« "Modernism," according to Wikipedia | Main | The Tug-of-War Between Methodology and Scope »

November 20, 2007



I actually agree* with the last two paragraphs. War with Iran would almost certainly be a disaster, even if the military side went perfectly.

*with reservations, as always.


Whether democracy in Iraq is worth it if the price is a nuclear Iran depends on what Iran does with its nuclear weapons. If the Iranians prove to be rational in their posession of nuclear weapons, the price is definitely worth it. But if they successfully pass the weapons on to terrorists who use them against us (and thereby totally change our way of life in the aftermath) or enter into a thermonuclear exchange with Israel that destroys both nations, the price will have proven to be too high.


Unless crazy people get control of Iran (Ahmadinejad is not in control) the high liklihood of nuclear blowback against their (Shia, feared-by-neighbors) nation makes it highly unlikely that they would hand off to terrorists over whom they have only very limited control. If there's any state that would be willing to sell nuclear material to terrorists, it would be North Korea, which suffers almost no danger of blowback from terrorists.

Nathan Smith

Val's right: if we end up in a nuclear war with Iran, and if Iran's nukes will be a consequence of our restraint after the Iraq War, then I might retrospectively revise my support for the war. But I think that's a pretty low-probability event.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Only use a payday cash advance as a last resort.


Blog powered by Typepad