So much for a "peaceful" nuclear program

[southsider2k5]

Iran, surprising no one, is trying to put together a nuclear bomb.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/...1677541,00.html

[WCSox]

What a shocker!

 

So, how long now until the Israelis bomb their nuclear facilities?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

What a shocker!

 

So, how long now until the Israelis bomb their nuclear facilities?

 

 

Just a matter of time. See the thread I made about this subject a couple of weeks ago.

[Balta1701]

Stealing another writer's words out of laziness...

 

I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't have any trouble believing that this is true, but on the other hand the "leak" is pretty obviously deliberate and the article gives no indication of what the assessment is based on. What's more, given the track record of western intelligence over the past few years, I'm reluctant to take their conclusions at face value just because they happen to seem believable to me.

 

So: maybe this is for real. Or maybe it's just an effort to prepare public opinion for a military strike against Iran. Stay tuned.

[southsider2k5]

Stealing another writer's words out of laziness...

 

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb? There is no doubt in my mind at all that they are just continuing something they have been doing since the 1960's in trying to find a way into the atomic club. What evidence does anyone have that they have all of the sudden changed their behavior and are now only looking for something for energy purposes? Heck having the "Great Satan" next door in Iraq only serves to convince me more that Iran is full of s*** when it saids it is only looking for more energy sources with its nuclear program.

[Balta1701]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you don't believe that Iran is pursuing a nuclear bomb?  There is no doubt in my mind at all that they are just continuing something they have been doing since the 1960's in trying to find a way into the atomic club.  What evidence does anyone have that they have all of the sudden changed their behavior and are now only looking for something for energy purposes?  Heck having the "Great Satan" next door in Iraq only serves to convince me more that Iran is full of s*** when it saids it is only looking for more energy sources with its nuclear program.

Personally, I do believe Iran is looking to build an atomic bomb, because it only makes sense that they should be trying like gangbusters to do so while the U.S. forces are completely tied down and worn out from fighting Iraq, and a bomb totally prevents them from being the next target (they could fund Hezbollah to their hearts content if they were protected by a few of those.)

 

But on the other hand...my intuition is not proof. No document ever presented thus far has given any proof. This document does not give proof - it specifies no sources or methods, there was clearly no danger in its release, and its release serves a clearly political purpose for those out there who advocate strikes against Iran.

 

While Iran having a bomb program makes logical sense to me, I don't feel you can jump to the conclusion that they have one based solely on the evidence we have been presented. All I'm saying with that post is that just because some leak says so doesn't mean that there isn't some motivation behind why we got that particular leak. We should have learned that lesson well with Iraq.

[southsider2k5]

Personally, I do believe Iran is looking to build an atomic bomb, because it only makes sense that they should be trying like gangbusters to do so while the U.S. forces are completely tied down and worn out from fighting Iraq, and a bomb totally prevents them from being the next target (they could fund Hezbollah to their hearts content if they were protected by a few of those.)

 

But on the other hand...my intuition is not proof.  No document ever presented thus far has given any proof.  This document does not give proof - it specifies no sources or methods, there was clearly no danger in its release, and its release serves a clearly political purpose for those out there who advocate strikes against Iran.

 

While Iran having a bomb program makes logical sense to me, I don't feel you can jump to the conclusion that they have one based solely on the evidence we have been presented.  All I'm saying with that post is that just because some leak says so doesn't mean that there isn't some motivation behind why we got that particular leak.  We should have learned that lesson well with Iraq.

 

So you're saying we shouldn't believe anyone's intelligence anymore because it was wrong with Iraq? I thought that there was tons of evidence out there to back up what you have been saying about that intelligence being wrong anyways, does that exsist in this case? Or is there just conjecture at this point? All I have seen is reports saying they are running a covert program, and Iran denying it. I haven't seen anything actually disputing any of the reports yet.

[Balta1701]

So you're saying we shouldn't believe anyone's intelligence anymore because it was wrong with Iraq?  I thought that there was tons of evidence out there to back up what you have been saying about that intelligence being wrong anyways, does that exsist in this case?  Or is there just conjecture at this point?  All I have seen is reports saying they are running a covert program, and Iran denying it.  I haven't seen anything actually disputing any of the reports yet.

If there is actual evidence, the IAEA has not seen it. The best evidence seemed to come a few years ago when the IAEA found 1 trace of highly enriched uranium on a centrifuge, but upon detailed examination they determined that the trace came from Pakistan, where the centrifuges were made. The IAEA has expressed concern about Iran's activities, but at least as of basically last year, all of the facilities the IAEA knew about and inspected showed no signs of uranium enriched to weaponized levels.

 

North Korea, for example, is a different story...when you reprocess fuel rods to extract plutonium, there are distinct signals - radiogenic gases which are released (I believe the key one was Xenon, but I could be mistaken). Those signals were clearly detected in samples taken along the DMZ right after th ey removed the IAEA cameras a few years ago. They clearly reprocessed the stuff, and are in possession of enriched plutonium.

 

The reality with Iran is this...they've taken some of the actions they would have taken had they been trying to develop a bomb - i.e. building nuclear facilities, getting agreements to produce others. But they've also done some things you wouldn't do - i.e. allowing IAEA inspections of uranium enriching sites, and placing multi-monthlong holds on uranium enrichment to allow for time for negotiations.

 

The U.S. continues to insist that Iran's fossil fuel resources mean that Iran has no need of a nuclear power program, since nuclear power would cost them more than their fossil fuels. But aside from that, the U.S. has never presented any concrete evidence of a uranium bomb program, nor has the IAEA ever found any. Without that, I think the only logical choice is to maintain a rational amount of skepticism of the claims of both sides until one of them comes forward with some firm evidence.

[southsideirish71]

If there is actual evidence, the IAEA has not seen it.  The best evidence seemed to come a few years ago when the IAEA found 1 trace of highly enriched uranium on a centrifuge, but upon detailed examination they determined that the trace came from Pakistan, where the centrifuges were made.  The IAEA has expressed concern about Iran's activities, but at least as of basically last year, all of the facilities the IAEA knew about and inspected showed no signs of uranium enriched to weaponized levels.

 

North Korea, for example, is a different story...when you reprocess fuel rods to extract plutonium, there are distinct signals - radiogenic gases which are released (I believe the key one was Xenon, but I could be mistaken).  Those signals were clearly detected in samples taken along the DMZ right after th ey removed the IAEA cameras a few years ago.  They clearly reprocessed the stuff, and are in possession of enriched plutonium.

 

The reality with Iran is this...they've taken some of the actions they would have taken had they been trying to develop a bomb - i.e. building nuclear facilities, getting agreements to produce others.  But they've also done some things you wouldn't do - i.e. allowing IAEA inspections of uranium enriching sites, and placing multi-monthlong holds on uranium enrichment to allow for time for negotiations.

 

The U.S. continues to insist that Iran's fossil fuel resources mean that Iran has no need of a nuclear power program, since nuclear power would cost them more than their fossil fuels.  But aside from that, the U.S.  has never presented any concrete evidence of a uranium bomb program, nor has the IAEA ever found any.  Without that, I think the only logical choice is to maintain a rational amount of skepticism of the claims of both sides until one of them comes forward with some firm evidence.

 

Sure Iran is just trying to make sure that Tehran has enough light.

 

Dont worry, when they attempt to weaponize the uranium and the Israelies get wind of it. Tehran glows in the dark forever.

 

 

The END, forget brinksmanship, forget MAD, the minute Iran gets even on the path to building a nuclear weapon Israel makes them cease to exist.

Edited January 4, 2006 by southsideirish71

[NorthSideSox72]

I think that Israel cannot and would not decimate Tehran or any large population centers in Iran. If you think about the consequences of that, there is no good end for Israel.

 

What I think is very likely to happen, though, is that Israel will probably destroy any and all sites of possible production of said weapons, and they'll do it very soon, before they are completed. Because once they are out there, there would be no way to reliably destroy them. Any attack to do so, once there are a few complete weapons roaming around the Iranian desert, is a crapshoot. You miss, and they'll fire. And it would only take 3 or 4 nukes to turn all of Israel into a big glass parking lot.

 

Israel will strike the production facilities and vehicle (aka LR missle) facilities, once they have the intel to do so as completely as possible. If they can't make that happen before the weapons are completed, they won't attack at all. If they fail to pre-empt, they will re-assert their own nuclear presence in public and make sure Iran knows any missle attack would result in Tehran being destroyed.

 

So in short, I'd say the only three possible outcomes of this are: 1. Isreal destroys Iran's programs the mid-east boils over even further conventionally, 2. Iran backs down, or 3. Iran gets the weapons before Israel can get to them, and the mid-east becomes a cold nuclear war.

 

I suppose an argument could be made for one other scenario - Iran moves further to the political right, thinks they can get the nukes onto Israeli soil without detectable methods like missles or planes, and literally tries to wipe them off the map in one stroke. If that happens... I don't even want to think about it.

[southsideirish71]

I think that Israel cannot and would not decimate Tehran or any large population centers in Iran.  If you think about the consequences of that, there is no good end for Israel.

 

What I think is very likely to happen, though, is that Israel will probably destroy any and all sites of possible production of said weapons, and they'll do it very soon, before they are completed.  Because once they are out there, there would be no way to reliably destroy them.  Any attack to do so, once there are a few complete weapons roaming around the Iranian desert, is a crapshoot.  You miss, and they'll fire.  And it would only take 3 or 4 nukes to turn all of Israel into a big glass parking lot.

 

Israel will strike the production facilities and vehicle (aka LR missle) facilities, once they have the intel to do so as completely as possible.  If they can't make that happen before the weapons are completed, they won't attack at all.  If they fail to pre-empt, they will re-assert their own nuclear presence in public and make sure Iran knows any missle attack would result in Tehran being destroyed.

 

So in short, I'd say the only three possible outcomes of this are: 1. Isreal destroys Iran's programs the mid-east boils over even further conventionally, 2. Iran backs down, or 3. Iran gets the weapons before Israel can get to them, and the mid-east becomes a cold nuclear war.

 

I suppose an argument could be made for one other scenario - Iran moves further to the political right, thinks they can get the nukes onto Israeli soil without detectable methods like missles or planes, and literally tries to wipe them off the map in one stroke.  If that happens... I don't even want to think about it.

 

What will most likely happen will be some sort of air strike against suspected iranian nuclear facilities. The only nukes that will be used in this will be bunker busters with low yield weapons.

 

The only way this becomes Tehran glowing in the dark is if a response happens from Iran where a WMD hits Israel(chemical, biological, or nuclear). At that point all bets are off. Now as for iran taking out israel. Sure that could happen. But with the large assortment of tactical and large scale nuclear weapons that the israelies have. They could literally take out the entire middle east and then some.

 

MAD will not work in this scenario. The Russians didnt openly talk about the destruction of Washington. They didnt say they wanted Idaho wiped off the face of the earth. I am convinced that the minute Iran gets a workable weapon it detonates in some manner over some part of Israel.

Edited January 4, 2006 by southsideirish71

[NorthSideSox72]

What will most likely happen will be some sort of air strike against suspected iranian nuclear facilities.  The only nukes that will be used in this will be bunker busters with low yield weapons.

 

The only way this becomes Tehran glowing in the dark is if a response happens from Iran where a WMD hits Israel(chemical, biological, or nuclear).  At that point all bets are off.  Now as for iran taking out israel.  Sure that could happen.  But with the large assortment of tactical and large scale nuclear weapons that the israelies have.  They could literally take out the entire middle east and then some.

 

MAD will not work in this scenario.  The Russians didnt openly talk about the destruction of Washington.  They didnt say they wanted Idaho wiped off the face of the earth.  I am convinced that the minute Iran gets a workable weapon it detonates in some manner over some part of Israel.

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like you just reiterated my points. You are just more convinced of the last scenario I mentioned than the other possible ones.

 

I guess we agree.

[Rex Kickass]

MAD will not work in this scenario.  The Russians didnt openly talk about the destruction of Washington.  They didnt say they wanted Idaho wiped off the face of the earth.  I am convinced that the minute Iran gets a workable weapon it detonates in some manner over some part of Israel.

 

They absolutely did do that by the way and then some. They commonly used a logo of a red earth with a hammer and sickle all over it. We did the same too with Reagan calling the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Whether you agree or disagree with the points, our propaganda in the cold war was very similar, just perhaps not as blunt.

 

But to look at Iran/Israel in a similar context as Cold War I or Cold War II would be a mistake because a fundamental shift in multinational relations have happened since the Cold Wars ended in the mid 1980s.

 

Despite all the blustery language, Iran is more likely to use nuclear weaponry as a form of self defense rather than a form of aggression. If Iran fears invasion from a larger, hostile force - say the U.S. for example, having a nuclear weapon on the table makes the likelihood of invasion from that foreign force considerably less likely because they don't want to deal with the collateral damage that would occur from a nuclear attack.

[NorthSideSox72]

Despite all the blustery language, Iran is more likely to use nuclear weaponry as a form of self defense rather than a form of aggression. If Iran fears invasion from a larger, hostile force - say the U.S. for example, having a nuclear weapon on the table makes the likelihood of invasion from that foreign force considerably less likely because they don't want to deal with the collateral damage that would occur from a nuclear attack.

 

This may be Iran's thinking, and that was scenario #3 that I mentioned. But frankly, I don't think Israel will tolerate that. Looking at the people who are running the Likud and the people likely to move more into power there, I think their level of paranoia (justified or not) is on the increase. If they can destroy Iran's nuclear program before the weapons are complete, I believe they will do so.

[Rex Kickass]

Israel attacking "nuclear" facilities will be a much more difficult task than in 1980 because the facilities are much more spread out, hidden better and protected naturally. If Iran does have a serious weapons program - and I think they do, but it's probably not as advanced as we may be alarmed over- its gonna be really hard to destroy because its so diffuse across the country.

[NorthSideSox72]

Israel attacking "nuclear" facilities will be a much more difficult task than in 1980 because the facilities are much more spread out, hidden better and protected naturally. If Iran does have a serious weapons program - and I think they do, but it's probably not as advanced as we may be alarmed over- its gonna be really hard to destroy because its so diffuse across the country.

 

Agreed.

 

That's why I think Israel only makes that move if they feel confident they have most or all the pieces nailed down. But if/when they do (and you can bet they are trying pretty damn hard), they'll likely strike. If not, then you get the stand off.

 

BTW, I am willing to bet that Israel has access right now to U.S. intel tools like satelite images, etc., in their search. That makes them more likely to make the right finds.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm guessing if they could have done it, they would have already. Or it's not nearly as advanced as we think.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm guessing if they could have done it, they would have already. Or it's not nearly as advanced as we think.

 

The latter. But in the next year or two, it will be.

[Balta1701]

Here's a question...how does a "Serious stroke" on the part of the Israeli leader change any potential strike?

[NorthSideSox72]

Here's a question...how does a "Serious stroke" on the part of the Israeli leader change any potential strike?

 

Very good question. I think (correct me if wrong) this puts Netanyahu back in the front-runner position for PM. He is back in the fray. If so, he's fairly militaristic, so I'd say it increases the chances.

[Rex Kickass]

I think it puts Peres in the catbird seat, I'd wager. My feeling is this - the Israeli public at large is looking for a moderation in political views. They want a solution to the situation with the Palestinians. And they want middle ground. Those that represent it, will get it.

 

Likud has all sorts of ethics issues to deal with, I believe.