Nuclear strikes?! Holy hell.

[eaeolian]

In that part of the world? Yes. Remember, the guys that come up with the plan are not the guys that carry out the plan. The guys that carry out the plan have been brainwashed from an early age to be completely loyal and utterly unshakeable in faith.

Actually, the only real analysis of the patterns of suicide attacks shows just the opposite to be true. (Here's an Amazon link to the book.) That book was a real eye-opener for me - it's as rigorous as an analysis of that size data set can be, and suggests that we don't really understand the adversary - and that the adversary DOES understand us.

(edit: I should note that this book is rather controversial, but the analysis generally made sense to me, from a human motivation standpoint. It doesn't explain all incidents of suicide attacks - and doesn't claim to, despite what it's detractors say - but it does seem to help explain the general trend.)

Wait a minute. You consider terrorist attacks wherein one commits suicide by blowing oneself up and killing innocent people a "successful strategy to bring about political change"?

There's a difference between a successful strategy and one I would undertake. The data shows it to have been successful in helping achieve political aims against militarility superior opponents, especially in Sri Lanka with the Tamil Tigers, and in Lebanon.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

2.) There's plenty of ways to wipe out a people. Pol Pot used machettes. Hitler used gas champers. We used what, chicken pox against native americans?

Small pox infested blankets given as gifts, actually.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that THIS IS A VERY FUNNY LINK.

http://www.flurl.com/item/Lets_Bomb_Iran_f_1479/

 

[Drew]

Actually, the only real analysis of the patterns of suicide attacks shows just the opposite to be true. (Here's an Amazon link to the book.) That book was a real eye-opener for me - it's as rigorous as an analysis of that size data set can be, and suggests that we don't really understand the adversary - and that the adversary DOES understand us.

(edit: I should note that this book is rather controversial, but the analysis generally made sense to me, from a human motivation standpoint. It doesn't explain all incidents of suicide attacks - and doesn't claim to, despite what it's detractors say - but it does seem to help explain the general trend.)

That just got added to my to-read list. Fascinating...

Bob, chicken pox, small pox.... tomato, tomahto...

 

[Vince]

Boys, we may have another cuban missile crisis on our hands. check this shit out:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear/index.html

holy fuck. Iran has nuclear capabilities now. Not in 10 years, but now.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

That just got added to my to-read list. Fascinating...

Bob, chicken pox, small pox.... tomato, tomahto...

I wasn't correcting you per se, buddy. You said "What..." so I knew you were on the right track. Just clarifying. That's what friends r' for!

They are actually two separate ailments, however. Small pox is/was FAR more deadly. It was still bio warfare though, plain n' simple.

 

[Mastodon]

How the hell is the UN going to demand that they stop proucing any enriched uranium what-so-ever?

We have power plants, why can't they have power plants?

 

[Drew]

You raise an excellent question, especially as their leader is stressing his peaceful intent, and ours is speculating about launching a nuclear attack.

3.5% is way to low for weapons grade, and if they've designed delivery system (i.e- warhead), they're not speaking. But, all in all, I don't really want to see the united states playing a game of blind man's bluff with my life on the line.

Iran's prepared, looking forward, even, to working in close compliance with the IAEA. I don't see them having nuclear powerplants as an issue unless we give them a reason to develop a bomb and use it.

 

[bigsethmeister]

You raise an excellent question, especially as their leader is stressing his peaceful intent, and ours is speculating about launching a nuclear attack.

3.5% is way to low for weapons grade, and if they've designed delivery system (i.e- warhead), they're not speaking. But, all in all, I don't really want to see the united states playing a game of blind man's bluff with my life on the line.

Iran's prepared, looking forward, even, to working in close compliance with the IAEA. I don't see them having nuclear powerplants as an issue unless we give them a reason to develop a bomb and use it.

Right. Because an oil rich country has a terrible need for nuclear powerplants...



Think about it. Do you really trhink their intent is peaceful, Drew?

 

[Drew]

Right. Because an oil rich country has a terrible need for nuclear powerplants...



Think about it. Do you really trhink their intent is peaceful, Drew?

You know, you actually stumped me there... So, I googled it and found that Iran WAS in fact the #4 international producer of oil as of 2004....


...with half the production of the United States at #3, with 8.69 vs. 4.09.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html

THAT was a shocker, that the US actually produces more oil than all but one OPEC nation. The Department of Energy;s Energy Information Administration, whom I'll go out on a limb and call a reliable source.

A more plausible explaination for their nuclear endeavors, based largely on the second table - we're #3 in production, and don't even make the cutoff (1 million barrels a day or higher for 2004) in #2. We're one of the few nations that this is true for, and Iran falls at #4 in production and #4 in export, exporting just over half what they import.

Perhaps, in light of rising oil prices, higher consumption in the west (particularly in USA), and speculation that if we haven't already past peak oil pruduction for the planet, we're about to, Iran realized that it'd be REALLY FUCKING PROFITABLE, caps for emphasis, if they could go from exporting say 55% of their production to maybe 85%.

Plausible? I certianly think so.




EDIT - and let me stress, again, that I'm dumbfounded american oil production is so high, especially since it's common knowledge our production peaked in 1970.

 

[Mastodon]

So they should use their oil to produce electricity instead? Or do you want them to use oil lamps?

 

[Drew]

me or bigsethmeister?

If you meant me, I was suggesting that if they can switch to nuclear power, they could export a significantly higher percentage of their oil production. if you meant bigsethmeister, well, i await his response too.

 

[forelander]

Kinda skipped a few pages so sorry if it's already been mentioned, but:

"And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation. Which is, kind of a -- you know, happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital."

If a kid handed that in to an english teacher or spoke it in class they should get smacked in the head for stupidity (or encouraged to think before they talk rather than letting barely comprehensible shit fall from their mouths). The very thought that that man has any control over nuclear weapons is scary as I sincerely doubt he has any concept of consequence if he can't even put together a coherent sentence.

 

[Makelele]

Time to dig out the leather jacket and the sawed-off shotgun...

 

[bigsethmeister]

me or bigsethmeister?

If you meant me, I was suggesting that if they can switch to nuclear power, they could export a significantly higher percentage of their oil production. if you meant bigsethmeister, well, i await his response too.

I haven't the slightest idea what Mastodon was on about.

With respect to the idea that they are looking to switch to nuclear power in order to increase oil exports I think a more likely and straightforward explanation is that they intend to use nuclear capabilities for armaments. At the very least, assuming we don't actively strike them, which I think we have to, we and the UN will impose sanctions and embargos so as to severely limit their trade opportunities which would undermine the very idea that you propose.

The simplest explanation is usually the best one.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

I haven't the slightest idea what Mastodon was on about.

With respect to the idea that they are looking to switch to nuclear power in order to increase oil exports I think a more likely and straightforward explanation is that they intend to use nuclear capabilities for armaments. At the very least, assuming we don't actively strike them, which I think we have to, we and the UN will impose sanctions and embargos so as to severely limit their trade opportunities which would undermine the very idea that you propose.

The simplest explanation is usually the best one.

They have to enrich the uranium at 90% to be weapons grade. Where it stands now is at reactor fuel level. (3.5%)

Earlier Tuesday, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's atomic energy agency, said that the Natanz facility had enriched uranium at 3.5 percent -- a low-grade level sufficient to run a power plant, but far below the 90 percent required for weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear/index.html

Sounds pretty simple to me.

Following your rational, if one had any lead in their house, the police should then barge in and arrest them, assuming they are arming themselves, because, after all, lead is used for bullets. Reactor grade uranium doesn't equal weapons grade+imminent attack. It COULD mean that eventually, but to just assume that? I think the Bush administration has lost a LOT of credibility as far as that sort fo thinking is concerned.

My 2 pennies.

 

[Oogadee Boogadee]

they have a lot of sun there. they should go solar. everybody's doing it.

 

[Mastodon]

Drew I figured you were talking about using the power to help export more oil, I was referring to bigmeister saying sarcastically that an oil rich nation needs nuclear powerplants.

 

[bigsethmeister]

They have to enrich the uranium at 90% to be weapons grade. Where it stands now is at reactor fuel level. (3.5%)

Earlier Tuesday, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of Iran's atomic energy agency, said that the Natanz facility had enriched uranium at 3.5 percent -- a low-grade level sufficient to run a power plant, but far below the 90 percent required for weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/11/iran.nuclear/index.html

Sounds pretty simple to me.

Following your rational, if one had any lead in their house, the police should then barge in and arrest them, assuming they are arming themselves, because, after all, lead is used for bullets. Reactor grade uranium doesn't equal weapons grade+imminent attack. It COULD mean that eventually, but to just assume that? I think the Bush administration has lost a LOT of credibility as far as that sort fo thinking is concerned.

My 2 pennies.

Sounds pretty naive to me.

Russia - one of the countries with a friendly relationship with Iran - had offered to enrich uranium for power plant use for Iran. Iran declined. Why do you suppose they did that?

The UN last month instructed Iran to halt enrichment efforts. They obviously disregarded the UN.

Why, if this is all just for peaceful purposes, did Iran turn down Russia's offer? Why have they continued a process that now puts them in defiance of the UN and is causing them to be chastised by even their friends, including China and Russia?

 

[Drew]

I haven't the slightest idea what Mastodon was on about.

With respect to the idea that they are looking to switch to nuclear power in order to increase oil exports I think a more likely and straightforward explanation is that they intend to use nuclear capabilities for armaments. At the very least, assuming we don't actively strike them, which I think we have to, we and the UN will impose sanctions and embargos so as to severely limit their trade opportunities which would undermine the very idea that you propose.

The simplest explanation is usually the best one.

That may be true, but I don't see "we want nuclear power for electricity REALLY means we want bombs" as simpler than a strictly profit-based analysis, especially in that Ahmadinejad is, quite correctly, framing this as a rights issue (as the United States' own actions have essentially nullified the nuclrear non-proliferation treaty).

I'm actually curious to see how the international body reacts to this. We know the US will be screaming bloody murder, but from the sound of it IAEA officials might have actually been on hand for the enrichment itself, and at the very least have been touring Iran's nuclear facilities for some time now.

Is it possible that iran has long term nuclear weapons ambitions? Honestly, it wouldn't shock me. However, thus far they're not threatening to use their weapons. We are. To me, that's fucked up.

I'm curious why you think we HAVE to strike them now. Could you elaborate?

Also, someone explain to me that thus far we've evidenced absolutely NO concern about the possibility that Isreal has an actual nuclear arsenal in their posession, in light of recent polical changes in Palestine, the recent death of Arafat and ensuing instability, and Isreal's growing hard-line stance towards Palestine. I'd say, especially in that Isreal has a blank check from the US, effectively, with regards to their foreign policy towards Palestine and thus has little to fear in the way of retaliation (as we wouldn't nuke them and we probably would nuke anyone who did). As they're another fundamentalist, hardline government with a similar armeggedon belief ingrained into their religious beliefs, if we had to name one nation as the most likely to instigate a nuclear war, after the US I'd say it's them.

 

[Drew]

they have a lot of sun there. they should go solar. everybody's doing it.

Agreed completely, but we won't even do that.

bigsethmeister, What does it prove that they wouldn't buy reactor-grade nuclear fuel from Russia? For one, reactor grade fuel could be further refined and enriched into bomb grade if they're willing to invest in enrichment apparatuses. So, getting it elsewhere doesn't prohibit them from developing a bomb.

The thing that jumps out at me is they didn't want to PAY for the fuel, which actually makes me more comfortable with my "follow-the-money" bottom line analysis.