kirisutogomen: (crab)
[personal profile] kirisutogomen
"We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can't bank on the nature of the regime changing. That's exactly why we don't want to have nuclear weapons. If suddenly Iran transformed itself to Germany or Sweden or France then there would be a different set of conversations about their nuclear infrastructure."


I'm pretty sure that if Iran suddenly turned into Sweden, the different set of conversations that would ensue would no longer be about nuclear infrastructure at all, and would be much more ontological or at least would include some profound social constructivist questions.

Date: 2015-04-07 05:04 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] psychohist.livejournal.com
Yeah. I don't think we want Sweden to have nuclear weapons either, but there's no argument since they don't want them.

What I want to know is, who was this addressing? Who was arguing that we can bank on Iran turning into a Germany or Sweden or France?

Date: 2015-04-07 09:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kirisutogomen.livejournal.com
I think he was indirectly responding to Netanyahu's push to require Iran to recognize the state of Israel as part of the nuclear deal. I think the President was saying that there was no way the current government of Iran would do that, so making that demand would be effectively just killing the whole deal.

I don't think Netanyahu is actually so detached from reality as to think that Iran is going to magically transform into Sweden, unless he's had some sort of massive psychotic break that has otherwise gone completely unnoticed.

Date: 2015-04-07 11:54 pm (UTC)
dpolicar: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dpolicar
...and quite likely would break down around questions of translation.

Date: 2015-04-08 01:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kirisutogomen.livejournal.com
What kind of translation? Language translation? It's not that hard to find good English-Swedish or Swedish-English interpreters. Spatial translation? I think the idea is that Iran would become Sweden, rather than that Sweden would move to Iran. I am not sure if there would then be two Swedens, or if something else would occupy the geographic area now occupied by Sweden. I suppose one could argue that an essential part of being Sweden is to be located in Europe, and that therefore if Iran turns into Sweden it would have to be relocated to Europe....

Genetic translation? I really don't see how that applies. Bodily-ascent-to-Heaven-without-death translation? That does raise the interesting question of what happens to the people when a country of 81 million people suddenly turns into a country of 10 million. Do they vanish? Did they ever exist? Are they assumed bodily into some sort of existence outside this physical universe? What about conservation of mass-energy?

Date: 2015-04-08 01:17 am (UTC)
dpolicar: (Default)
From: [personal profile] dpolicar
I'd meant language translation... what I was actually thinking was that there Sweden would be, with all of their records in Persian. But I suppose the records would become Swedish records at the same time.

As for the population question, I don't see the problem. Nobody vanishes, groups of 8 (on average) simply become one person. Sure, it's not a 1:1 mapping, but so what?

Date: 2015-04-12 12:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] billmarrs.livejournal.com
If Iran and Sweden transposed, it might improve world politics. This could be the basis for a mobile game where a player swaps countries in order to achieve optimal world peace.

Profile

kirisutogomen: (Default)
kirisutogomen

June 2015

S M T W T F S
 1 23456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 12:51 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios