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.
Re:More proof (Score:4, Funny)
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]
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.
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: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: (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,
Re:Tehran can build a nuclear bomb. (Score:5, Informative)
You got modded up for this bullshit?
The same Israelis that have constantly warred with their neighbors
You mean the same Israelis that have warred with their neighbors after being invaded by those neighbors, right?
The same Israelis who now threaten to bomb Iran, despite Iran having been non-aggressive for more than 20 years
How is sponsoring terrorist organizations compatible with being "non-aggressive"?
The same Israelis who claim Iran hates the Jewish faith, despite Iran having a sizable number of citizens who are Jews that it has never bothered?
Yeah, except for the tens of thousands [latimes.com] of Iranian Jews that got driven out of the country during the Iranian revolution and whom now primarily reside in Israel and the United States. I guess being forced into exile is your definition of "not being bothered".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that is, shall we say, a "gross oversimplification". Briefly: the formation of modern Israel in '48 was at best a rather high-handed move by the UN, and even by the UN's standards, Israel has been a rogue state since it's 1967 land-grab. Beating up on Lebanon periodically has not done much to improve it's reputation, either. Few people have kind words to say for Hezbollah, but it's h
Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd agree with Australia and New Zealand... but are you fricking out of your mind about the others?!
America has proven to be untrustworthy repeatedly. So has Israel, war mongering bastards that they are. Being surrounded by EU countries, let me tell you that I trust them as far as I can bloody throw the lot of them.
If it's a matter of trust, frankly I trust no single country to have nukes. I want OPPOSING forces to have nukes in order to generate a stalemate. That's the only security there is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:4, Insightful)
No [wikipedia.org], indeed [wikipedia.org], certainly not [wikipedia.org] within [wikipedia.org] living memory [wikipedia.org].
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Europe, countries like Germany, Norway, France (which is aggressively secular, which I like), Switzerland, Sweden, Holland and ot
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Informative)
And I really have no idea about Spain.
Here, the church is fighting with teeth and claws to maintain their level of influence, but to me it seems that since Franco died it is declining steadily. For instance, Since 2005 Spain allows same-sex marriages and adoption of children.
Re: (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
Re: (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 l
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: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:5, Interesting)
From what I've observed, the Israeli government is secular.
Israel was founded as a "Jewish state".
Israel's claim to the land of Israel comes from their holy religious texts.
Israel does not consider you to be a Jew, and will make it difficult for you to immigrate to the Jewish state of Israel, unless you're certified Jewish by an Orthodox rabbi.
Israel is a country where a reform rabbi can't perform a marriage recoginzed by the government, only an officially recognized Orthodox rabbi can. (special rules allow secular marriage for Muslims and Christians)
Some Jews, even some non-Israeli Orthodox Jews, have to convert to Orthodoxy in order to be Jewish enough for the Jewish state.
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Only the good guys can be trusted. ( yes, this is sarcasm.. before anyone flames me )
Re: (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: (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 shape
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:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm guessing you weren't alive in 1979 when the US Embassy in Iran was overrun and everybody inside taken hostage.
For roughly 400 days they Iranians held those hostages. Why? Nobody remembers why, but they did it - and if nobody remembers why, it must not have been a very memorable reason (if any.)
Well, Wikipedia "remembers" [wikipedia.org].
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Informative)
For roughly 400 days they Iranians held those hostages. Why? Nobody remembers why, but they did it - and if nobody remembers why, it must not have been a very memorable reason (if any.)
Yeah, something about a military coup d'etat organized by the United States that overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister. Obviously, not very memorable.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:4, Informative)
The why goes back to 1953 and an event codenamed "Operation Ajax" which involved a CIA backed coup to remove Iran's democratic government and install a (US friendly) dictator. This dictator was ousted, by popular revolution, in 1979. The US Embassy was an obvious target given both the initial coup and the continued CIA connections to SAVAK.
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be hard to say at what date Israel acquired nuclear and/or atomic weapons - but they certainly had them before 1970. Most certainly. I'll put my money on about 1961, possibly as late as 1963. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that they had a bomb before 1960. If you google hard enough, you can find floor plans for Israel's nuclear processing plants and research labs. Google a little more, and you might find the hints needed to find educated estimates regarding their arsenal. The arsenal
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Interesting)
Terrorism is desperation. The ONLY way to stop determined terrorism is to hear the claims of the terrorists and negotiate. If someone blows the fuck out of himself and a bunch of other people, it might be a good idea to hear what they're mad about. Do it covertly if you want, so that it doesn't seem you negotiate with them, but do it.
Anyway, a nuke would vanish forever any chance that a terrorist has of further advancing their cause. And before you start saying that their cause is already lost, please consider Israel. It was made out of terrorism - Menachem Begin & Co. - see the King David Hotel bombing, and many others. Conclusion? They got a country and nukes. How about that?
Re:Mod parent Informative. (Score:4, Interesting)
"A lot of talk about "terrorism" is really a discussion designed to get U.S. taxpayers to pay for Israel's security."
Exactly. For some insight, people should research Israel's economy. Basically, they don't have one. They subsist primarily on the inflow of funds from around the world. The US government is probably the single largest source of funds, but money comes from everywhere. If the donations dried up, Israel would be hurting.
And, that may well happen soon if the recession isn't cured.
Re:Mod parent Informative. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/israel/israel_economy.html [theodora.com]
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$200.7 billion (2008 est.)
$193.2 billion (2007)
$183.3 billion (2006)
note: data are in 2008 US dollars
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/world/middleeast/17israel.html [nytimes.com]
Israel to Get $30 Billion in Military Aid From U.S.
This is a better breakdown, year by year:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/114bill.html [ifamericansknew.org]
This estimate of total U.S. direct aid to Israel updates the estimate given in the July 2006 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It is an estimate because arriving at an exact figure is not possible, since parts of U.S. aid to Israel are a) buried in the budgets of various U.S. agencies, mostly that of the Defense Department (DOD), or b) in a form not easily quantifiable, such as the early disbursement of aid, giving Israel a direct benefit in interest income and the U.S. Treasury a corresponding loss. Given these caveats, our current estimate of cumulative total direct aid to Israel is $113.8554 billion.
It must be emphasized that this analysis is a conservative, defensible accounting of U.S. direct aid to Israel, NOT of Israel's cost to the U.S. or the American taxpayer, nor of the benefits to Israel of U.S. aid.
One or two percent of GDP? Hmmmmm - how many nations are donating that much to MY country? I can't recall any headlines proclaiming the generosity of foreign nations giving aid to the United States.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Informative)
"The pre-1948 violence was mutual."
I really don't know how you can draw that conclusion. No Israeli villages were massacred, no Israeli village was simply wiped from the map, and it's name forgotten. No Israeli prisoners or bodies were dragged through the streets, for people to gawk at, spit at, and curse.
"The bombings were unfortunate, however, the state of Israel later disclaimed any responsibility for acts of terrorism and, AFAIK, did not support any of them."
What you are actually pointing out is, Israel won the propaganda war. Former terrorists were elected to head Israel's government, and others were held up as heros. Israel can no more disclaim responsibility for the terrorism of it's activists than the US can "disclaim" the anti-slavery activists before the Civil War.
I won't defend Iran's funding of Hamas, or Iran's denial of the holocaust - but I can't see that it is any worse than the activities of Zionists prior to 1950. There simply aren't any good guys in the conflict. Only fools believe either side to be innocent, or good.
Re: (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: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: (Score:2)
And now... just for fun ... make a list of middle eastern countries that started a war recently and go see where the countries you mention are in the list.
Re: (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.
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: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: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: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: (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 violati
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As does both Lebanon's Prime Minister, and President, so unless you're claiming that they're representing Hezbollah, and not Lebanon, that's false.
Since both the Prime Minister and the President of Lebanon have stated Lebanon has a claim to the area, the first part of the statement is completely incorrect. And as for Syria being totally silent, that's crap. They've not been "totally silent", they've be
Israel more trustworthy than Iran? (Score:5, Informative)
"Israel deserves more trust than Iran? Are you serious?"
I don't know about him, but I am, absolutely.
"Iran has not, in recent military history, conducted a single war of aggression against its neighbours
No, they've been smart enough to let terrorist proxy groups like Hezbollah do it for them, groups funded, trained, and equipped by Iran. And taking over an embassy is considered an act of war. And I was in the area when they unilaterally tried to cut off traffic in the Persian Gulf [wikipedia.org], and one of their mines almost sank the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts. No, no aggression against other states there.
For all of its history, most of Israel's neighbors have denied its right to exist, and sworn to push them into the sea. They've attacked them literally since the day the Jewish state was founded. After several failed invasions, Jordan and Egypt now have peace treaties with Israel that recognize her right to exist. There's been no wars with those countries since then. Syria, however, tired of losing to Israel in conventional warfare, conquered Lebanon and made it a vassal state... which it has stayed, from one degree to another ever since... and continues to launch attacks on Israel from that territory, using its terrorist proxies to do the dirty work. Want to keep Israel out of Lebanon? Keep Syria out of Lebanon.
Israel, on the other hand, have no such doctrine, and history demonstrates they have adopted a first strike policy.
Considering that in every major war, Israel was invaded by surrounding states, you honestly think this is bad? Are you going to seriously make the argument that taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear facilities (which were going to produce weapons-grade material) wasn't a smart thing to do?
Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA - not flawlessly, and there are problems, but they have been co-operating.
Yeah, they've been cooperating so closely that they built a second uranium enrichment facility [bloomberg.com] that stayed secret until now.
Iran does not deny the holocaust took place
Wow
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:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Informative)
Umm, no.
The USA used the Bomb to avoid killing millions of people. Instead, we killed a couple hundred thousand between the two Bombs (we killed more people bombing Tokyo than both Bombs killed), and saved a few million of our own people (sorry, in the calculus of war, casualties on your side count for more than casualties on the other side).
As well as saving the millions of Japanese that would have been killed if we'd invaded the Home Islands. Not, I think, that we had nearly as much interest in saving Japanese civilians as in saving the lives of the American soldiers who would've died in an invasion.
Re:Not the first middle east nuke (Score:5, Interesting)
That's actually not true. A british liberal paper went through the Japanese records and found that:
a) Japanese terms for surrender negotiated through the Russians would have basically given them China. Japan made no territorial concessions.
b) Russia had no navy to get troops onto Japan. Part of the reason for Russian success on the Continent against Japan was because Japan was busy moving the Imperial Army back to Japan to prepare to fend off an American invasion. Unlike the battered air force and virtually destroyed navy, the Japanese Army was a million man strong and essentially intact.
c) Americans had underestimated the strength of Japan during the planning of Olympic. And, unlike the Germans, the Japanese did't fall for any American deception and knew exactly where the Americans were to land.
d) The Emperor was actually a prime mover in the war and he would rather take the whole island down with him than give up the throne. It was -only- because of the atomic bombings that he realized that the Americans could literally kill everyone in Japan without even a shot fired back.
e) The Emperor never actually surrendered in his speech to the Japanese people. Go read it.
The great tragedy of the atomic bombing was that, really, the emperor was not deposed and tried as a war criminal. But McArthur liked him and to some extent Americans read Japanese aggression as a mishandling of a trade dispute. If you put in free trade, the story goes, Japan could get raw materials and export, and thus, would not need an empire.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The scientists though that, and they were wrong. The scientists had basically no clue as to the psychology and politics at play in the Japanese Empire. This is not surprising, someone like the scientists who came from a liberal, humane religious or secular background would not be able to understand why the Empire kept at war for so long. Had they been in charge of Japan, they likely would have surrendered a year or more earlier, when any rational person would have decided Japan had no hope of winning the wa
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: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.
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.
Internet access (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that just proof that they have Internet access?
Re: (Score:2)
Good point, but flawed.
Building a nuke from say... wikipedia entries is kinda like writing the Linux kernal from scratch by reading man pages
Re:Internet access (Score:5, Informative)
Right, because nukes are so impossibly hard to build that a layman, say a truck driver, couldn't possibly figure out how gen 1 atomic bombs were constructed.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/15/081215fa_fact_samuels
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if they were trying to make a Teller-Ullam design H-bomb, that would be far more interesting.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't that just proof that they have Internet access?
No. It proves they don't If they did have internet access, you know their geeks would be surfing porn and playing WoW instead of building bombs.
Geeze.
Yeah yeah, everyone has that data (Score:5, Funny)
Wiki nukes - The nuke building resource that anyone can edit.
Kim_Jong_il (Reverted edits by Ali Khamenei (talk) to last version by Sadr-e-Mumlikat)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you seriously believe intelligence work is the same as what you see in Mission Impossible?
Re: (Score:2)
How did you get from my post that I think intelligence work is like what I see in Mission Impossible?
I have not even SEEN mission impossible.
I did read "See No Evil" written by Robert Baer though. Good read.
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: (Score:2, Troll)
How reliable? Hard to say. There have been no further attacks since 9/11. The same people who cry about the poor iraqies are the ones who cried about the poor kurds when they were gassed and right now people who protest Iraq are demanding the worlds intercedes in Darfur and ask why the world allowed rwanda to happen.
Remember, that everyone who reports on these issues has an agenda and that includes the intelligence agencies.
And one of their agenda's is that it is NOT in their intrests to tell everyone wha
Re: (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.
Le
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read See No Evil? Good book that.
I did not agree or disagree with either side, note my abundant use of "apparently" etc.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Now they can't use harsh interrogation methods, and are threatened with prosecution for past practices. I don't blame them for failures; I blame Congress.
Silly me, I thought there were actual scientific studies showing that those methods don't work.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think its uncommon for any government, especially democratic ones, to "build a case for war" against "the enemy".
If "the enemy" thinks that the will of the people is behind war, then the threat is that much more real, and real negotiations can begin.
The difference most former presidents (and the current president) with the prior administration, was that Bush and company actually went ahead and waged war. The vast majority of the time, its just rhetoric. Take the entire cold war for example.
Anyone else consider it ironic (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has a very long history of keeping their word on International matters. Let's not also forget their glowing history with their prisoners (civilians) and that whole pesky voting fraud thing.
Whether they like it, somethings about to give based on the assorted leaks from the Intelligence communities. If the UN doesn't do something quickly, those pesky Jews that Iran hates so much may help "slow" their nuclear goals.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
So does everybody (Score:2)
Obtaining raw materials is the problem.
There was a project in the US, the name of which I forget (could someone furnish us with a link?), in which a group of scientists with no background in nuclear weapon design and no access to classified information were asked to design a nuclear weapon. They then had experts with access to nuc
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
could someone furnish us with a link?
The Nth Country Experiment [wikipedia.org] in the mid-1960s was three people, one of whom left fairly early, all physics post-docs but none with weapons experience. None were given access to classified information. The conclusions were redacted when the original report was declassified, but most experts seem to believe that the group produced a workable design for an implosion-type device.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
hose 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.
Gas centrifuge technology, which has been available since the '80's, gets around most of this problem. It was predicted at the time that it would be hugely proliferating because it would make uranium enrichment relatively cheap and easy. Iran's programme is just proof of this.
As other posters here have pointed out, making a uranium bomb is incre
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: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.
And Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction (Score:2)
If you RTFA you'll see that it's highly qualified to the effect that "we really don't have good intelligence."
I remember watching Colin Powell at the UN showing aerial slides that I couldn't figure out that he said were mobile chemical weapons plants.
I remember thinking to myself, "Well I think this WMD business is bullshit, but if the whole Bush Administration is going to put themselves on the line over it, then maybe there's something to it. If they're lying, Bush will lose the next election."
Anyone who u
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.
Jerusalem?? (Score:3, Informative)
What's that bit about Jerusalem? Maybe Israel changed its capital to a city that is a point of discord with Palestine, without anyone but the poster noticing :)
Re: (Score:2)
for anyone who has taken enough physics and chemistry classes, or can read wikipedia, accessing the knowledge about how a nuclear weapon works is not any great feat. The hard part was accomplished by thousands of physicists and chemists in the late 30s and early 40s.
The HARD part as you mentioned is building the equipment required to gain the raw materials. Given how tyrannies such as Iran work, it's not manpower that is the problem, so they have access to thousands of people to do the work - the problem is
Re:Why shouldnt Iran have a Abomb in the first pla (Score:2)
It's because Eisenhower fired Patton.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The only way to use the A-bomb is to kill civilans en masse. Theres no military use of an A-bomb without 99% civil casualties.
That is not even close to being true, the B6Mod10 nuclear bomb [wikipedia.org] has had the dial a yield [wikipedia.org] feature since the 1960's alowing the yeilds to be set to 0.3, 5, 10 or 80 Kt and the Mod11 is designed for bunker busting. Variants of the W54 [wikipedia.org] range from 10 tons (note not KiloTons) to 1KT. All of these have a sufficiently low yield to allow a carefully planed and executed Nuclear event to occur without excessive civilian casualties, unless you count civilian nuclear centrifuge technicians. Hell we could probably drop