Nuclear Deal Is Dead? Iran Distances Itself Further From ND, Alarming Russia And France

[Zhong Lu + 845]

To everyone else:

American behavior is creating incentives for Iran to develop nuclear weapons.  You can bury your head in the sand all you want, but from a realpolitik standpoint it is 100% in Iran's interests to develop nuclear weapons to protect itself from its larger and more threatening neighbors and great powers.  Don't take it personally, Americans.  In the long run Iran wants nuclear weapons to counter Russia and China designs on the region as well (though America is the current enemy).  

Edited November 11, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Marcin + 519]

On 11/9/2019 at 8:31 AM, Zhong Lu said:

North Korea does have a nuke, which is why they're safe. Is this good or bad? Probably bad. But I'm not making moral judgement here. If I started an international consulting firm for shitty countries, I would advise everyone to go for nukes to protect themselves from whatever great power that doesn't like them.  

The lessons of the past are clear: to protect yourself from an American or Russian invasion, get a nuke.  

That is exactly how I approach geopolitics, as a business consultant, it leaves all morals behind you and gives quick and sensible answers. I would advice Iran to struck any deal with Obama, but to leave balistic technology out of it, to have enough time to excel the technology. So 3 years later they have real breakout capabilities and real deterrent cause can flop even crude nuke (of Hiroshima construction) across Persian Gulf or to Israel in 2 minutes, no time to react. And Israel and US know about it already. I think Iran is still waiting how situation with China will develop. If China will continue with imports it is better for Iran to hush, hush for another 2-3 years. China has too many things on its plate at the moment to openly engage with Iran proxy war against US. Still need to wait 5 years. But later Iran will have nukes for sure.

And later I would advice Saudi Arabia to buy nukes from Pakistan. Pakistan is cash stripped so 50 billion will do the job. But Salman needs to stay stronger on its feet. As of today US can cripple him after evening and before morning prayers, just to show respect to islam faith.

Domino will go on: after Iran next will be Japan and South Korea. It is one of the strangest things that Japanese with all their technology, power and pride still tolerate US military and have no nukes. (but Japan fast building own capabilities at the same time)

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Other points I agree, but not on Japan or South Korea.  Both countries are more scared of China then the US and rightfully so, I think.  They'll be under the American umbrella for a long time to come.  

Edited November 11, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Marcin + 519]

On 11/9/2019 at 9:01 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

When you start a war, remember the North Koreans started this thing, then the gloves are off and if you get invaded as a result it is a much different story than someone simply invading your country without cause.

The Cold War concept of ‘mutually assured destruction’ is well understood. But back in those days it was IF you launch, WE will launch.

Iran and North Korea have said they MIGHT launch a pre-emptive first strike to wipe out Israel and the US respectively. Again, this is NOT a MAD scenario. 

But Douglas,

There are some concepts of fair war. What US did in Korea fulfills definition of genocide. This was the single most painful experience of Korean nation in its history, and remember the bar has been set high by recent Japanese occupation. There was some statistics that Americans thrown more bombs at Korean civilians then during whole WW2 in Pacific theater. The real problem early in the bombings campaign was that all primary targets were destroyed: factories, military barracks, government buildings. So later all hospitals , schools etc. were treated this way. 30% of all North Korean buildings were destroyed, as a citizen of Poland I am really gasping with awe as it was higher percentage of buildings than Nazi Germany managed to destroy in Poland during 5 years of occupation during WW2. I mean really marvellous evil did, ninth ring of Dante's Hell guaranteed for US commanders, Judas will need to make some space.

[Marcin + 519]

5 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Other points I agree, but not on Japan or South Korea.  Both countries are more scared of China then the US and rightfully so, I think.  They'll be under the American umbrella for a long time to come.  

What umbrella would you expect in 10 years, when Chinese will reach quantitative parity in surface combatants with US ?. I mean regular freedom of navigation patrols (FONOP) to ensure safety of Cuban trade in Mexican Gulf.

Of course they are scared but their only solution long-term is to get nukes with exact timing: after US retreat but before new masters dominate Western Pacific. South Korea is a little different as China will economically assimilate it and no political grievances.

Japan will need to give up a lot of islands, I do not see it as a real posibility

[Zhong Lu + 845]

The US isn't retreating from that area.  Just as Douglas is too pro-US, you're a little bit too anti-US.  Both of you are predicting what you HOPE will happen.  

As I said before: I'm neutral.  I don't hope, or I try very hard not to when making predictions.  

Edited November 11, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Marcin + 519]

2 hours ago, Gerry Maddoux said:

And Churchill could have stuck with Chamberlain's deal.

Wonder how that would have worked out.

Not really, passive behaviour of Britain in 1940 would strip it off all colonial possessions till 1942, as Germans needed crude oil more than anything else. In 1942 or 1943 US would never the less join WW2 but because British and French colonial empires will be finished there would be only 3 or 4 countries at UN Security Council at the end of the war. (I hope that India would be wiser this time.)

Churchill's and Chamberlains behaviour as every sensible patriotic government behaviour was to work in line with British interests. Usually wars on the continent were neutral or beneficial for Britain as they bleeded 2 major adversaries of Britain: France and Germany. Also the case with WW2 until Polish campaign in 1939 when Blitzkrieg shown that Germany are real masters of modern warfare and could land in Dover.

[remake it + 288]

23 minutes ago, Marcin said:

What umbrella would you expect in 10 years, when Chinese will reach quantitative parity in surface combatants with US ?. I mean regular freedom of navigation patrols (FONOP) to ensure safety of Cuban trade in Mexican Gulf.

Of course they are scared but their only solution long-term is to get nukes with exact timing: after US retreat but before new masters dominate Western Pacific. South Korea is a little different as China will economically assimilate it and no political grievances.

Japan will need to give up a lot of islands, I do not see it as a real posibility

We are moving into a world which is increasingly being destabilized from a militaristic perspective as the former US:Russia rivalries become intermingled with potential Chinese hegemony and Middle East:Iranian tensions, and all the while the agency set up to deflate escalation, viz. the United Nations, is being sidelined if not castrated so that this craziness can continue.

[Marcin + 519]

44 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

The US isn't retreating from that area.  Just as Douglas is too pro-US, you're a little bit too anti-US.  Both of you are predicting what you HOPE will happen.  

As I said before: I'm neutral.  I don't hope, or I try very hard not to when making predictions.  

This is not my HOPE, this is more like Doom scenario but I can prove it by analysis and deduction. I do not know how this scenario is not feasible or inevitable ?

China has already launched 6 052D destroyers and 1 of new 055 type this year. In 2022 when only vessels in dry-docks will be commisioned number of modern, US peers destroyers will reach 34 (26 of 052D 64 VLS each, 8 of 055, 112 VLS each). If the current pace of construction is kept (nothing to think otherwise) around 2030 China will have 60-70 new destroyers&cruisers, I am not counting 17 older vessels. This is for power projecting capabilities. (another 50 frigates and 50 corvettes, already commisioned is for protection of 1 island perimeter).

US has at the moment 67 Arleigh Burke, 96 VLS each (half 20+ years old), 3 Zumwalt, 80 VLS (brand new) and 22 Ticonderoga cruisers, 122 VLS each (25+ years old).

Looks like parity. In other dimensions Chinese Navy is not peer to US, but it does not have to in order to be formidable opponent.

So when FONOP regular cruises through Florida Straits and along US East Coast (it could be a great tourist attraction to look at them from observatory at EmpireStateBuilding) will start (but will stop when no US soldiers in 2000 miles off Chinese shores) how would you expect US to behave ? I would be grateful if anybody could show deficiences in my thinking.

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Marcin
spelling

[Marcin + 519]

We are all myopic when it relates to China-US rivalry.

Try a little food for thought exercise.

Assume for the moment that US and China actions are symmetrical. Best to do it is to replace current US actions vs China with symmetrical Chinese actions vs US, and think what would be effect.

Start with routine FONOP cruises around United States. 3 types: a. starting from Chinese base in Nicaragua, along Central America West Coast, and later through West Coast to Vancouver and back to Nicaragua.

b. starting from Chinese base in Havana, small circle around Mexican Bay, through Florida Straits, friendly visit to New York Port to make some selfie with Statue of Liberty&Chinese cruiser together, along the East Coast to Nova Scotia and back.

c. starting from Chinese base in Kiribati just making circles around major islands, 20 circles and back to base for replenishment, routine dull job.

Be creative ! Make the same exercise with other aspects of US-China relations.

[Marcin + 519]

7 hours ago, SERWIN said:

That wasn't even a "DEAL", it was everyone cow-towing to a ploitical regime that con only stay focused on one goal. That is the destruction of EVERY other religion on the face of the planet, that includes you Zhong. They don't care about anything else. Over here in the states a bunch of lily livered pussies ran around touting that we need to accept them with open arms and show them love and understanding. Take a good hard look at how THAT has turned out in Europe. They are going to have to do some extermination to get rid of those rats now. But they don't have the balls it would take, so you can easily consider Europe to be a muslim nation now..... Only a matter of time now.

Persians are nation with great history and pride. Iran was under islamization but remember they kept Farsi, unlike all Arabian Peninsula and North African nations that turned to Arabic. In Middle East they are clearly the most technologically advanced and sustainable economy (apart from Israel, but Israel is in league of its own). They are good sophisticated people, good education, want to be left alone by great powers, but at the same time will not surrender, somehow the 3000 years of history will not allow them.( It is not Roman world any longer, modern barbarians are not dangerous to anybody. Iranians are not barbarians).

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

I read through the comments on this thread and I am stunned, speechless, stupefied, by the vapidity of what is written. 

This is just amazing stuff.  You folks have no clue - zero -as to what makes the Americans tick, and you have no clue v- zero - as to the recent history of the world in the struggle between the West and the Communists. 

I really don't even know where to start, it is so staggering.  Let's see:   "Chinese bases in Nicaragua and Cuba," with "cruise up the US East Coast and a port call in New York for selfies of Chinese military at the Statue of Liberty," and tourists on the Observation deck of the Empire State "looking out at Chinese warships."   Are you kidding me?  Insane!  What do you think that the Americans and Donald Trump would ever even begin to contemplate such a thing?  

There is never going to be any Chinese military base anywhere in the Americas.  Anybody wants to set that up, they either get invaded or bombed.  End of story. 

"The Americans committed genocide in Korea."  Are you insane?  Who do you think invaded South Korea, slaughtering everything in sight, including civilians - especially civilians?  Who was pushing the civilians forward against the American and S.K.A. defenders in the Pusan Perimeter?  What, do you think those were troops from, say, the Congo?  Imported mercenaries from the Maldives Islands?  Are you guys totally nuts? 

You would, as a "business consultant," recommend any "shitty country" go get nuke bombs (and rockets) in order to "protect" against the USA and the West?  And people actually pay you money to write that pablum?  Guess what, chums: the Americans have no interest in "invading" anyone.  Zero. No interest.  But go get yourself nukes, and watch how fast you get blasted off the face of the earth.  You, the "shitty countries," are flatly forbidden to "get nukes."  You are far too irresponsible to be in possession of such weapons.  You get them, you build them, you die. 

[Marcin + 519]

11 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

I read through the comments on this thread and I am stunned, speechless, stupefied, by the vapidity of what is written. 

This is just amazing stuff.  You folks have no clue - zero -as to what makes the Americans tick, and you have no clue v- zero - as to the recent history of the world in the struggle between the West and the Communists. 

I really don't even know where to start, it is so staggering.  Let's see:   "Chinese bases in Nicaragua and Cuba," with "cruise up the US East Coast and a port call in New York for selfies of Chinese military at the Statue of Liberty," and tourists on the Observation deck of the Empire State "looking out at Chinese warships."   Are you kidding me?  Insane!  What do you think that the Americans and Donald Trump would ever even begin to contemplate such a thing?  

There is never going to be any Chinese military base anywhere in the Americas.  Anybody wants to set that up, they either get invaded or bombed.  End of story.

@Jan van Eck Thank you very much for doing the exercise. It really was just a show of future, symmetrical and thus totally possible Chinese actions, you like it or not. I hope it helped you to get a grip of non-American points of view.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I hope it helped you to get a grip of non-American points of view.

I remind you that I am not an American.

I understand how they think a lot better than you do, that's for sure. 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

"The US has no interests in invading anyone."

And yet the US has done full scale invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the first 20 years of the 21st century, are fighting in Syria still, and has bombed Libya's Gaddafi into destruction.  And this of course ignores the large number of conflicts the US fought in the 20th century (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.).

I believe most of these bombings and wars are justified.  But the claim that "the US has no interests in invading anyone" is a bit of a stretch given recent history considering that we still have thousands/ tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and the regions formerly known as Syria and Iraq. 

Edited November 11, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

This is just amazing stuff.  You folks have no clue - zero -as to what makes the Americans tick, and you have no clue v- zero - as to the recent history of the world in the struggle between the West and the Communists. 

The major struggles of the West in the 20th century were against rampant imperialism, while wrt to communism (aka the East) it was essentially a matter of containment (via a protracted Cold War) unless somehow forays into the affairs of Vietnam or Cuba were somehow pivotal, and in the 21st century the West appears to have been more concerned with regime change than communism, unless you introduce trade issues to the mix

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The Chinese bot and his handler just refuse to go away.  

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Zhong Lu said:

And yet the US has done full scale invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan in the first 20 years of the 21st century, are fighting in Syria still, and has bombed Libya's Gaddafi into destruction.  And this of course ignores the large number of conflicts the US fought in the 20th century (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.).

OK, so let's take a look.  As to Iraq:  first, Saddam makes war on his Iranian neighbors, slaughtering his way into the country until he is stopped by masses of bodies taking it head-on.  Then, Saddam invades Kuwait, and when pushed out, sets fire to hundred upon hundreds of oil wells, just for malice and spite.  Then Saddam goes and gasses the Shi'ites and the Kurds.  then he tries to assassinate the older President Bush.  

Do you think, maybe, that this Evil Pest Incarnate needs to have his head cut off, and stuck on a pike?  Maybe?  Just a little bit?

Now you have those Afghans, and that war was against the taliban, who run around murdering girls for the sin of going to school.  The Taliban is a notorious  crowd, steeped in homosexuality, that indulges in rape of women from groups allied against them.  their idea of social justice is to murder anyone who opposes them and their ideas of religion and politics.  Lovely people, the taliban.  Do you think  maybe, that they deserve to all die?  because unless you kill them all off, you cannot have any peace.  they will continue to shelter the Bin ladens of the world and you can see how much damage that causes. 

As for Syria, what do you think, we give the Humanitarian Gold medal award to that guy Assad?  The gas murderer, he who uses helicopter barrel bombs against civilians?  How about we cut his head off, while we are at it?  better resolution, no?

Bomber Gaddafi into destruction.  Might I remind you that the Colonel sent his goons to Germany to plant a neat bomb onto Pan Am 103, blowing it out of the sky over Scotland, killing everyone.  What do you think, we send his a Valentine's Day Card?  He want death, he gets death - rained from the sky, right smack onto his cute little desert tent. Blow his ass off. 

WWI, WWII, Korea?  OK, be an isolationist, and let the rest of the planet devolve into a fascism, run by men like Mussolini and Hitler. And the Kim Brothers out of North Korea.  What, are you even remotely serious?  You would sit on your ass in some comfy chair and write this pablum?  Get real, what you are suggesting is bullshit. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

I always thought that historically speaking that WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam and some of the others mentioned were ‘group efforts’ by allies or coalitions.

Silly me, as soon as the US is involved it becomes strictly a US effort, a ‘US led’ effort, or US colonialism. My mistake.

[remake it + 288]

4 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

OK, so let's take a look.  As to Iraq:  first, Saddam makes war on his Iranian neighbors, slaughtering his way into the country until he is stopped by masses of bodies taking it head-on.  Then, Saddam invades Kuwait, and when pushed out, sets fire to hundred upon hundreds of oil wells, just for malice and spite.  Then Saddam goes and gasses the Shi'ites and the Kurds.  then he tries to assassinate the older President Bush.  

Do you think, maybe, that this Evil Pest Incarnate needs to have his head cut off, and stuck on a pike?  Maybe?  Just a little bit?

Now you have those Afghans, and that war was against the taliban, who run around murdering girls for the sin of going to school.  The Taliban is a notorious  crowd, steeped in homosexuality, that indulges in rape of women from groups allied against them.  their idea of social justice is to murder anyone who opposes them and their ideas of religion and politics.  Lovely people, the taliban.  Do you think  maybe, that they deserve to all die?  because unless you kill them all off, you cannot have any peace.  they will continue to shelter the Bin ladens of the world and you can see how much damage that causes. 

As for Syria, what do you think, we give the Humanitarian Gold medal award to that guy Assad?  The gas murderer, he who uses helicopter barrel bombs against civilians?  How about we cut his head off, while we are at it?  better resolution, no?

Bomber Gaddafi into destruction.  Might I remind you that the Colonel sent his goons to Germany to plant a neat bomb onto Pan Am 103, blowing it out of the sky over Scotland, killing everyone.  What do you think, we send his a Valentine's Day Card?  He want death, he gets death - rained from the sky, right smack onto his cute little desert tent. Blow his ass off. 

WWI, WWII, Korea?  OK, be an isolationist, and let the rest of the planet devolve into a fascism, run by men like Mussolini and Hitler. And the Kim Brothers out of North Korea.  What, are you even remotely serious?  You would sit on your ass in some comfy chair and write this pablum?  Get real, what you are suggesting is bullshit. 

So you are essentially agreeing that the US invaded other countries because it was "justified," same as every other country can "justify" their transgressions.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

1 minute ago, remake it said:

So you are essentially agreeing that the US invaded other countries because it was "justified," same as every other country can "justify" their transgressions.

Name a single country that the US, on it’s own initiative, invaded. Until we have that piece of information it is difficult to determine or debate if it was justified or not.

[remake it + 288]

5 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Name a single country that the US, on it’s own initiative, invaded. Until we have that piece of information it is difficult to determine or debate if it was justified or not.

The initial decisions to invade are what counts, as distinct from whom may later be drawn into conflicts to "legitimize" the transgression, because unless you use that approach the Axis nations can say they never used their own initiative but acted in concert, or that Finland were as bad as the Nazis in that they joined them to fight the Russians.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

6 minutes ago, remake it said:

The initial decisions to invade are what counts, as distinct from whom may later be drawn into conflicts to "legitimize" the transgression, because unless you use that approach the Axis nations can say they never used their own initiative but acted in concert, or that Finland were as bad as the Nazis in that they joined them to fight the Russians.

So what you are essentially admitting to, in your signature obfuscating manner, is that you cannot answer my question truthfully in a way that would not weaken your position.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

30 minutes ago, remake it said:

So you are essentially agreeing that the US invaded other countries because it was "justified," same as every other country can "justify" their transgressions.

I do not respond to trolls, pests, and AI bots run by Chinese handlers.  I urge the membership of the Community to ignore you. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

@Douglas Buckland, you are talking to the handler of a Chinese AI Bot.   Just ignore the pest.