?

Log in

doomsday scenario - Joe Ibershoff [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Joe Ibershoff

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

doomsday scenario [Feb. 19th, 2006|10:54 am]
Joe Ibershoff
[Current Mood |analytical]

I really don't have time to be doing this. I've got so much to do in the next week and a half... But oh well, I'm gonna be thinking about it until I get it out of my brain and into the keyboard.

Here are 2 blog entries by someone else about his thoughts on the Iran nuclear crisis paired with peak oil issues, and below the links are my thoughts about his thoughts. Basically, he presents what to me seems like a worst-case scenario. Not necessarily a WWIII, though it's impossible to say what would happen following the events he describes. The aftermath may even be enough for me to begin putting into effect my plans for The Collapse.

(Skip the first paragraph in this entry, it's referring to an old discussion about batteries.)
The Iran crisis & global peak oil

(This one is a response to some questions someone email him about his first entry... there's a lot of explanation of the background info he used to come to his conclusions.)
The Iran crisis & global peak oil, Part 2

He sounds convincing, so I'm willing to believe it is a distinct possibility, but I don't give it "better than even" chances. Why? Because *so* many people stand to lose so much from it. If this were likely, surely enough other people would realize the probable result of their actions (among politicians, including American and Israeli) that they would not act as naively as the author believes. There are 2 main ways that I think things *could* lead to the events the author describes.

One is if the politicians try to bluff about the actions they will take, but don't understand what a bluff really is. If both sides bluff themselves into corners, then rather than back down after making such strong statements they decide they must follow through (hence not understanding what a bluff is), they may go ahead with military actions because they prefer to make a mistake boldly than to back down from what was supposed to be a bluff. This would still require them to not know or understand the full extent of the danger; I doubt they would be so naive as to not realize there would be some danger and some negative consequences, though, so hopefully they would still make a very strong effort to avoid even those sort of bluffs.

The other way is if Ahmedinajad (the current leader in Iran) *wants* this to happen. If he is intentionally trying to provoke this outcome (the author gives decent support for this possibility in the second posting), then he can and will do everything he can (probably short of actual attacks) to provoke the US and/or Israel. He could just go ahead and do it now (he doesn't *have* to wait to be attacked), but I don't think he wants to be the aggressor. If he can provoke someone into killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians in order to take out the nuclear plants, then he would be "the good guy", or at worst "the victim", no matter how harsh his retribution or how much he asked for it. Again though, if politicians realize what he is doing, surely they would do everything in their power to avoid being forced into military action. Even if we have to totally back down and tell Iran "sure, go ahead with enrichment, we believe it's not for military use", surely that would be preferable to what the author describes. That would give us (and the Israelis) time to try to encourage dissent within Iran, maybe resulting in a coup or something so that Ahmedinajad and others like him are no longer in power. Or, time to launch a clandestine attempt to sabotage or destroy the facilities. My point is, would we really allow our hand to be forced, or would we just go along with it and try to eliminate the problem in the time before any nukes get made?

I think it would take both -- Ahmedinajad would have to be trying to provoke the situation, and politicians would have to be ignorant and/or naive about his actual plans. So, while it's still very scary to realize how close to the brink we could really be, I don't think it's very likely.

Unless I'm putting too much faith in the good judgment of our politicians, and not enough in the martyr complex of Ahmedinajad.
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: turtledawn
2006-02-20 06:17 pm (UTC)
I haven't RTFA yet, but it seems to me that the US at least has no concept of bluff. We're so wrapped up in our dignity as a superpower that we've set ourselves up for exactly that sort of situation- we're highly manipulable by any smaller nation that wants to push the envelope at the moment, and we (being the world's self-appointed (and self-interested) guardian don't even see it.

In a related comment, why do we think that we and anyone else who developed nuclear tech before 1960 should get to keep using it, but no else should get to? That bothers me. If someone tried to deprive us of what we consider one of our rights as a sovereign nation, we'd be pretty pissed, and rightfully- so why is it ok for us to tell other countries how to arrange their affairs? (ack- i sound isolationist. Maybe that's not such a bad thing...)
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: pianojet
2006-07-25 02:53 am (UTC)
first time i've looked at LJ in a while... thanks for leading the way for encouraging real self enlightenment
(Reply) (Thread)
From: fates_killer
2006-08-23 02:18 am (UTC)

this isnt on topic

this isnt on topic but i am too fed up with my browser to access my email right now, i happened to be here and i wanted to send you this link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_living

it has a lot of links to things

j
(Reply) (Thread)