species and we've survived such games in the past. It should always be borne in mind that when one wins a game, that the victory is itself a fleeting thing and is in reality, only an introductory salvo that begins the next game.

Of course, it'd be nice to put a stop to such games too. Are we situated in a position to do such a thing? Not knowing is a killer. It'll all come down to the final whistle methinks.

I'm sure that the first World War, the Second World War and Iraq were all conspiracy theories in their day. I don't think we should take any siucra from the poor old ostriches who think that nothing can ever happen, and the nice men at the top are only interested in looking after us. Neither do I think we are passive spectators, whether conciously or not, we are part of what will happen.

hammer + plane ftw

The Iraqi government with an election coming up in October have now with the backing of Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani told the US that they want full sovereignty and a date for withdrawal of all US troops in Iraq, including the Kurdish north (today's IT). This is a changed position. Are they inspired by the Iranian defiance? The US says withdrawal depends on the conditions on the ground: this is of course a carte blanche for permanent bases.