Nuclear strikes?! Holy hell.

[abyssalservant]

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.

+1.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

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?

Next thing you know you'll mention the 'smoking gun' scenario with a mushroom cloud.

You could be perfectly right, and it's only smart policy to be skeptical, but just because they managed to enrich uranium in no way means their striving for weapons production. You're assuming all kinds of things about their energy policy based on a presupposition that their motives are ulterior. Again, might be, but I think the onus of proving ill-intent falls on us this time around, and not on a pre-emptive, strike-first-ask-question later policy. Especially when their most productive oil producing province in Iran happens to sit astride the border with Iraq. Rather, any naivete in this case would be blindy trusting the administration's, or even the press' interpretations of Iranian nuclear goals. I'm sure they're lots of good reasons why Iran wouldn't want to outsource uranium production to another country, that don't involve them pursuing nuclear weapons development. Again, I'm not saying your ideas are off-base, Bigs... Iran isn't exactly a model country. I agree completely it's wise to be prudent in this regard. But I think a little more careful forethought and deliberation is necessary, besides just assuming that any nuclear development on Iran's is primarily for weapons. That's the Bush party line, and that's not very credible (with me, and with many other Americans) of late, after the Iraq debacle.

I do, however, find it rather interesting that the US' early pursuit of nuclear technology was really first implemented in... dum dum dum duuum... nuclear weapons. The first US nuclear power plant, the Shippingport reactor in Pennsylvania, went online in 1957. That is 12 years after the bombs that were dropped on Japan. Does that prove your point, or take away from it? I'm not sure, but it's very telling.

Haven't we already been down this path circa 2003? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice... well, you're not gonna fool me again.

I like your reasoning, BTW, D.

 

[bigsethmeister]

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

Because they have made it clear they intend to strike our ally.

To be honest its my hope that we give Israel the assistance so that they can do it themselves. They did it already in 1981. This scenario has been played out once before.

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.

Israel's hard-line stance against Palestine? Are you serious Drew? Hamas - an avowed terrorist organization - is in control of Palestine's government now. These are the people that send kids with bombs on them to blow up Israelis. In fact Israel has been more palliative in recent years rather than confrontational. It was a large concession to pull their settlements out of Gaza last year. Furthermore they are our ally.

Iran has stated their plan to annihilate Israel and is on the path toward nuclear yechnology in opposition of the UN and most of the world and you think Israel is "most likely to instigate a nuclear war"?

 

[noodles]

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?

Probably because they're tired of sitting in the third world, getting tossed the occasional bone by a larger, more powerful country. "Hi, we have nukes, but you can't have it, because nukes are bad." If I was a citizen of another country, I'd find the UN policy pretty damn hypocritical.

Maybe, just maybe, Iran decided they have the right to do what they want to do inside their own borders, and want the rest of us to stay the fuck out of our business. Maybe they want to produce their own uranium, because then they don't have to rely on other countries for it. What would you think if you lived in a country that was completely dependent upon another country for specific needs? You'd probably think, "fuck them, we should do it for ourselves, who fucking cares what they think?"

Regarding their blatant disregard for UN policy, I refer you to the actions of the United States. We've been stepping all over the UN for as long as I've been alive.

Sometimes you just have to let it go, or we'll keep being the Earth police force, and we'll keep making new enemies. Our own Constitution has an innocent until proven guilty policy, yet that is exactly the stance that we do not take with the rest of the world.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

Iran has stated their plan to annihilate Israel and is on the path toward nuclear yechnology in opposition of the UN and most of the world and you think Israel is "most likely to instigate a nuclear war"?

I'd hardly call it a "plan." More like political rhetoric.

World without Zionism'

Mr Ahmadinejad told some 3,000 students in Tehran that Israel's establishment had been a move by the West against the Islamic world.

He was addressing a conference entitled The World without Zionism and his comments were reported by the Iranian state news agency Irna.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," he said, referring to Iran's late revolutionary leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

In 2001, former Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani speculated that a Muslim state that developed a nuclear weapon might use it to destroy Israel.

His comments were part of a critique of what hew called American imperialism in the region.

Such calls are regular slogans at anti-Israeli or anti-US rallies in Iran.

Mr Ahmadinejad warned leaders of Muslim nations who recognised the state of Israel that they faced "the wrath of their own people".

Mr Ahmadinejad came to power earlier this year, replacing Mohammad Khatami who had sought better relations with the West.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4378948.stm

Nobody's saying these are good guys, especially their leadership. But how does that call for a nuclear strike, or even military action? Our last foray into this sort of policy didn't exactly go the way it was hoped for.

 

[Drew]

Israel's hard-line stance against Palestine? Are you serious Drew? Hamas - an avowed terrorist organization - is in control of Palestine's government now. These are the people that send kids with bombs on them to blow up Israelis. In fact Israel has been more palliative in recent years rather than confrontational. It was a large concession to pull their settlements out of Gaza last year. Furthermore they are our ally.

I don't discount any of that. However, you also have to acknowledge that it's slightly hypocritical of us to turn a blind eye to Isreal's suicide bombers while condemning Hamas's, something that gets VERY little press attention in the states. And whenever anyone recommends a policy of neutrality in that area, they get labeled an ant-Semite.

I just feel that if we're going to condemn terrorisom and suicide bombing, then we should condemn it EVERYWHERE and not just when our enemies do it. Our current standpoint, as far as I'm concerned, is one that's more likely to provoke a nuclear strike by Isreal than it is to stop one.

And, fact of the matter is, Hamas was elected democratically - the best thing the States can do here is bite the bullet, grant them diplomatic recognition, and work to promote peace between the two contries, rather than playing favorites. It CAN be done, believe it or not. Clinton at least showed us it's possible even by his failure.

Iran has stated their plan to annihilate Israel and is on the path toward nuclear yechnology in opposition of the UN and most of the world and you think Israel is "most likely to instigate a nuclear war"?

Yes. I do. Iran is in a position where a nuclear strike will have near-certian repercussions, while Isreal has the blind backing of the American government, and in turn the majority of the world body. There will be public outcry, but with the current poltical situation in the region, there will most likely not be a counterstrike.

So, Iran knows they can't get away with it. Isreal, on the other hand, thinks maybe they can.

 

[noodles]

Israel's hard-line stance against Palestine? Are you serious Drew? Hamas - an avowed terrorist organization - is in control of Palestine's government now. These are the people that send kids with bombs on them to blow up Israelis. In fact Israel has been more palliative in recent years rather than confrontational. It was a large concession to pull their settlements out of Gaza last year. Furthermore they are our ally.

If more powerful countries walked into my country, pushed me and my family and everyone I know out of the way, and said, "Make room, we're creating a new country for this other group of peope," then I think I would do everything in my power to push back as hard as I could. No matter what the tactics or cost. I'd view it as nothing less than a full-scale invasion.

Go back and learn about WWII history outside of Europe. Britain, France, and the US created all of our current problems in the middle east. We basicly split up the Ottomon Empire as we saw fit. France just finds it more convenient to sit up on there high horse and condemn Britain and the US for problems that they damn well know they helped to create.

 

[eaeolian]

Probably because they're tired of sitting in the third world, getting tossed the occasional bone by a larger, more powerful country. "Hi, we have nukes, but you can't have it, because nukes are bad." If I was a citizen of another country, I'd find the UN policy pretty damn hypocritical.

Especially in light of our recent congratulations to India for doing exactly that, even though they violated the nonproliferation policy to get there.

 

[noodles]

Especially in light of our recent congratulations to India for doing exactly that, even though they violated the nonproliferation policy to get there.

Good point, I forgot about that. I still think Carlos Mencia was right on track when he said that if we asked India to attack Pakistan, the response would be, "God damn, we were waiting! You should have called us sooner!"

 

[Drew]

France just finds it more convenient to sit up on there high horse and condemn Britain and the US for problems that they damn well know they helped to create.

You say that like it's a bad thing - certainly, a better policy than ours.

 

[noodles]

You say that like it's a bad thing - certainly, a better policy than ours.

Hey, France only likes us when Germany gets pissed at them.

 

[eaeolian]

Iran has stated their plan to annihilate Israel and is on the path toward nuclear yechnology in opposition of the UN and most of the world and you think Israel is "most likely to instigate a nuclear war"?

I'm not Drew, but I actually think the U.S. is the most likely to use a nuclear option at this point. Our ground troops are tied up, and will be for the forseeable future, and this administration continues to behave like a petulant child throwing tantrums, raising the stakes ever higher when it can't get what it wants.

However, if Isreal thinks it's being threatend by another country with nukes, will they assume a first-strike posture? I'd say almost absolutely.

 

[noodles]

this administration continues to behave like a petulant child throwing tantrums, raising the stakes ever higher when it can't get what it wants.

There is a wonderful Photoshop opportunity.

 

[Drew]

You don't have to be, Mike - I agree with you.

 

[eaeolian]

Good point, I forgot about that. I still think Carlos Mencia was right on track when he said that if we asked India to attack Pakistan, the response would be, "God damn, we were waiting! You should have called us sooner!"

The problem is, of course, that Russia supplied the Pakstanis with the same technology before the USSR fell. Since no one really wants a glowing Indian sub-continent - although I frequently wouldn't mind it when on the phone with tech "support" - we keep trying to defuse that situation without actually fixing it, since that might piss one side off.

You don't have to be, Mike - I agree with you.

Hey, I can impersonate Drew!

Wait, I did on Friday already...

 

[Drew]

Ok, I just got burned.

 

[The Dark Wolf]

Ok, I just got burned.

Par for the course around here, bud.

 

[Drew]

Iran Could Make Bomb in 16 Days if Centrifuge Plans Continue, U.S. Says
April 12 (Bloomberg) -- Iran, defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.

Rademaker was reacting to a statement by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who said yesterday the country had succeeded in enriching uranium on a small scale for the first time, using 164 centrifuges. That announcement defies demands by the UN Security Council that Iran shut down its nuclear program this month.

The U.S. fears Iran is pursuing a nuclear program to make weapons, while Iran says it is intent on purely civilian purposes, to provide energy. Saeedi said 54,000 centrifuges will be able to enrich uranium to provide fuel for a 1,000-megawat nuclear power plant similar to the one Russia is finishing in southern Iran, AP reported.

``It was a deeply disappointing announcement,'' Rademaker said of Ahmadinejad's statement.

Weapons-Grade Uranium

Rademaker said the technology to enrich uranium to a low level could also be used to make weapons-grade uranium, saying that it would take a little over 13 years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon with the 164 centrifuges currently in use. The process involves placing uranium hexafluoride gas in a series of rotating drums or cylinders known as centrifuges that run at high speeds to extract weapons grade uranium.

Iran has informed the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz next year, Rademaker said.

``We calculate that a 3,000-machine cascade could produce enough uranium to build a nuclear weapon within 271 days,'' he said.

While the U.S. has concerns over Iran's nuclear program, Rademaker said ``there certainly has been no decision on the part of my government'' to use force if Iran refuses to obey the UN Security Council demand that it shuts down its nuclear program.

Rademaker is in Moscow for a meeting of his counterparts from the Group of Eight wealthy industrialized countries. Russia chairs the G-8 this year.

China is concerned about Iran's decision to accelerate uranium enrichment and wants the government in Tehran to heed international criticism of the move, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United Nations said.

Quoted because the hot link went to the Bloomberg main politics page, which will get updated and the story will drop off.

Once you get past the sensationalist headline, you see it'll take them 13 years at their current capacity to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium to produce a bomb, and after constuction of a 3,000-centrifuge facility is started a year from now, it'll still take them the better part of a year to produce enough uranium for a bomb upon it's completion. The 16-day quote is a WAY down the road 54,000 centrifuge, and the fact that russia is currently building them a reactor that will need approximately that much uranium is somewhat reassuring...

These guys are literally years away from being a nuclear threat.

 

[bigsethmeister]

Quoted because the hot link went to the Bloomberg main politics page, which will get updated and the story will drop off.

Once you get past the sensationalist headline, you see it'll take them 13 years at their current capacity to enrich enough weapons-grade uranium to produce a bomb, and after constuction of a 3,000-centrifuge facility is started a year from now, it'll still take them the better part of a year to produce enough uranium for a bomb upon it's completion. The 16-day quote is a WAY down the road 54,000 centrifuge, and the fact that russia is currently building them a reactor that will need approximately that much uranium is somewhat reassuring...

These guys are literally years away from being a nuclear threat.

The way I read that article they are at less than 2 years from nuclear weapons capability.

Hopefully plenty of time to dissuade them diplomatically but so far it looks like they'd rather play cowboys and indians.

 

[Drew]

Closer to "less than 3," as while I can't quote hard facts I'd imagine it takes rather a while to install 3000 centrifuges - say, at least a year.

...which is good news as there's no way in hell Bush will still be in office when they develop weapons capabilities, if that's their ultimate goal.