reply to post by fakedirt
Allowing the nuclearization of Iran would serve as an incredible public-relations measure for Netanyahu's contestants to the Prime-Ministry of Israel,
and the elections are to eventuate within a few months. When Israel is no longer the only regional power with nuclear weaponry, Israel's most
preponderant bargaining-chip, the nuclear reactor in Dimona, will lose much of its significance in the balance of power. Such a development will be
succeeded by economic loss and an even hastier process of brain-drain, as affluent Israelis will be encouraged to pack their bags and immigrate before
it's too late and another holocaust (and a nuclear one, at that) befalls the them. Two major developments will stem from the nuclearization of Iran:
a) the commencement of a uranium-enrichment race between all regional powers, as any local state will demand to own what Iran already owns, and the
region will be further destabilized; b) the prospect of an Iranian nuke arriving, "in an eerie coincidence", at the hands of a terrorist organization,
will pounce from 0% (as, obviously, Iran currently doesn't own even a single such nuke) to approximately 80%, a scenario that will involve an immense
threat to Israel's national security, as well as the security of Jews (I specifically choose the term 'Jews', and not 'Israelis', because Hezbollah
and its ilk target worldwide Jewry regardless of any connection or its lack thereof with Israel) around the globe, and of course, the whole globe
itself, which will have do struggle with yet another insane leadership with overt imperialist tendencies and objectives. To rephrase it in short:
Israel just cannot accept an Iran which is even at risk of manufacturing the technology to annihilate the Zionist regime. Of course, Iran can always
buy an atom bomb from North Korea, but that's a different scenario and it's not the time and place to reflect upon it.
Exterminating Iran's nuclear program will destabilize Iran, making it less likely that the regime, which has just lost its major national program, for
which the citizenry class has paid so dearly due to international sanctions, will last any longer than a decade, and seeing that Israel is determined
to stay the only nuclear power in the region, Iran and the rest of Middle-Eastern states will be dissuaded from attempting to construct another
nuclear program. Let me appeal here to your common-sense: in case an uranium-enrichment race begins, and Iran itself will have nukes in its arsenal,
what are the chances that, an Islamic dictator and/or a leading terrorist will not
, in contemporary times or in the indefinite future, employ
this weapon? Extremely low chances. Israel, therefore, will act logically by inflicting as much damage possible to Iran and to whichever states that
are in risk of attacking it.
As demonstrated above, an aggressive policy in which perceived enemies are diminished only serves the interests of the one pursuing such a policy.
This is not to claim that only aggressiveness achieves objectives, but rather, when no immediate achievement is obtained through groveling, certainly
the route of aggression, taken to its most extreme forms, is more profitable than some mild-diplomacy. You don't fight with words, but with weapons.
Now, being a hardcore Machiavellian, I deem "the use of nukes or any other medium where masses of civilians are slaughtered for the increased
tenureship of another nation" as, indeed, 'acceptable'.
Regarding the question of espousing game-theory logic to the socio-economic realm, there's no question that as a an individual, my interests collide
with those of my state, as the states always moves in the direction of tightening the grip over the population, while the individual citizen, myself
in the given event, who is not a part of the ruling clique, certainly strives towards the opposite direction, the direction of expanding as much
possible his personal liberty. However, from a collective point of view, if we return for a moment to the Iranian affair, it is a positive development
for the individual Israeli should the Iranian threat be diminished. The formula is: "I want my state weak, but other states even weaker".
make it even more complicated, I as an individual would support any infringement of liberty upon society, as long as I'm exempt from it -- having
others following dictations you're exempt from is in your interests. If another formulative phrase is warranted: "I support the confiscation of all
guns, except that of my own".
To sum up this point, applying game-theory measures to socio is always expedient, the question is, of course, to whom. Of course, one of the
considerations of the government is public sentiment, so blatantly exterminating people for being a burden on society, as in your example, may not be
a smart decision by the state and its leaders, and unless you can control all of the people all of the time, as a ruler you'd rather prefer to appeal
to the mobs' fondness by not managing an overly-obtrusive state, to which all individuals would resist. And likewise, when conducted appropriately, a
game theory-based policy is practically more likely to turn out fruitful in the global sphere than in the domestic and private fields, as
international relations are always characterized a complete lack of the need to compromise immediate interests for the sake of a creative, but a
Therefore, in a fashion of applying game theory to the modern conflict and to any conflict in general, the more bold and uncompromising is your
declaration of intentions and its derivative pursuit of a policy, the most likely it is to become fruitful, since when a vacillating element collides
with a pompously determined one, the latter is to defeat the former, and not vice versa. Now let's examine, as succinctly as possible, the application
of game theory in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict:
If Israel declares that whatever land it currently holds belongs to Israel, and proceeds with the expulsion of the Arabs from its territory, the world
will be mad, but then after a few years of sanctions, the world will normalize with Israel, and thus the conflict will be solved. If, on the other
hand, Israel will argue that 'those Arab will stay, and those Arabs aren't allowed'; 'these lands we'll hold, and these lands we won't', and likewise
bargain with such irresolute demand, the tide will always lean in favor of the uncompromising Palestinians, and more decades of war and bloodshed will
follow. So in the current example, being aggressive (comparatively) towards the Palestinians and settling them in Jordan, Syria, etc, clearly serves
the Israeli interest, and in long-term also the Palestinians' interest (as their purported nationality will collapse, and they will assimilate into
their fellow Arabs).
Therefore, it must be concluded that such a policy is more expedient and more advantageous than any other. Let me offer a different perspective: from
an individual perspective, the complete dismantlement of Israel and the immigration of all Jews to the Western world, with the overt objective of
intermingling with the local populations and assimilating into them, is the best solution and the only realistic one.
I disagree with your assessment of what the outcome of nuking Tehran may be. If the perpetration of such a strike is done with top military experts'
provision, no fundamental, irreversible damage will be suffered by the world or by Israel. By setting the astounding precedent of employing a nuclear
weapon outside the context of WW2, Israel guarantees itself both international appreciation as an unflinching stat, and an overwhelming force of
deterrence. The annihilation of all or even most human civilization is an implausible outcome, and ought not to be appended into the equation.
The IAEA are not 'afraid' of inspecting Israel's nuclear reactor, it's just that Israel forbids them doing it (obviously, it's against the Israeli
interest to expose for the whole world its most preponderant bargaining chip), and since Israel has never admitted to posses any nuclear weaponry ("we
neither affirm, nor deny"), it cannot be coerced to be inspected by foreign inspectors. This cunning strategy fits well with the game theory notion,
and as Netanyahu's agenda goes, 'a perceived threat is as credible as a real one'.
edit on 7-4-2012 by RATSOYFY37 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-4-2012 by RATSOYFY37 because: (no reason given)