What the market is ignoring now...

[Dustin T]

I feel every time any nation gains nuclear weapons the world is a little less safe. I think it would be delusional to think otherwise. Iran seems more dangerous than most, it's not that the odds of Iran using them are necessarily high. It's that the consequences are so dire.

 

I think expecting governments to behave rationally is folly, as their past histories prove them very capable of behaving irrationally.

 

We may have coexisted with nuclear weapons for nearly 70 years now but that doesn't make them anymore safe then an active fault line or an active volcano. Sooner or later if we play with them long enough, one of them is going to blow.

[ERICOPOLY]

I feel every time any nation gains nuclear weapons the world is a little less safe. I think it would be delusional to think otherwise. Iran seems more dangerous than most, it's not that the odds of Iran using them are necessarily high. It's that the consequences are so dire.

 

I think expecting governments to behave rationally is folly, as their past histories prove them very capable of behaving irrationally.

 

We may have coexisted with nuclear weapons for nearly 70 years now but that doesn't make them anymore safe then an active fault line or an active volcano. Sooner or later if we play with them long enough, one of them is going to blow.

 

 

This is true and I feel like the US promoted an acceleration of the nuclear trend when they hanged Saddam.  Guess what kind of message that sent to other regimes?  Uh huh, better arm yourself with nukes or the US is coming for you.

[Dustin T]

I feel every time any nation gains nuclear weapons the world is a little less safe. I think it would be delusional to think otherwise. Iran seems more dangerous than most, it's not that the odds of Iran using them are necessarily high. It's that the consequences are so dire.

 

I think expecting governments to behave rationally is folly, as their past histories prove them very capable of behaving irrationally.

 

We may have coexisted with nuclear weapons for nearly 70 years now but that doesn't make them anymore safe then an active fault line or an active volcano. Sooner or later if we play with them long enough, one of them is going to blow.

 

 

This is true and I feel like the US promoted an acceleration of the nuclear trend when they hanged Saddam.  Guess what kind of message that sent to other regimes?  Uh huh, better arm yourself with nukes or the US is coming for you.

 

I hadn't thought of it in that way, but must admit it's a deterrence trump card, and I could see why Iran and N. Korea might be desperate to possess it.

[Palantir]

I don't see why Iran having nukes is such a great threat. I highly doubt Iran has designs of launching them on us, and I believe a stronger Iran is an important bulwark against KSA.

 

We should continue to work to stop more nations from getting nukes, but I don't believe fixating on Iran is a worthwhile goal.

[DTEJD1997]

I don't see why Iran having nukes is such a great threat.

 

Surely you must be joking...

 

Do you remember the hostage situation back in the 70's?  I do...

 

ANY TIME another country gets nuclear weapons, that is a bad thing.

 

Iran is ESPECIALLY dangerous.  Saudi Arabia will get nukes if Iran does.  There is no doubt to this.  There are numerous reports that SA has worked with the Pakistanis to get a nuke if Iran does.  This will touch off a NUCLEAR arms race and destabilize the region.

 

Those two could potentially go at it...but think of this...SA is probably pretty stable FOR NOW.  Who can say what will happen to SA in 5,10,15 years?  Want to bet your life on that?

 

Also think of this...a surprise attack on the USA stands a very good chance of success.

 

How?

 

Load missiles on a junk ship.  Do this twice.  One for West Coast, one for East.  Launch the missiles and have them detonate high over the continental USA.  The EMP blasts would fry a good percentage of electronics.  No more power, most vehicles disabled, most computers destroyed.  What percentage of USA population would perish after 6 months of no power?

 

Then, bring in nukes to 4 or 5 port cities on containers.  LA, New York, DC, and one or two others....Houston, Miami, New Orleans, Boston....

 

Game over at that point...Millions immediately lost, the rest of the population would be in jeopardy.  The economy would be ruined for a generation.

 

Less than ten warheads could effectively destroy the USA.  You might be able to do it with as few as five.

 

Take out the national power grid AND Washington DC, will the USA be able to respond? 

Does it matter at that point?

 

So I would argue it is imperative that there are no new members of the "nuclear club".

 

 

[Palantir]

You're not making sense and coming up with some fantastic scenarios. I'm aware of KSA's links to Pakistan's nuclear program. However, it is much easier to stop KSA from getting nukes. Conversely, the US could focus on putting pressure on Pakistan to limit or shut down its nuclear program, but it does not do so, on the contrary, it lets Pakistan ramp up its nuclear weapons stockpile to record levels while haphazardly focusing on Iran.

 

If you want fewer countries to have nuclear weapons, it doesnt make sense to fixate on Iran, you will need to control Pakistan's nukes just as well. It is foolish to let one nation proliferate and force its rival to starve.

 

 

However, with US power receding, I feel more nuclear nations are inevitable.

[DTEJD1997]

You're not making sense and coming up with some fantastic scenarios.

 

Saudi Arabia getting nukes to counter Iran is a fantastic scenario?

 

Not according to the BBC:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

 

Or how about the National Post out of Canada:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24823846

 

There are numerous other reports of this, just take your pick.

 

###########

 

As to an EMP attack, it is a possibility.  What are the odds? 1%, 3%, 10%, more?

 

EMP is a well known effect and has been documented many times.  Exactly how bad it would be is open to debate.  Certainly it would NOT be good, and damage would be tremendous.

 

The point is this, you don't need an overwhelming nuclear arsenal to cause immense destruction.  A few warheads detonated by surprise is enough.

 

If there are many states with warheads, what are the odds that some eventually get loose?  It does not necessarily have to be Iran.  It could be Pakistan, North Korea, or who knows?  Warheads could be stolen, given away, sold, lost in a coup...  I can think of a dozen different ways this could happen.

 

Or, what if a state does not act in a rational manner?  Odds are small, but they are there.  Add more states, and the odds go up...

 

Who knows what the world will look like in the future?  Countries that are stable today might not be...Allies today might shift allegiance in the future.  We just don't know.

 

What I do know is that the more powers that have nukes, the worse it is.

 

If this does not make sense, or seems fantastical to you, I suggest you seriously rethink your position.

 

 

 

 

[Palantir]

load missiles on junk ships and attack 5 large cities? sigh.

[james22]

load missiles on junk ships and attack 5 large cities? sigh.

 

Fly commercial planes into the WTC? Crazy.

[wachtwoord]

The more nations with ballistic nukes, the more stable the situation IF everyone acts rationally. I want everyone to have nukes.

[Uccmal]

This whole conversation is nuts.  Preventing Iran from having nuclear capability wont do anything to prevent possible terrorism by nuclear.  Worldwide intelligence is the only way.  The farce of looking for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has nothing to do with intelligence capabilities. 

 

I postulate that the number one and two objectives of the CIA,RCMP, and equivalents in the rest of the world, is prevention of nuclear terrorism, and biological terrorism.  If anything I am far more worried about some nutcase rogue group developing a vicious form of influenza that kills 30 or 40 % of the populous in one year. 

 

As to Iran.  I would say get that country into the worldwide fold as soon as possible.  Stable middle class countries are alot less likely to go to war.  This country is not North Korea. 

 

Finally, it is never the obvious things that take down the markets. 

[Cevian]

We all have our opinions on the subject of Iran and it is front of mind of most individuals I speak with. It is also in the news, front and center. We may all defer in our opinion as to the probability of such an event or as to the possible consequences but, to get back to the subject of this thread, this is not what the market is ignoring.

 

At the moment, I'm having a hard time trying to find out what it is truly ignoring. Generally, when there is a very strong opinion regarding something, coupled with some Hubris, there is a strong probability that the opposite is what everyone is ignoring. I'm not seeing anything everyone is in agreement on at the moment. In most areas, we tend to hear bulling and bearish arguments, nothing completely one sided. Please chime in if you see any areas most people are in agreement on.

[Cardboard]

I think what is nuts is the minimalization of this issue as described by many here. Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism and has mentioned publically the desire to wipeout Israel. The danger of escalation is high and these guys sit with their neighboors on one of the world largest source of energy. There are too many scenarios possible to even start listing them.

 

The only military threat to Iran has been removed and it was Saddam. That is with him that they fought for years in the 80's. Israel never had any intention to attack Iran other than for removing the nuke potential. Nor the U.S. or anyone else for that matter. They have already enough conventional forces to deter anyone in the region to attack them.

 

Iran could peacefully develop itself and give a real chance to its average people if it stopped obssessing about enriching. I would be very happy with that and the world as well. However, turning into some capitalist state with more individual freedom does not appear to fit the Supreme leader vision.

 

Some here are also wrongly assuming that North Korea and its leadership are now safe because they have nukes. The only reason why they are still in power is because China supports them. They did fight along with them against U.N. forces during the Korean war and not in a small way. That regime could be wiped out in a few hours but, the repercussions between China, U.S., Japan, South Korea and Russia would be too great. I find that China really plays a disservice to the people of North Korea since they are near starving under that regime. You would think that China has seen by itself the benefits to its people of a more open society.

 

Having nukes does not guarantee safety. There are dozens of times where the U.S. and Soviets came really close to launch the unthinkable. And by the way, it is still a possibility today. A conflict in the middle East could degenerate into a worldwide one and it came very close a few times like during the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

 

Some of the folks here are younger than I am but, I recall vividly being terrorized when Reagan and Andropov where going at each other in the early 80's. So forget about the benefits of MAD. MAD is mad!

 

Cardboard

[CorpRaider]

I think the movement in crude on this interim deal will indicate that the market very much had a premium built in for the shiite and sunni luke warm proxy war that is going on right now.  Iran is just another factor in that and I'm glad we won't be manuvered into doing the fighting for the Saudis.  The only thing I don't get is how the why does hezbollah/the shiites chant "death to america" when the sunni terrorists bomb them?  WTF did we do?  Is that your only cheer?  We've been killing the same type of guys for the last decade.

 

[Palantir]

Ah, I see DTEJD and James chose to ignore my points about Pakistan getting nukes. Why isn't that a major threat? Given that this country is a) run by a dictatorship b) sponsors terrorists c) proliferates WMDs and d) has carried out genocide. It is a far bigger threat than Iran, and if Iran gets nukes, it will be Pakistan who will become the supplier to the Sunni states.

 

 

The US just needs a bogeyman.

[DTEJD1997]

Ah, I see DTEJD and James chose to ignore my points about Pakistan getting nukes. Why isn't that a major threat? Given that this country is a) run by a dictatorship b) sponsors terrorists c) proliferates WMDs and d) has carried out genocide. It is a far bigger threat than Iran, and if Iran gets nukes, it will be Pakistan who will become the supplier to the Sunni states.

 

 

The US just needs a bogeyman.

 

Yes, you are probably correct that Pakistan is indeed a HUGE problem.  They have been reported to have reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia to sell them nukes. 

 

There have also been reports that Pakistan worked with North Korea.

 

So yes, Pakistan is probably playing a key role in nuclear proliferation.

 

And that is a problem.

 

The point I was trying to make is that nuclear proliferation is BAD.  It does not matter WHO gets nukes.  ANY new additions to the nuclear club is a bad thing.

 

The more states that have nukes, the more chances there are that one gets loose.  The more scientists who know the nuclear process, the greater the chance that they go "rogue".

 

The other point I was trying to make is that a nation that is stable today, may not be in the future.  A key example of this is Pakistan.  Iran would be another one, so would Saudi Arabia.

 

The Pakistan situation was mishandled, so was North Korea, now it appears we can add Iran.

 

On a slightly different tack, was it not Warren Buffet who said that he though the odds of a nuclear attack on an American city was a "virtual certainty"?

 

"We're going to have something in the way of a major nuclear event in this country," Mr Buffett said. "It will happen. Whether it will happen in 10 years or 10 minutes, or 50 years . . . it's virtually a certainty."

 

Please see: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/06/1019441477485.html

 

The end result is this...the more nations that have nukes, the greater the chance for a catastrophe.

[Palantir]

load missiles on junk ships and attack 5 large cities? sigh.

 

Fly commercial planes into the WTC? Crazy.

 

Oh, while we are at it, who flew commercial planes into the WTC? Iranians? No...it was Saudis and Egyptians who were trained in....Pakistan. You sure you want to keep at this?

[Palantir]

 

Yes, you are probably correct that Pakistan is indeed a HUGE problem.  They have been reported to have reached an agreement with Saudi Arabia to sell them nukes. 

 

There have also been reports that Pakistan worked with North Korea.

 

So yes, Pakistan is probably playing a key role in nuclear proliferation.

 

And that is a problem.

 

The point I was trying to make is that nuclear proliferation is BAD.  It does not matter WHO gets nukes.  ANY new additions to the nuclear club is a bad thing.

 

The more states that have nukes, the more chances there are that one gets loose.  The more scientists who know the nuclear process, the greater the chance that they go "rogue".

 

The other point I was trying to make is that a nation that is stable today, may not be in the future.  A key example of this is Pakistan.  Iran would be another one, so would Saudi Arabia.

 

The Pakistan situation was mishandled, so was North Korea, now it appears we can add Iran.

 

 

Then why only focus on Iran? I think you will agree with me that much of this pressure would be most useful when applied to KSA and Pakistan. Iran is basically surrounded by hostile states, it is only natural that they are going to take steps to defend themselves.

 

But the cat is already out of the bag in my opinion.

 

[Cardboard]

Palantir,

 

I have a hard time following your logic. So since a few have nukes, then let them all have nukes, it will be safer? We can also argue all day long about who hates more the U.S.: extremists Sunnis or Shiites, but neither camp seems to like you too much don't they? Then what about the Kurds? They should have that weapon too since the others now have it?

 

My point is simple and is in line with Buffett: reduce the amount out there of that material so that control of it becomes a little easier and reduces the probability for it to end up in the wrong hands.

 

Anyone here still remember the Fall of 2008 and early 2009? Do you remember looking at your screens and seeing the carnage caused by human fear on stock prices? And now this is just fear of losing money. Now, combine fear with anger, religion or ideology and imagine what kind of reaction and emotions it results in the human brain. You don't think it could cause over-reaction?

 

Pakistan having nukes is also bad, I fully agree. Since I can't see a peaceful solution in the Kashmir without that deterrent, it is hard to foresee how we can force India and Pakistan to disarm. Then India has its own problems with China. Should Taiwan have nukes? Then what about South Korea and Japan?

 

At the end of the day, I think that the trend should be to disarm and not the opposite. If Iran gets it, then forget about ever having a chance to get Pakistan and India to sit down. We need to stop somewhere, then get into reverse.

 

Errors typically happen because of a rare series of events occurring. That is what you find out in most accident investigations. This makes them very hard to anticipate and the only prevention is to break up the "chain". We already came very close at multiple times. There is no benefit to keep playing that game and ending up on the wrong combination.

 

Cardboard

[Palantir]

Did you read my posts?

 

 

If you want to "reduce the material that is out there" you will need to do a LOT more than just sanction Iran.

[Cardboard]

I did.

 

My point is simply start somewhere before it gets out of hand. And Iran IMO could be a trigger to get 6 or 7 more into the nuke club. I think that the permanent security members get that and that is why they told them to stop.

 

Cardboard

[james22]

load missiles on junk ships and attack 5 large cities? sigh.

 

Fly commercial planes into the WTC? Crazy.

 

Oh, while we are at it, who flew commercial planes into the WTC? Iranians? No...it was Saudis and Egyptians who were trained in....Pakistan. You sure you want to keep at this?

 

Check my Country. You sure you need to remind me who flew the planes?

[turar]

I think what is nuts is the minimalization of this issue as described by many here. Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism and has mentioned publically the desire to wipeout Israel. The danger of escalation is high and these guys sit with their neighboors on one of the world largest source of energy. There are too many scenarios possible to even start listing them.

 

The only military threat to Iran has been removed and it was Saddam. That is with him that they fought for years in the 80's. Israel never had any intention to attack Iran other than for removing the nuke potential. Nor the U.S. or anyone else for that matter. They have already enough conventional forces to deter anyone in the region to attack them.

 

Iran, by the way, never actually called for wipe-out of Israel: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/17/israeli-minister-agrees-ahmadinejad-never-said-israel-must-be-wiped-off-the-map/?_r=0  It was a mistranslation that was played into global public conscience by various media outlets. Now compare that single mistranslated statement to a lengthy discussion of Israel's attack planning on Iran just in the article that you've linked in your first post. And that's just one article among many.

 

Iran is a sole Shiite nation sharing a border with US-created chaos both in Iraq and Afghanistan, Sunni nuclear Pakistan, hostile Sunni gulf states, including KSA, as well as nuclear Israel, whose leaders openly discuss the various angles of attack on Iran (again, compare to the shitstorm created by a single mistranslated statement). So yeah, I think any country in that situation would want to make sure it can defend itself.

[Guest ajc]

Rob Ford.

 

The markets haven't priced Rob Ford in. It would be impossible, since he's priceless. But still...

[CorpRaider]

The messes the US "created" on either side probably make it less likely Iran would be attacked by a nation state which could be disuaded by nuclear capability.  You think they can work better with malaki or sadaam?  The afghans aren't attacking anyone, they couldn't organize a light bulb change.  The kurds could take over the whole country in a month.  We are bombing the radicals in wasiristan back even further into the stone age.  We basically built them buffers.

 

As far as the interim deal; what's the problem?  The israelis are constructing a straw man of iran totally and immediately dismantling its nuclear program immediately and with no conditions.  Yeah that would be nice and I bet you can get alot of congressmen to say, "we should do that".  But if your options are, let the israelis strike them preemptively because they are about 6 months from a bomb (as they have been for the past 8 years or so if you believe them) or lets get in there and inspect and see if we can get a deal...I choose B.