Report Claims Iran Has Data To Build a Nuclear Bomb 630
reporter writes "According to a startling report just covered by the New York Times, 'senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable atom bomb.' In 2007, American intelligence erroneously concluded that Tehran in 2003 stopped further research into designing a nuclear bomb. This conclusion was contradicted by German, French, and Israeli intelligence. Recently, London also concluded that the American assessment is incorrect. So, here we are. The Iranians have the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb and have been working relentlessly to perfect its design. Tehran is apparently able to create the components (e.g. enriched uranium) that can be assembled into such a weapon. Meanwhile, Jerusalem is communicating with the Kremlin about a list of Russian scientists it believes are assisting Iran's efforts to develop the bomb."
More proof (Score:3, Insightful)
More proof that the overt cold war ended, but the covert battle continues.
Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet access (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that just proof that they have Internet access?
US Intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
How reliable is US intelligence today? I mean, they were wrong (or lied) about Iraq, and now they are seemingly wrong about Iran.
I cannot make up my mind which is worse, them being wrong or them lieing...
Lies, thats worse...
But them being (apparently) wrong on this makes me wonder how often they are wrong with intel regarding the The War On Terror (TM)
Perfectly Legal (Score:5, Insightful)
As a member of the NPT Iran is well within its rights to posses the outlined technologies. The article clearly omits the fact that such capabilities can also lead to better yeilds from civilian/peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
Well duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost anyone could make an A-bomb if they had sufficient amount of weapons grade uranium 235, or plutonium. The real challenge is extracting the uranium 235 isotope from uranium ore.
Even Wikipedia has enough detail on both purification and bomb building to give you a good head start. I don't think the challenge is the lack of theoretical knowledge or the process, but technology to do so. Those centrifuges are not easy to make (they spin up to 90,000 RPM) and something as a fingerprint on one of them will make it shatter when it's spinning that fast.
But these days, almost any country that really wants to (and does not care about political or economic repercussions) could develop nuclear technology.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we really be so shocked? Haven't nuclear weapons been present in the middle east for over 3 decades now, in Israel [fas.org]?
Yes, but Israel deserves a much higher level of trust than Iran. Even in the 1973 war, when Israel was facing defeat - and a defeat would have meant, literally, annihilation - Israel did not use its nukes (and it almost certainly had them by then).
Iran, on the other hand - a country which has a president that denies the Holocaust while inviting the world's most well known Holocaust-deniers and general racists to visit for conferences, a country which rigs elections in such an obvious way that even its own citizens are aware of it, a nation whose people are taken away and never seen again should they say anything to challenge the president or "Supreme Leader" - cannot be trusted to not use its nuclear weapons.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
True, but not really relevant. Israel had significant help from France, an existing nuclear power, and apartheid South Africa, which was presumably closer to nuclear weapons at that point (the apartheid government destroyed its warheads shortly before it left power, and subsequent governments have shown no interest in rebuilding them). It seems improbable that the West is currently helping Iran.
Of course, while it doesn't have a bearing on how easy it is to build them, Israeli nuclear weapons do cause other countries in the area to want nuclear weapons, and provide then with an excuse.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
So by that logic, a nuclear power that uses its weapons cannot be trusted, right? Who gets to choose which countries can be trusted? Have you spoken with anyone from Nagasaki about this question?
Re:Internet access (Score:1, Insightful)
Did you ever wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing about being part of the "Axis of Evil" is that it tends to make one feel insecure. Sometimes other countries threaten to invade and/or talk about bombing back to the stone age... and then one notices that they don't talk that way about countries with nukes...
just sayin..
Re:US Intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that people have some kind of idea that intelligence is supposed to be perfect. It never is. At best it can give you general information about what somebody is up to, and it can also give you misinformation if the aversary is clever enough to feed it to you carefully.
Intelligence is a good way to supplement policy, or military strategy. It can't replace other factors, such as strong negotiating power or a strong military. It must still be used with caution.
IMHO, the world is playing a very dangerous game with Iran. It seems like people are under the impression that it is fine to just wait to the last minute to commit to a particular course of action. If people are waiting for some unambiguous piece of intelligence before they decide to take action on Iran, I suspect that they're going to be still waiting when the first test detonation goes off.
On the other hand, I can understand US reluctance to take action. Everybody seems to love to poke at the US for taking unilateral action (granted, Iraq certainly didn't help here). However, Iran isn't just a US problem. The US would be better off trying to become less dependant on oil from the middle east, and let the Europeans deal with Iran (they're the only ones in range of their missiles right now). Then the US press can sit back and take pot shots at European leaders when they make mistakes... :)
Re:Perfectly Legal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Perfectly Legal (Score:3, Insightful)
As a member of the NPT Iran is well within its rights to posses the outlined technologies. The article clearly omits the fact that such capabilities can also lead to better yeilds from civilian/peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
Clearly this is a weakness in the NPT. No question that it isn't clear that Iran has violated this treaty.
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
Yup. Perhaps it would be more fair if the Iranians were allowed to develop nuclear weapons. I for one am not interested in fairness on the battlefield, however. It is in the interest of every first world nation to put a rapid stop to Iranian nuclear enrichment efforts. If Iran has complaints about being embargoed or bombed by most of the members of the security council they can file an appeal with the security council.
The balance of terror that currently exists with nuclear weapons is hardly ideal. However, right now it is at least a fairly stable situation (granted, issues with Russia's early warning systems have made things less stable). Dictatorships like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan tend to destabilize the situation quite a bit. Now, the other two nations lack ICBM capability and only have a few weapons, so that lowers their strategic impact (except for South Korea, Japan, China, and India). Iran is much closer to Europe and everybody is dependant on the Middle East, so they're potentially a lot more dangerous. Plus, Iran has tended to be a bit more flamboyant with regard to rhetoric. NK isn't much better, but China tends to hold them in check since they've very dependant on them.
The world seriously needs to become less dependant on oil. All this blustering in the Middle East would go away pretty quickly if that happened. The region would just turn into another Central Africa where the various parties fight it out and nobody hears about it aside from the occasional relief mission...
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:1, Insightful)
That's part of why the Soviet Union developed nukes, because without the ability to retaliate, they felt themselves to be at the mercy of the US.
But fast forward to today. Considering (a) the huge number of nukes available, and (b) the successful treaty organizations which ensure that an attack against almost any developing or developed nation would bring into play a nuclear-armed nation, there's only one reason that any nation would want to obtain nukes themselves: to use them, consequences be damned.
This goes double for Iran, whose leaders are driven in part by religious ideology and irrational hatred of Israel, and for North Korea, whose leader is outright bat-shit insane.
The Genie is out of the bottle. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Genie is out of the bottle.
Further, it is the height of arrogance that we sit on an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons and sit on high and tell the rest of the world, "No, you cannot have nuclear weapons."
I thought "Do as I say, not as I do" was stupid when I was a child, and I still do as an adult.
If I were in charge of a nation and any nation with nuclear weapons tried to tell me I could not have them I would tell them to come back when they have no nuclear weapons themselves.
But, given the nature of American diplomacy today, where we will invade anyone without the bomb in the name of "democracy and freedom", if I were in charge of a nation without the bomb I would make it my nation's highest priority to obtain it so that I would not be the next nation who has American "democracy and freedom" brought to me on the tip of a sword.
dimona anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
as soon as dimona is opened up for inspection, the isralis can whine all they want, until they sign off on the ntp and all ow inspections, they need the seiously stfu.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
The EU, America, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and others I think can be trusted.
Of course the previous American government was pretty worrying. Hopefully American citizens have learnt their lesson, and hopefully the republican party will fix themselves. They've been catering to the loons, and that's dangerous for everyone.
Re:US Intelligence (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
In that war, Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, causing the US to send aid to make sure the war didn't reach that point.
I don't like Ahmadinejad, and I don't like many recent Israeli leaders either. There are stupid fuckers on both sides who'd like to kill people for having a different religion. Read about the Qibya massacre [wikipedia.org], and tell me Sharon was any saner than Ahmadinejad.
Israel is a rogue state too, has in the past been prevented from using nuclear weapons pretty narrowly (and only by a superpower doing exactly what it was told), and could easily elect another genocidal nutcase.
Personally, I'm not sure any human can be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel seems to be a greater danger than most other nuclear states.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
What a load of crap.
Iran has signed, to my knowledge, a treaty about nuclear arms reduction, granting them the fricking right to use nuclear material for peaceful purposes.
Germany has not, and as the German comedian Volker Pispers is apt to say: After all, it was Iran who was responsible for two World Wars, unlike Germany who has such a great track record.
Basically, we are breaking the contract here. So what if Iran knows how to build them? As long as they do not, they are keeping their end of the deal, whereas we are all out breaking it just because we don't like their faces, or some such.
Our being afraid is good enough reason to force our wishes upon them? And you fucking wonder why the Arab nations like us westerners so much?
Re:Perfectly Legal (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup. Perhaps it would be more fair if the Iranians were allowed to develop nuclear weapons. I for one am not interested in fairness on the battlefield, however. It is in the interest of every first world nation to put a rapid stop to Iranian nuclear enrichment efforts.
It's in the interest of every nation to deny every other nation the right to weapons. That doesn't make it right.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
As for which countries can be trusted. Ones with secular governments that keep religion out of government policy and decisions. The EU, America, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, and others I think can be trusted. Of course the previous American government was pretty worrying. Hopefully American citizens have learnt their lesson, and hopefully the republican party will fix themselves. They've been catering to the loons, and that's dangerous for everyone.
America has a colorful and long history of overturning small nations because their dictator or democratically elected government has displeased us. If I were a small nation that disagreed with America's ideology (which does include stuff like assassinations and coups in order to help spread business interests), I don't think I'd trust America. Israel frequently claims to be halting settlement of Palestinian-majority areas followed by revelations that they're funding and encouraging that settlement. I wouldn't trust them either. In military matters I do feel that I could trust the EU, NZ, and Australia.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' [guardian.co.uk] (another source [independent.co.uk])
Palin: Iraq is a task 'from God.' [thinkprogress.org]
I'm sure we could find the same kind of thing for every country you listed, these were just the ones I could remember from the top of my head
Re:Echoing what dustyshadow has said (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel deserves more trust than Iran? Are you serious?
Iran has not, in recent military history, conducted a single war of aggression against its neighbours, even Israel. Israel, on the other hand, have conducted wars of aggression against its neighbours.
Iran's real leaders (i.e. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) support a doctrine of "no first strike". Israel, on the other hand, have no such doctrine, and history demonstrates they have adopted a first strike policy.
Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA - not flawlessly, and there are problems, but they have been co-operating. Israel has never co-operated with them, never admitted to having nuclear weapons, and has never admitted inspectors. It's also not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran does not deny the holocaust took place. That's just pure propaganda bullshit. That idiot Ahmadinejad denied it took place. I'm sure there are some others who agree with him, but there are plenty who accept the holocaust took place. The former president Mohammad Khatami is one of them, and he has spoken openly against Ahmadinejad's views. So what if Holocaust deniers were invited there? The Institute for Historical Review is well known for holocaust denial, and it's based in the United States! Holocaust deniers are alive and well in many countries around the world. I don't particularly care for shutting them up because I tend to believe in freedom of speech.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
IQ Test #2: How Stupid Are Americans, Anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
A ploy not to go to war? That's funny!
Just look around today-- the very same tactics that were used to get us to support invading Iraq have been rolled out to manufacture support for attacking Iran: The drumbeat of ever-more-dire media reports, claims of the "greatest threat to the world today," making outrageous demands of the target so that they look evil when they do not comply (because they cannot comply), reporting provable falsehoods and failing to retract them, et cetera. Most of the very same people who wanted a U.S. invasion of Iraq are still in high positions of influence and power, and now they want an invasion of Iran. Never mind that these people were utterly wrong (at best) or liars (at worst) about Iraq-- no nuclear weapons, no biological weapons, no yellowcake from Niger, no fleets of unmanned drones, no al-Qaeda connection whatsoever. It doesn't matter. The media still holds them up as the only credible voices, the people with realistic foreign policy "gravitas" and experience. The people who were right about Iraq are still dismissed as naive, not credible on foreign policy, or fruitcakes.
No, the United States is not "extremely pacifistic about war" now! It's definitely on course to get involved in a third major war.
The sad part, to me, is that Americans are falling for it again. We just lived through the propaganda 8 years ago, and our troops are still occupying Iraq. Yet, here we are again, cowering under our beds in fear of a nation with less than 1/4 our population and about 0.6% of our military budget. Worried sick about a country half-way around the globe that doesn't have the motive nor the means to launch at us a weapon that they don't even have, can't yet build, and may or may not even want!
Worse, getting into this war would harm us more than Iran ever could. We're already mired in an economic crisis in part brought on by the massive diversion of our resources to two on-going conflicts. An attack on Iran could very well be our economic coup de grace, finishing off the dollar as the international reserve currency and ending our ability to finance our astronomical debt. Goodbye military spending, goodbye overseas empire, and goodbye American Dream. Even if we could keep the current, unsustainable borrowing going despite an attack on Iran and more-enormous military spending, that spending will keep our economy weak.
It's ridiculous to the point of absurdity, but the U.S. government is not trying to avoid war now.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and Hezbollah starting the last war with Israel doesn't count as Iran starting the war because they Hezbollah isn't Iran's lapdog? Grow up.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
No [wikipedia.org], indeed [wikipedia.org], certainly not [wikipedia.org] within [wikipedia.org] living memory [wikipedia.org].
Re:US Intelligence (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't U.S. Intelligence agencies that lied about Iraq, it was the administration which cherry picked the information. Anyhow, let's for the moment assume that Bush hadn't taken out Saddam and now Iran is caught building the bomb. The oil price spike in the last several years would have given Saddam plenty of money for arms. Our 'allies', the Euro-weenies were busy attempting to sell Saddam anything he liked at the time sanctions where breaking down in 2001. Saddam would be busy building his own nukes.
Let the match begin, in this corner we have a bunch of religious nutjobs who believe they can bring back the third Imam if they click their heels and think of nuclear war. This other corner, we have Saddam and his cronies who believe in their destiny to destroy the State of Israel and have already had a previous misunderstanding with the Persians.
Re:Did you ever wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet Obama has gone to extreme lengths to "engage" Iran, and that hasn't helped much either, has it?
It seems to be one of the few things he's done with unarguably positive effect.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
It's far from clear that Hezbollah started the war (and even less to suggest that it was done because of Iran's insistence), unless you discount repeated, almost daily, incursions [csmonitor.com] by the Israeli military into Lebanese territory, repeated violations of Lebanese airspace, and Israel's occupation of the Shebba farms.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:1, Insightful)
...successful treaty organizations which ensure that an attack against almost any developing or developed nation would bring into play a nuclear-armed nation...
So you're thinking the USA would still have invaded Iraq if Iraq had been sitting on a pile of nuclear armed ICBMS with the capability to flatten most major US cities in a matter of hours?
...Iran, whose leaders are driven in part by religious ideology ...
The leaders of Iran do tend to go on and on about their religion but it's not clear that their actual policies would be any different if they weren't religious (their policies would almost certainly be different is the USA hadn't backed the Shah, but that was about oil - not religion). Israel, on the other hand, is very much driven by religious ideology (the whole "God gave this land to us" thing).
...and irrational hatred of Israel...
Iran is pretty much the only country in the world with the balls to stand up to Israel's brutal racist persecution of the Palestinians - but, while that may not be in Iran's own best interest, taking a stand against racist persecution is hardly irrational.
Re:Perfectly Legal (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
It's probably safe to say the current Iranian regime has no intention of using nuclear weapons if it gets a hold of them... it's most likely a "we have these things so back off" bargaining chip. It would also allow them to hold Israel hostage to deter a US attack if relations with the US deteriorate more than they have.
That said, the US is more worried about extreme religious radicals gaining control over the weapons. The current Iranian regime, for all their religious rhetoric, are actually quite rational. The bigger fear is of a Taliban-esque coup, much like the fears for Pakistan. Having nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them fall into the hands of a group like the Taliban would be much, much worse.
there's only one reason that any nation would want to obtain nukes themselves: to use them, consequences be damned.
In my experience, just letting the other guy know you have a gun goes a long way towards stopping the fight before it starts.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:2, Insightful)
Find me an empire in the past that did that?
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly no one would start a nuclear holocaust to make a point, but they might very well start one in order to fulfill a divine mandate.
I wouldn't put so much faith in base instincts.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
Only the good guys can be trusted.
Mal: Mercy is the mark of a great man.
[Mal stabs guy]
Mal: Guess I'm just a good man.
[stabs him again]
Mal: Well, I'm all right.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
But fast forward to today. Considering (a) the huge number of nukes available, and (b) the successful treaty organizations which ensure that an attack against almost any developing or developed nation would bring into play a nuclear-armed nation, there's only one reason that any nation would want to obtain nukes themselves: to use them, consequences be damned.
Could you please elaborate? because frankly I don't see your argument. Considering the way the situations with Iraq (no nukes) and Korea (apparently has nukes) where handles differently, I would guess every nation that found itself on the list of the so called "Axis of Evil" had a good reason to own nukes as a deterrent a.s.a.p.
Apart from that Iran has signed the NNPT [wikipedia.org], and the IAEA can do the necessary inspections.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
"Have you spoken with anyone from Nagasaki about this question? "
They asked for what they got, and don't forget it.
The Japs butchered their way through Asia and the Pacific in spectacular fashion, negating any opinion of the survivors of the just punishment their nation and people so richly deserved.
There was no "trust" issue in the Total War of WWII. The Japanese were trying to enslave Asia. They got spanked for the trouble. Afterward, the Allied occupation of Imperial Japan was so benevolent that it shaped Japan into the modern democracy the weaboos who snivel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki so admire. The US demonstrated that it was "trustworthy" by protecting Japan from the Communist menace in the East with the "nuclear umbrella" borne of the WWII atomic weapons program.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
If there is good reason to think that the Israeli government is a religious government then I would like to know. Because that would be a bad thing.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
Further Israel has passed laws that prevent Palestinians who marry Israeli's from living within Israel: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-imposes-racist-marriage-law-588637.html [independent.co.uk]
None of this meets my definition of secular. Genocidal? I would not call the Israeli occupation of Palestine genocide (yet). I would call it apartheid.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:1, Insightful)
Should we really be so shocked? Haven't nuclear weapons been present in the middle east for over 3 decades now, in Israel [fas.org]?
Cry me a fucking river. I'm glad Israel has nukes while Iran does not.
This statement, modded +5 Informative, should clearly be marked flamebait, as if Iran with it's fanatical religious leader Khamemei and lunatic political leader Ahmedinejad should have nuclear weapons at their disposal.
Any country that has repeatedly and openly told the world that it will destroy Israel WHEN it has the nuclear weapons to do so, should not be allowed to create or purchase said weapons.
I am all for a nuke first policy toward Iran.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
Fanatics belonging to widely dispersed non-state organizations are not worried about retaliation. Iran is not crazy enough to nuke anyone, but the same sort of crazies that did 9/11 are that crazy.
The issue is that some people fear that Iran might help these crazies get a bomb, hoping it never gets tracked back to Iran. Personally, I don't fear that and think they just want what Israel has.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern warfighting values and decisions regarding civilian casualties cannot be applied to WW2, even though it was a mere 60 years ago. The firebombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities during the time demonstrate that striking civilian populations were indeed seen as a legitimate use of military force by both Allied and Axis powers. Civilian losses in the Soviet Union may have been as high as 13.7 million in the Axis-occupied areas. In China alone, the civilian deaths due to the Japanese invasion is estimated to be over 9 million. Non-fatal Chinese civilian casualties were more than another 8 million.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed up to about 140,000 and 80,000 people, respectively. More died later from cancers, but that number varies in its estimates, and in any case is much smaller that the primary death figures. Total deaths are well under a quarter million. While that number itself may be staggering, your "millions of people" is a fallacy, to say the least. In fact, your statement would be more accurate if you were attacking the use of conventional weapons rather than nuclear.
WW2 in the Pacific theater was a horrific picture of destruction. The tenacity with which the Japanese defended every inch of every island indicated that the invasion of the mainland would have gone extremely badly, both for the attackers and the defenders. The Japanese military were training the civilian population to defend the Emperor in the case of an American invasion. Realistic projections of casualties for each side reached the millions easily, and the time frame for ending the war with conventional weapons and strategies was long.
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not out of line with how the war was actually being fought by both sides. By avoiding a mainland invasion, it certainly avoided civilian and military casualties at least an order of magnitude greater than the actual bombings.
Re:Internet access (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if they were trying to make a Teller-Ullam design H-bomb, that would be far more interesting.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you allege that that the leadership of Iran consists of a bunch of suicidal fanatics? Pray tell, what exactly have they done to suggest this, rather than the conclusion that they are a bunch of power-hungry fanatics who want to hold on to their privileged positions at the top of government.
I see way more evidence for the latter conclusion.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
Many Jewish atheists were killed, along with many religious ones in the holocaust. There doesn't seem to be any really clear cut definition of what makes someone Jewish. But one thing is certain, you don't need to be religious to be considered Jewish.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:2, Insightful)
individuals in a species can go horribly wrong
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in the Western world with democracy, and sorry, but none of the governments can be trusted. Right after the 9/11 all of the governments were all to eager to institute laws that many would deem against freedom.
Here is another example. The "Western" governments created a black and grey list of countries with tax issues. These countries fixed things up and are on the white list. NOW the g20 says, "well we can't have that we need tougher regulation. We need to get those low tax places back on the black list." Give me a f*****g break! The governments of the West have lost touch to the voter and they do whatever they want.
Moral, don't trust any government!
Poor summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Some obvious things:
a) This story is not about "having data to build a nuclear bomb". Any accredited university engineering program has "the data to build a nuclear bomb", but it would be unwieldy to tactically deploy. The minor news is that Iran is close to the capability to produce a atomic bomb which is sufficiently compact to be mountable on a missile with decent range to threaten neighbors.
b) The major news should be that Iran is receiving assistance with deployment systems which can be used with a much wider array of conventional, chemical, biological and other categories of payloads which are much easier to deploy (politically and militarily). I would be very glad if this were a continuation of the Cold War as we knew it, since that would mean that enough of the MAD thinking is in place by both sides that sufficiently tight controls are in place to prevent the nuclear option from ever being deliberately deployed.
c) Remember that the first atomic bomb makers were working in and with what would be third-world technologies and systems were we to encounter them today. Why would it be remarkable to report that a country which does not follow our economic, social or value systems is capable of producing something now which was first demonstrated 60 years ago?
d) This has been a pretty poor "covert battle" since the belligerents manage to sneak it into international headlines on an almost weekly basis without any combat engagements. Perhaps the important message is that the proxy wars which pre-dated the Cold War, and which lasted through it, remain an important feature of the real world which cannot be simplified into alarmist and misleading headlines?
e) If we're worried about unauthorised use of nuclear material, the logical measures are to prevent everyone from having nuclear material (not possible due to the low barriers to entry), or to assist anyone who wants to work with nuclear material to do so in a secure way. There are vastly many more ways to proliferate nuclear materials from the hundreds of globally distributed nuclear stockpiles and waste bins of the former Cold War combatants than from a couple of tightly guarded and highly monitored bunkers on a mountain. The nuclear haves pretending that the nuclear have nots' nuclear ambitions represent a primary terrorist threat demonstrates a remarkably strong faith in current nuclear proliferation control systems (lost sources kill more people every year than all dirty bombs and terrorist-related nuclear incidents have in history), as well as an unassailable arrogance about LDCs.
WHO has them matters greatly (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we really be so shocked? Haven't nuclear weapons been present in the middle east for over 3 decades now, in Israel [fas.org]?
Israel hasn't pledged to push it's neighbors "into the sea". As soon as Israel was created (by the United Nations, backed by American Democratic politicians), Arab neighbor states began attacking immediately, and have regularly attempted invasions since then. Iran's top politician has made a promise to "smash the Jewish" state numerous times, promising to, in fact, wipe them off the map.
The fact is that Israel has used their supply of nukes as a deterrent... indeed, no other state has attacked since they've had them. Surrounding hostile states have relied on funding and equipping terrorists to do their dirty work for them instead. But no one will send an army against Israel anymore.
Iran, on the other hand, has openly made statements to the effect that any new military technologies they develop... nukes included... will be used to eliminate Israel. They've threatened in effect that their nukes will have offensive purposes. These weapons will be in the hands of a leadership that believes they can bring about the end of days... and thus the coming of the 12th Imam... by launching a cataclysmic attack on Israel, and perhaps on her allies.
It matters who has these weapons, and who doesn't.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of these "secular" nations have religious populations, and religious traditions within government operations. Isreal was a country founded as a homeland for a religion. America's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, thanks God. Many preambles of constitutions in these western nations do the same thing. God is on American money, our courthouses, and many other places. Religious populations (and governments supporting those religious traditions) does not equal a threat to others. Even Saudi Arabia, the most deeply-Muslim state in the middle east, doesn't go around invading it's neighbors.
Religion-hostile atheist governments, however... the U.S.S.R., the People's Republic of China, North Korea... have had a history of aggression against neighbors and rivals.
It seems that the magic formula for good, stable government is a certain kind of mix; governments that respect and protect, and even to a certain extent, promote faith, without strictly governing by religious rules. Religion suffuses the laws and cultures of these states... our laws are, after all, heavily influenced by religious sources... the ten commandments, etc. But we don't strictly govern by them. The best, most free, most stable,most prosperous states in history have all been ones with religious-friendly governments, yet ones that limited the government's power. After WWII, many of the recovering European states were governed by or included strong "Christian Democratic" parties. When Europe was grounded in endless wars prior to the twentieth century, it was far more about non-democratic governments jockeying for wealth and power than about religion.
You want stability? Switzerland has been around (and remained free and productive, save for one invasion by France) since 1291. Their Constitutions... including the last revisions in 1997... have always started off with "In the name of Almighty God!"
The notion of "take religion away and everything is fine" says more about your prejudices than about reality.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously fighting a war for "God" wasn't the reason why the US went into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was opposing the US, was fueling ME tensions, was threatening Israel, was threatening the US with its oil supply, was annoying to Israel and the Saudis (et al) and many other reasons. The Americans were also force fed BS by Talabani and Co. that Saddam Hussein was developing WMDs and that the Iraqis would rise up and co-overthrow Hussein with the US. The US had also had experience of Eastern Europe, Japan, Germany, Korea assuming Western democratic forms of government upon liberation - they had no idea that Iraq would become such a quagmire of sectarian infighting.
In contrast the Pope - John Paul II had said that attacking Iraq was evil and bad and would lead to these problems.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/icons/pope-war.html
Suggesting that religious people are pro-War is BS. Whatever reason Bush gave, the US was not moved by the prospect of converting Iraqis to Christianity and using the proverbial sword in the process, neither are most religious figures pro-conflict these days (at least when looking at the largest Christian denomination).
It gets me how people who think they are intelligent (and also atheist) can be so narrow minded and clueless.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a rather less than credible conspiracy theory that a Lebanese militia is under the control of the Iranian government. Sure they'll take money and weapons from Iran. No doubt they wouldn't say no to the same from Russia, China, Japan, France, the US, etc, etc.
unless you discount repeated, almost daily, incursions by the Israeli military into Lebanese territory, repeated violations of Lebanese airspace, and Israel's occupation of the Shebba farms.
Actually it's perfectly clear that it was Israel who started the latest war between Israel and Lebanon. The real suprise is that that Israel didn't re-invade Lebanon.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:1, Insightful)
But there is an important caveat. America always catches and releases. We invade, set up a new government, and for the most part *LEAVE*.
Only when a dependable client state could be depended on, 'on release'. In South Vietnam, no client government was capable or dependable, and the US developed a long and bloody war to support them, replace each with more ineffective regimes, in the end trying to suppress the country by the long distance bomber. Haiti - America has a truly disgraceful history with regard to this place, having invaded, left a puppet in place, and come back regularly, maintaining the place in abysmal poverty, whenever the regime it wants is overthrown, or is in danger of being overthrown. And of course, Iran - the loss of the regime it wanted, that of the Shah, seems to have had as much effect on the American psyche, as on the Iranians. 25 + years later, and still it rankles.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:1, Insightful)
> it's most likely a "we have these things so back off" bargaining chip.
It's more like a "we have nukes, so you now have to let us get away with everything else we plan to do" kind of blackmail chip, much like North Korea does with chemical weapon artillery aimed at Seoul.
Iran has Big Plans for the middle east. That's why they're developing not just nukes, but long range delivery systems; short range nukes would work for defense against conventional invasion. But to really pull the blackmail thing, you have to be able to actively threaten not just your neighbors, but their allies as well. That's why the new missiles Iran is testing are supposed to be able to reach Israel, Moscow, Italy... targets that the West values more highly than any of Iran's neighbors.
You can see the difference in the nature of those targets, right? And the weighing of options Everyone Else would have to do? If Iran were really on the defensive, they'd only need enough range to nuke the army/navy coming at them from immediately adjoining areas: the gulf, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkey, Armenia, the caspian sea, Turkmenistan. (And arguably their existing conventional forces are more than enough deterrent against casual invasion by those routes.)
But if they instead want to annex parts of those nations, or interfere with them using proxies? And they have long range nukes? Then it's "we're taking this chunk of Iraq and you're letting us, or else Jerusalem, Rome, and Moscow glow in the dark!". And you know, we value any one of the latter three more than we value Iraq, so we just might cave. Historically, the "appease or face war" approach has worked for the aggressor in many cases (WW2 being the most recent and notable). The verbiage coming out of Iran for the last decade pretty much shows that Iran believes in this strategy. And, after all, the cold war did involve the USSR hold on to some vast late-WW2 land grabs that were never militarily contested due to nuclear threats...
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people resort to branding someone an anti-Semite because they point out that the state of Israel has a rather dubious history, just like any other nation state pursuing its own interests, and cannot be trusted.
(For the record, I don't trust Iran, either; it's certainly in their self-interest to pursue the bomb. The point of my original piece was to point out that it is folly to think that we should somehow trust Israel because it's more deserving.)
In case you didn't notice, that was a comparison.
Regardless, how you got modded insightful is beyond me. The only reason you want to say they cannot be compared is because it's the only way your arguments can stand up on their own.
Israel is a "form of democracy". Yes, that's right. It's a democracy that recognises Jewish people as being the citizens of Israel, no-one else. I suppose South Africa was a democracy under apartheid, then. There are various mechanisms in place that relegate non-Jews to a second class status. Hardly a model democracy, certainly not one we should idolize.
By the way, just because a state is a democracy doesn't mean it behaves the right way, or somehow is more trustworthy. The so-called first democracy is instructive. The Greeks were a bunch of blood-thirsty maniacs that regularly invaded and enslaved its neighbours. Come forward to the present day, and we have the role model of the United States that launches wars of aggression against other countries. Not much has changed, then. I suspect you'll brand me anti-American now.
The note about having "different peoples and religions" implies that Iran has a problem with other peoples and religions. You'd think they'd treat Jews really badly since it's a "hardcore extremist Islamic state", right?
Well, they treat them so badly that they're officially a protected religious minority group in the country, have a seat allocated to them in parliament, and Jews are allowed self-administration. Jewish law for divorce etc. is recognised in Iranian law. Jews sometimes suffer from anti-Semetic attacks, and Iranian Guards often protect them.
Hardly the seething hatred you seem to think Iranians have against Jews. Don't get me wrong, it's far from perfect, and there have been various incidents over the years, but if you like we can compare them to the number of incidents against Arabs in Israel and/or the occupied territories, and see how they compare.
And let me just ask, when Bush decided to invade Iraq, were you up in arms about a lunatic who was now head of the United States on the back of suspected voter fraud, and claimed he was doing it because he saw "Gog and Magog at work" in the Middle East, and that "The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled ... This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins"?
The only bias I have is I don't trust Israel any more than I trust Iran, and believe they should both be treated in the same equal-handed manner. The rule of law demands it, and is weakened without it.
Re:Mod parent Informative. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Grotesquely Ugly Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
To quote Arundhati Roy, "Why then, any nuclear power is justified in launching a preemptive strike against another."
Let me go ahead and write what I expect at least one person will respond: "But.. Iran is different. They're *evil*!" Well, that's what a lot people think about us, too, so that's a reversible argument.
As for Vietnam, they don't have an arch-enemy with 100-400 nuclear weapon-tipped missiles aimed at them.
Re:Tehran can build a nuclear bomb. (Score:1, Insightful)
The Iran hype is the same type of bullshit hype feed to us prior to the Iraq invasion.
Re:More proof (Score:5, Insightful)
Pakistan developed nukes, has nukes and also was (is?) a sponsor of terrorism[1]. So what did the USA do to Pakistan for trying to make nukes? They seem to be such good friends today.
FWIW, before the US "WMD" bullshit, Saddam started selling oil in Euros, and after the invasion Iraq went back to selling oil in US dollars.
That's probably not the only reason the US Gov didn't like Iraq, but I'm sure that was one of the top reasons.
In 2007 Iran started selling oil in Euros too, and for even more fun in 2008 they started an oil bourse that allows trading of oil in other currencies, not just the USD.
Why is this bad for the USA? The fact is if everyone uses your currency to trade, you can create money (either directly or via soft loans) and by doing so automatically tax everyone else that uses your currency.
Think about it, the USA owes China/Japan/etc trillions of USD. If on the relevant due dates, the US Fed Reserve just loans the US Gov the money to pay China/Japan/etc back, or inflation has made the USD worth less, the "pay back with interest" does become rather easy ;).
It's a bit like Zimbabwe. Mugabe (US Gov) prints money, hands some to his cronies (friends and contractors of the US Gov), and the rest of the people in Zimbabwe (the countries that hold trillions of USD) end up having to carry sacks of near worthless money around.
But when Zimbabwe prints money, the rest of the world just laughs at Zimbabwe, because the rest of the world doesn't live in Zimbabwe or use Zimbabwe's currency.
The US Gov certainly wants as many countries living in its "Zimbabwe" and using its currency. It stops becoming so easy for "US Mugabe" if more and more people stop using the US dollars and switch to something else.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5779916/Pakistani-president-Asif-Zardari-admits-creating-terrorist-groups.html [telegraph.co.uk]
Gosh! (Score:2, Insightful)
Gosh, you would think anyone with survival instinct would make some pre-emptive war preventing strikes. Sounds harsh, but then you think. If some hoodlums, we'll just call them O.G.Korea and D.J. Iran were standing outside your home with weapons threatening to fire inside would you: ,your family, neighbors and anyone else who would have encountered these hoodlums. ,life or death, choose and be quick about it.
A: Get your face shot off trying diplomacy
B: Call the U.N. cops who would threaten them with "no beer" sanctions and leave, while hoods continued posturing.
C: Blow their brains to atoms and then hunt down all their homies for some of the same, ensuring the future safety of you
D: there is no none of the above
Makes you wonder just how we survived this long putting financial interests ahead of whats important.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:2, Insightful)
"Have you spoken with anyone from Nagasaki about this question? "
They asked for what they got, and don't forget it.
The Japs butchered their way through Asia and the Pacific in spectacular fashion, negating any opinion of the survivors of the just punishment their nation and people so richly deserved.
There was no "trust" issue in the Total War of WWII. The Japanese were trying to enslave Asia. They got spanked for the trouble. Afterward, the Allied occupation of Imperial Japan was so benevolent that it shaped Japan into the modern democracy the weaboos who snivel about Hiroshima and Nagasaki so admire. The US demonstrated that it was "trustworthy" by protecting Japan from the Communist menace in the East with the "nuclear umbrella" borne of the WWII atomic weapons program.
That is an incredibly simplistic view of WWII. While the Japanese were certainly brutal in there romp across Asia and the Pacific, do you really think that the citizens of Nagasaki asked to get nuked? That is like saying that the people in the World Trade Centers asked to get killed for all of the crap that our government did.
Never, ever do citizens of a country deserved to be wiped out for the sins of politicians.
Re:The Grotesquely Ugly Truth (Score:5, Insightful)
Prior to the Iranian revolution the two countries had friendly relations.
You mean during their US-sponsored [wikipedia.org] leadership, practically a puppet government, that overthrew their democratically-elected prime minster, Mohammed Mosaddeq? Led by Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose brutal secret police (SAVAK [wikipedia.org]) were trained by the Mossad? And, again, who overthrew Mossadeq who, despite being secular, was distinctly no fan of Israel?
I don't know how you can possibly treat the Pahlevi regime as a *good* thing. They were despised by their own people so much that the people risked death to revolt en masse in conditions almost never seen in a revolution (none of the typical causes, rapid speed, immense popularity of the revolution, and the defeat of a lavishly financed and well trained domestic military apparatus). Our support of that government is a massive black eye for us in that region, and especially in Iran.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Insightful)
The mechanics of empire have changed. It used to be that you set a viceroy and imported a colonial administrating class to suck a country dry. Nowadays you set up a "friendly" government who know where their bread is buttered and throw all contracts in a country to US multinationals in which the american elite have interests. It's an empire because these client states basically lose their sovereignty in areas that might pose a threat to profits (as with the famous banana republics where planned land reforms would land you on the "regime change" list) and resources flow from them to the elite of the empire.
Re:The Grotesquely Ugly Truth (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't know how you can possibly treat the Pahlevi regime as a *good* thing. They were despised by their own people so much that the people risked death to revolt en masse in conditions almost never seen in a revolution (none of the typical causes, rapid speed, immense popularity of the revolution, and the defeat of a lavishly financed and well trained domestic military apparatus)."
So a little like the government that replaced them in recent years?
The difference is, the new government is even more brutal, has an even bigger more blindly faithful military and set of militia so that this time the citizens didn't manage a revolt.
Say what you will about that regime, but it speaks volumes that the citizens were free enough and the government was weak enough to be overthrown, in contrast to the current Iranian regime or that of say Burma, or North Korea.
I'm not defending the US' puppet regime of course, but I think sometimes it's blown out of proportion how bad it was- certainly it was no worse than what has followed, and no worse than that in many other nations.
Of course, I'm certainly not arguing with your fundamental point either- that US medalling in that way did them more harm than good in the region, in fact, with the likes of Iraq etc., one has to wonder if America ever even learnt it's lesson.