Analysis: Iran's Nuclear Program Has Been an Astronomical Waste 409
Lasrick writes: Business Insider's Armin Rosen uses a fuel-cost calculator from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to show that Iran's nuclear program has been "astronomically costly" for the country. Rosen uses calculations from this tool to hypothesize that what Iran "interprets as the country's 'rights' under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty is a diplomatic victory that justifies the outrageous expense of the nuclear program." Great data crunching.
Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Priceless (Score:3, Interesting)
And they would do it again.
Self centered morons (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually the problem with Iran has nothing to do with the US. Iran and similar countries are thoroughly dysfunctional without needing any reference to the US, see Syria.
All utter failures of authoritarian messes and delusions need to declare normal countries their enemy, otherwise their captive populations would demand a system like ours that wasn't Kafka's worst nightmare.
In short, despite your ego, it's not about (Score:2)
you
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the problem with Iran has nothing to do with the US.
Bull. Fucking. Shit. [wikipedia.org]
Iran was getting its shit together and we took a gigantic shit on it on purpose, to prevent that from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The hard-line Islamic movement was already well underway.
It was petering out in both Iran and Iraq before we fueled Saddam to deal with the Shah, and then went into Iraq and deliberately separated peacefully coexisting Sunnis and Shiites into segregated neighborhoods. The USA is behind the success of the hard-line Islamic movement, which probably would be limping and gasping now if not for our deliberate actions to support it.
not in your lifetime (Score:2)
old stuff is old
Re: (Score:2)
Yes,
"In 1951, Mohammad Mossaddegh was appointed Prime Minister and committed to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (AIOC). Under the leadership of Mossaddegh's democratically elected nationalist movement, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry – thus shutting out the immensely profitable AIOC, which was a pillar of Britain's economy and provided it political clout in the region ... Shortly prior to the 1952 preside
Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel (Score:5, Insightful)
You're forgetting that everyone in the region hates Iran... except syria... and syria is falling apart.
Iran economy is in shambles, they have no friends that are standing, and their activities are agitating the saudis, egyptians, Jordians, etc...
Iran is fucked. Be Kasparov for second. War game this out 10 moves in advance.
You'll see it is already checkmate on Iran.
If they continue with their nuke program... best case... the rest of the middle east which mostly hates them will get nukes about five minutes later... at which point what has Iran accomplished?
The US is not going to nuke Iran... but the saudis might... the egyptians might. The jordanians might.
The Iranians have overdosed on their "great satan" propaganda. They've destroyed themselves. For nothing.
Imagine a different world. A world where Iran wasn't going out of its way to be a dick head. Think of how wealthy they would be? They're a generally well educated and hard working country for the region. They could be an industrial power in the middle east. The Germany or Japan of the region. And look at what they are instead? A minor oil exporter and pistachio nut exporter... which the US is undercutting in both cases by producing lots of oil and lots of pistachios.
And what did they get in return for sacrificing all of that? Nothing. Power? None. Respect? None. Leverage? None. Diplomatic support? None.
They sacrificed everything for nothing.
Go through the world and show me how many countries have prospered in dicking with the US?
Is that Zero?... so... why do it? Besides fetal lead poisoning leading to chemically induced retardation... I'm at a loss as to what they think they're doing.
Yes yes... history... colonialism... so what? What relevance does that have on 2015? Oh that's right... none. The US was at war with the British Empire for about fifty years. Then the British stopped trying to reconquer us and we became buddies.
The Iranians should be trying to make friends with the US. It would mean an end to sanctions. It would mean military security. It would mean trade opportunities. Technology sharing...
They'd very rapidly become a great power.
But they've got such a raging hate boner that they can't see they're destroying themselves. FOR NOTHING.
Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel (Score:4, Interesting)
You're assuming they're thinking rationally. They're not. It's not a well-calculated strategy, it's all about Islam.
Re: (Score:2)
It is all about power, and holding on to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. I am not assuming they're thinking rationally. To the contrary, I just pointed out they were thinking IRRATIONALLY. I pointed out that their actions harm their country in every measurable way while accomplishing nothing for it including their various religious objectives.
They're trading wealth, power, and security... for NOTHING.
that was my argument. How you got out of that the belief that I thought they were thinking rationally is beyond me.
Re:Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Pricel (Score:5, Interesting)
"it's all about Islam."
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner. You wins the internet. I wish the rest of the world would fucking get it. You can't rationalize radical religious convictions.
Well, until you realize that those religious lines are conveniently following ethnic lines that have existed much longer than islam. The main driver in the middle east is sunni-shia politics which equates to arab-persian politics. The west is just an issue to be dealt with after the shia issue has been dealt with ti the IS.
Re: (Score:2)
So obviously making that dispute go nuclear couldn't possibly go wrong.
Think.
If your objective is to survive an indefinite enmity than you either need to strategically fatally cripple or destroy that rival or keep the conflict to a sustainable low burn. Or as the US did during the cold war... Both. During the Cold War we kept hostilities between the US and USSR manageable while at the same time undermining them strategically until through our actions and obvious flaws in their economic and political system
Re: (Score:3)
depends on how many powers are involved and whether they're being sneaky about it and how the bomb is made and who made it.
The question gets technical very quickly.
The simple answer is that who does it should be somewhat obvious from the geopolitics because you can look at who would benefit. Beyond that, you can examine the bomb residue to try and figure out who made it.
There is a big difference between US atomic bombs, Russian atomic bombs, etc.
Everything from how complete the detonation was to the ratios
Re: Cost of making the USA piss their pants: Price (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't understand there is a strategy.
Quite clearly the US administration doesn't either.
You're so fixated on the details that you don't see the wider picture.
I see that the terrorists are winning. Or is that all part of the masterplan when Iraq was invaded 12 years and a trillion dollars ago?
First... shut up... just for the sake of argument.
That's a good strategy. Let me know how that works out,
Second, actually back out from the situation and see it in the context of the proceeding 30 years... yes that exceeds the duration of the cold war to that point but understanding why the US got into the cold war is related to the build up to WW2.
I have, and it's still the most massive, poorly thought-out blunder in US military history, even bigger than Vietnam.
Third, grasp that the US whatever you might think of the US... the US saw itself at that point in time as "arsenal of freedom"... as the guardian and champion of the west.
No it didn't. The administration previous to Idiot & co dealt with the exact same problem yet had a whole lot more success.
Fourth, every war that isn't just reacting to an attack like Afghanistan happens according to a grander strategy.
And some of those are bad s
Re: (Score:3)
Vietnam we left because internal political problems not because we lost any battles... same thing in Afghanistan.
And regardless... who said anything about fighting the Russians head to head?
No no... we're going to bleed them. We're just going to sit there and do a million little things that cripple them a little more every day.
The life of Russia will be one of disappointment and hardship. The Russians should love it.
We can keep that up indefinitely. And all these countries they're dicking with... easy when
Re: (Score:3)
Its more complicated than that. And really citing what happened way back when is not infinitely relevant. The US was at war with the British Empire for a time. They burned our white house to the ground in the war of 1812 for example...
Wise nations reassess every so often. We were once enemies of the Chinese. During the Korean war we slaughtered chinese soldiers like ants. I forget the name of the battle but we retreated into some mountains dragging our artillery up the mountain with us... and the chinese sw
Re: (Score:3)
" Something I think Iran won't be doing unless they want to deal with every country in the region."
Which is something we will never have to deal with because the worlds greatest spy network (Israel) will assure that all expenditures made toward nuclear proliferation are wasted at the most optimum timeline.
If that had or will happen, chances are the world won't ever know.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your affect.
Nope! (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there any other way for a Middle Eastern country to earn our respect, other than to be able to nuke us?
(And no, they don't need a rocket delivery mechanism -- it can be shipped pre-emptively to the country most likely to meddle with them.)
Re:Nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there any other way for a Middle Eastern country to earn our respect, other than to be able to nuke us?
Ironically, Iran is the Middle Country most likely to deserve our respect for things other than having nuclear capabilities. When you look beyond the demented ravings of some of their past leaders, they are on a significantly higher level than their neighbours in many respects. As far as I now, they do actually have a somewhat functional democracy, a rather good education system etc. I have always felt they have deserved better than the press they have tended to get since Khomeiny toppled the puppet shah; they are not saints, by any means, but neither are they devils incarnate. They could be our friends in the longer term, unlike for example IS.
Really? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Horse shit.
Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.
It doesn't matter in the slightest what Iran was (Score:2)
in 1953.
That said, Barry Rubin was a disappointment to me. He spent the last few years of his life inciting the tea party tards on PJ Media throwing mad tantrums over Obama, afraid that anyone who doesn't seem 100% deferential must be working for Satan himself and bringing the final Holocaust.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Horse shit.
Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.
The "Horse shit" prefix wasn't needed, at least some of us could identify the content of your post without it.
The government of Iran had been overthrown by the Prime Minister who faked an election, dissolved parliament, and was ruling by decree while ignoring the Shah as constitutional monarch. (You know, the traditional head of government being responsible to head of state?) Not even Stalin faked elections as brazenly as the Iranian PM. The Shah fled for his own safety. The US and UK helped restore the
Re: (Score:2)
You are, as always, a bloody liar.
UK has installed that particular shah in first place. In 1941 to be precise.
Re: (Score:2)
That is 100% false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://partners.nytimes.com/li [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly the same siren call to be nice to our enemies is being heard again, on the core assumption that their priorities and values are essentially similar to our own. Once you remove that assumption - which is certainly NOT evidenced by the history of Islam on which Iran seeks to model its behaviour - you are forced to conclude they are a very dangerous country.
But the assumption seems to hold up. Look at the history of Christianity. Crusades in the middle east, murdering Muslims, raking in massive wealth in the process. Was that the middle ages or the last few decades?
So actually, the goals of America seem to be pretty similar to what you (wrongly) suppose the goals of Iran are. Your mistake is assuming they think the same way you do.
Khomeni in 1942 argued: 'Islamâ(TM)s jihad is a struggle against idolatry, sexual deviation, plunder, repression, and cruelty. The war waged by [non-Islamic] conquerors, however, aims at promoting lust and animal pleasures. They care not if whole countries are wiped out and many families left homeless. But those who study jihad will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. All the countries conquered by Islam or to be conquered in the future will be marked for everlasting salvation. For they shall live under [Godâ(TM)s law].... Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless.'1
Sounds a lot like the rhetoric from US politicians about bringing democracy and freedom to the whole world. Read it again. "A strug
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Re:Nope! (Score:5, Insightful)
This.
I've also always wondered why the U.S. put all its money on the Arab countries instead of Iran. Iran at least has basic level of Democracy with presidential elections. Irans youth is, in general, more progressive and open minded that in most other islamic countries.
The U.S. big ally and arch-enemy of Iran, Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a practically an absolutist monarchy practicing extremely conservative interpretation of Sharia law. It's also interesting to point out that many high-profile terrorists, such as Osama bin Ladin, were Saudi Arabians. I wouldn't be surprised if elements in Saudi Arabia's government secretly support or at the very least condone IS in Syria and Iraq. They seem pretty single-minded about supporting Sunni Islam against everything Shia.
Re:Nope! (Score:5, Interesting)
I was talking to a colleague following the terrorist attacks last week in France, Tunisia and Kuwait. His wife was talking about going on holiday somewhere and he said "fine, as long as it's not a Muslim country". We then progressed on to how it was sad that the region that was the cradle of civilisation is now well behind the curve.
I also added that Iran is probably one of the safer Muslim countries to visit nowadays, which is ironic to say the least. He's still not convinced about going to Tehran for his summer holidays though!
Re:Nope! (Score:5, Informative)
This. I've also always wondered why the U.S. put all its money on the Arab countries instead of Iran. Iran at least has basic level of Democracy with presidential elections. Irans youth is, in general, more progressive and open minded that in most other islamic countries. The U.S. big ally and arch-enemy of Iran, Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is a practically an absolutist monarchy practicing extremely conservative interpretation of Sharia law. It's also interesting to point out that many high-profile terrorists, such as Osama bin Ladin, were Saudi Arabians. I wouldn't be surprised if elements in Saudi Arabia's government secretly support or at the very least condone IS in Syria and Iraq. They seem pretty single-minded about supporting Sunni Islam against everything Shia.
Basically significant segments of the Iranian government and a good number of the population (not necessarily a majority, but enough to have influence) have anti-Americanism as their raison d'être. Khomeini hated America for supporting the Shah and he passed that hatred down to his disciples. His disciples continue to be the true powers in Iran. These people have merged religion with anti-Americanism so to them, not being anti-American is like rejecting Islam. It will probably be decades before enough time has passed for mullahs to come into power in Iran who have no personal animosity towards America. Consider too that among people old enough to remember the Iran hostage situation that there is some severe hatred towards Iran so that makes it difficult for the US to make friends with Iran as portions of US power (some people in Congress and various government agencies) will never trust them because of that.
To be honest, the US would probably like to be friends with Iran, but the mullahs can't and won't allow it. The US really would be better off backing the Shiites like Iran as they are somewhat less troublesome to deal with than the Sunnis, but they can't publicly say that because the Sunnis have the numbers. Numbers of followers alone make it in the US's best interests to try to deal with Sunni governments, many of which hate the US and do things that support terrorists indirectly if not directly. The Saudi government has been pretty good friends with the USA, but unfortunately they support a version of Islam that over time has become more and more intolerant of non-Muslims and is directly or indirectly responsible for groups like ISIS and Al Queda. The Saudi rulers need US support to stay in power and the US needs them lest Saudi Arabi turn into an even bigger headache for the US than Iran.
The US governments under George W. Bush and Barack Obama have had unrealistic expectations of Middle Eastern democracy. The idea was that if given the opportunity to freely elect their leaders that they would be so grateful to the USA that they'd become our best friends. Instead it has become apparent to me that if given a free choice, the majority of Muslim voters will willingly vote to take away their own rights under oppressive religious governments and those that hate the US will come out of the shadows and work to attack the US. The only country that went through the Arab Spring and maybe came out on the better end was Egypt and they had to beg the military to overthrow the legally elected government.
Re: (Score:2)
Shrinking rapidly since the majority of the population is very young.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically significant segments of the Iranian government and a good number of the population (not necessarily a majority, but enough to have influence) have anti-Americanism as their raison d'Ãtre
Correct, but as you mention yourself, the arab countries have the same problem. Perhaps not so much with the leaders, but I would guess that a majority of the population, likely more than in Iran, are Anti-American.
The Saudi government has been pretty good friends with the USA
I can't shake the feeling that behind closed doors, most arab leaders are also very condescending of the US and mainly regard it as a source of military technology and aid dollars. For example, Pakistan, a country which is perhaps 80% anti-american and whose secret service plays a game of duplici
Re: (Score:3)
It is basically Saudi money that funds extremist preachers in places like the UK.
In a war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, I know who I'd want to win.
Re: (Score:2)
Follow the Saudi money into the pockets of key US political figures for decades and you have the answer.
On a higher level than their neighbors (Score:2)
only because they fight their wars IN their neighbors borders. See Lebanon and Syria. Also note that they manage to not have a civil war against another sect, see Syria.
Ok, they're also not as culturally backward as Egypt or some of their neighbors, unless you count their leadership.
Re: (Score:2)
Functional democracy? If by that you mean a Theocracy run by a bunch of power mad mullahs, then yes. I wonder if they've sent back Hebollah's thugs they imported the last time a few years back their people were stupid enough to believe they had functional democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A functional democracy?
Are you fucking kidding?
A democracy requires a free and open market of ideas. Do you really believe such a market exists in Iran?
Iranian Chain Murders [wikipedia.org]
Internet Censorship in Iran [wikipedia.org]
Blogger jailed for "propaganda against the state" [cbsnews.com]
It doesn't take much of a Google search [google.com] to find examples of suppression of free speech in Iran.
I'm sure the Iranian regime has deserved "better press [than] they have tended to get since Khomeiny toppled the puppet shah." "Better press" would have made the pure e
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to be a lot like the U.S.-Cuba situation from my perspective, with the glaring exception being repression of religious minorities. Iran needs to have greater compassion for all its people with a goal of coexisting and prospering to succeed. If they get that far, maybe the exiles can allow relationships to normalize rather than saying we are best off just nuking the region and trying to start over in a few thousand years.
Re: (Score:3)
You confuse respect for high priority to undermine.
Look at the Russians... they have the second largest nuclear stockpile in the world.
Notice how we don't especially respect them do we? And are they profiting from their nukes?
Nope. They're suffering. They have an economy half the size of Italy.
And lets point out furthermore that the US does NOT need to invade a country to bring it down.
Look at this thing with ISIS... you see what that is doing to the region right? All of Iran's enemies are militarizing and
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Respect has to be earned (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, you start by not meddling in their politics and overthrowing their leaders, as the US did to Iran.
http://www.history.com/this-da... [history.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The coup was a counter-coup. The Iranian PM was the one that overthrew the government, faked an election, dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and caused the Shah to flee.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even close to true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://partners.nytimes.com/li... [nytimes.com]
http://www.theguardian.com/wor... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The coup was a counter-coup. The Iranian PM was the one that overthrew the government, faked an election, dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and caused the Shah to flee.
Bollocks. The Iranian PM (and democratically elected government) were going to nationalise the oil industry, and thus pissed off the British and Americans who organised the coup to place the Shah in charge.
Iran is not trying to save money (Score:4, Insightful)
Iranians are not trying to make or even save money.
They are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Economists need not apply...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fresh brew of Kool-Aid from American propaganda machine?
Keep on drinking and keep smiling. Everything you are told is true. Baaa....
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess America's only true experts in nuclear weapons production - the scientists at LLNL and LANL - must have been wrong then when they analyzed the Iranian nuclear deal and concluded it would eliminate all paths to a nuclear weapon. Thank's Tablizer, you have enlightened me with your knowledge of nuclear weapons.
Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score:4, Insightful)
It is true. And I not only think they will try to skirt the deal, I 100% trust that they will attempt something devious. And that's why there are verification measures in place in addition to the implicit understanding that the deal will be renewed after it expires. The deal all but ensures Iran will not have a nuke. Any other pathway (including bombardment) would lead to Iran probably having a nuke. You really think you can do better than professional scientists, diplomats, and disarmament experts?
> Remember, the Koran promotes lying to infidels to gain their trust before back-stabbing them.
This has nothing to do with religion. Every country will turn its back on a deal if it thinks it can benefit from doing so. Again, this changes nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation.
And they don't need to, anyway. Just monitor their supply chain of nuclear materials. That's what the current deal does.
If you think about it, a military base is a stupid place to build a bomb anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that
Oh, complete BS. Several of the treaties between USA and USSR at the height of the cold war opened facilities for inspection, for example START I and INF.
Re: (Score:2)
It's insane to think Iran would open up its military facilities for inspection. No country has ever willingly done that except those that have surrendered unconditionally after defeat in war (such as Imperial Japan). It would essentially mean Iran gives up its right to exist as an independent sovereign nation. . . .
. . . Those insisting that Iran open up its military sites are insisting on something they know Iran won't do so as to derail the deal. Their intentions are not sincere.
Do tell.
U.S. Missile Base Braces for Soviet Inspectors [latimes.com]
SOVIET INF MONITORS COMPLETE FIRST U.S. INSPECTIONS [washingtonpost.com]
Have a great day Comrade.
Re:Iran is not trying to save money (Score:5, Insightful)
> They are trying to build a nuclear weapon
Prove it.
So far everyone who has tried to prove this claim - including the CIA and Mossad - has come up short.
There's simply no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon. At most, they might be retaining the ability to develop a nuclear weapon in the future should the need arise.
Don't get me wrong. The mullahs are no saints. The Iranian regime is tyrannical and brutal. But realize that the propaganda machine is using the WMD line to trance you into gearing up for war, just like they did for Iraq. And you know the scary part? Even after you said you'd never be fooled again, IT'S WORKING.
Re: (Score:2)
You're sure you're not trying to hard to be reasonable and balanced?
The Iranian regime does not look all that tyrannical to me if you compare to the neighborhood, but then I also think they never had a nuclear weapons program, so that may be a bit too much to swallow for reasonable people, especially if you take in account the rough neighborhood they're in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Iran has enough centrifuges to make a nuclear bomb but not enough centrifuges to make nuclear fuel. [politifact.com] Iran has also been caught making uranium purer than required for energy purposes. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
if you don't think iran is building a nuclear weapon you have reached a level of naive idiocy beyond contempt
i don't care if you think it is ok for them to build one, or not ok. it doesn't matter if you think they deserve a nuclear weapon or not
but they obviously are
if you think they aren't you are a ridiculous gullible fool and all i can do is wonder what other ignorant propaganda you blindly believe in laughable contrast to basic reality
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then why did they enrich uranium to 20%? That is way more than you require for nuclear fuel. Yes it is required for making certain medical isotopes (mostly Tc-99m), but guess what the number of facilities for making these medical isotopes in the *ENTIRE* world can be counted on your hands. Further more they are looking to shift production to either low enriched unranium or directly from the bombardment of Tc-100 with protons from an accelerator. There are also programs to switch production of other medical
Re: (Score:2)
Look at what has been happening to Syria, which failed to obtain nukes and didn't dare to use its large cache of chemical WMD at the critical time. They are now being dismantled to make room for the creation of a Greater Zion, one that would span from the Nile to the rivers of Tiger and Euphrates, as shown on the 10 agorot coin.
Since when is ISIS zionist? Because they are pretty much the only one's dismantling other states. Hell, Israel has a hard enough time just keeping the Palestinians in check.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is ISIS zionist?
As asinine conspiracy theories go, it does have the benefit of novelty.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just look at North Korea, how they are still standing! DPRK wouldn't be around today lest for those 7-9 primitive nukes they hold."
There was a day before they had nukes. What protected them then?
I submit that being nestled right next to China is far more protection.
"Look at what happened to Libya and Iraq, which failed to obtain nukes and the amero-zionist cabal violently dismantled them"
Libya fell apart without much real help from us.
Iraq was invaded on the premise that they had or were attempting to obt
What price is Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
They still hear the "Axis of Evil" speech, and would rather be North Korea than Iraq today.
Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Their strong desire for a deterrent weapon is understandable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
not to mention a nuclear-armed Israel...whose government continues to lurch disturbingly to the right
Re: (Score:2)
They still hear the "Axis of Evil" speech, and would rather be North Korea than Iraq today.
If the choices are between getting torn up in what is almost a civil war because you are so insecure with your own power you can't even help arm the only groups that have been somewhat effective at stopping an armed group trying to destroy you or being on the verge of a massive famine I would just give up at that point.
Stuxnet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Stuxnet (Score:5, Informative)
Now for the most interesting bit: successors of Stuxnet, stealthier than their ancestor, may still be lurking in some parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure, says my well-informed source @Siemens.
Re: (Score:2)
The real legacy of Struxnet is to have opened the way of a cyber cold war. It's now acceptable to attack other country's infrastructure with cyber weapons. It's like sending your spies to blow up their bridges. Everyone knows who did it, but can't bring them to justice, so will just retaliate in kind.
Muon detector (Score:2, Interesting)
Whenever a fission reactor operates, it produces neutrinos. In fact, high grade fissile material can produce it too. Neutrinos are also impractical to shield against. It has been known and proposed for some time that if we built a network of neutrino detectors for about $10 billion we would be able to monitor and prevent anyone including ourselves from building nukes, anywhere. Yeah ourselves too, so gee I wonder why nobody is funding it.
If you dont believe me just google these three words: neutrinos fissio
Re:Neutrino detector (Score:2)
Sorry the subject of parent says muon detector .. I meant neutrinos.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so gee I wonder why nobody is funding it
It's not funded because — despite what the group-think malcontents around here have been trained to believe
Re: (Score:2)
Are there actually real plans and proposals for a system that could detect nuclear reactors operating with a network of neutrino detectors, and what that would entail? If so, can you link me to any of them? The physics is a little formidable, the things have notoriously weak interactions and there's a ~70 billion particles/cm^2/sec flux from the Sun to contend with.
Also, $10 billion for intel on Iran's reactors is a little expensive when you can probably just drop $10 million or so on the likes of Stuxne
Astronomical, huh? (Score:2)
At least is hasn't been a nuclear waste...
Ba dum dash!
Don't ignore recent history (Score:5, Informative)
How did they get this capability? Countries from all over the world helped them, including the US, France, England, Germany and China. [wikipedia.org]
So given this history, is it irrational for Iran to want to get the biggest baddest weapon of mass destruction they can, no matter what the cost? A rational cost analysis is irrelevant under these circumstances.
A significant number of the world's major powers
Armin Rosen? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is nothing more than Pro-Israel FUD surrounding the nuclear deal. There will be a lot more of that the coming weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
This.
I don't mind holding Iran's feet to the fire over their having signed the NPT. But I'll be damned if my country spends a nickel defending Israel's political position when they refuse to sign.
Oh, Sure (Score:2)
Stuxnet (Score:2)
True Cost (Score:3)
If you think Iran's nuclear program has been costly for Iran, wait until you see what it costs the U.S.
Costs ignored? (Score:3)
What would the cost have been without foreign sanctions? Without restrictions on suppliers? Iran has long said they wish to build many nuclear plants yet in the sanctions regime that is near impossible. Absent those issues the cost would be much lower, yet might still be considered high by 1st world standards.
Why does the US waste $1 trillion on the F-35 program? Are there not other cheaper alternatives?
Clearly both countries have made decisions based on their own internal metrics and view those costs as acceptable.
It's *still* a stupid scare (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, Iran COULD NOT USE the bomb if it had one.
Why?
1. They can't bomb Jerusalem, which is as holy to them as to jews and Christians. Their own
people would slaughter them. AND they'd kill most of the Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories of the West Bank.
2. Israel is smaller than the US state of New Jersey. At one point, I believe it's a total
of ->17mi- wide. What this means is using the bomb *anywhere* in Israel means
fallout on Jerusalem.
3. Following 2, it *also* means fallout on the Palestinians.
4. Oh, yes - the winds would mean that fallout would COME BACK TO IRAN.
Therefore, the ONE and ONLY purpose that Iran would want the bomb is MAD with Israel (who has a bunch of bombs, and would cheerfully use it on Iran, if they didn't think there'd be no Israel left afterwards.
Oh, yes, and with all the climate-change deniers here, *no* *one* could imagine that maybe Iran's worried about when their oil fields are played out, and planning to do things with the money while they have it to prepare for the future, no, no, that's *way* more than next quarter....
mark
Re:It's *still* a stupid scare (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, Iran COULD NOT USE the bomb if it had one.
Why? 1. They can't bomb Jerusalem, which is as holy to them as to jews and Christians. Their own people would slaughter them. AND they'd kill most of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank. 2. Israel is smaller than the US state of New Jersey. At one point, I believe it's a total of ->17mi- wide. What this means is using the bomb *anywhere* in Israel means fallout on Jerusalem. 3. Following 2, it *also* means fallout on the Palestinians. 4. Oh, yes - the winds would mean that fallout would COME BACK TO IRAN.
Therefore, the ONE and ONLY purpose that Iran would want the bomb is MAD with Israel (who has a bunch of bombs, and would cheerfully use it on Iran, if they didn't think there'd be no Israel left afterwards.
Oh, yes, and with all the climate-change deniers here, *no* *one* could imagine that maybe Iran's worried about when their oil fields are played out, and planning to do things with the money while they have it to prepare for the future, no, no, that's *way* more than next quarter....
mark
Although I agree with your overall points and analysis that Iran, at best, wants a bomb for defensive Mutual Assured Destruction purposes, I will point out that they don't give a flying fark about the Palestinians. Specifically, Iran is 90-95% Shi'ite, while Palestine is primarily Wahhabi Sunnis. Although they're both Muslim, it's like Catholic vs. Protestants in Ireland. In fact, not just 'don't give a flying fark' - Iran would gleefully wipe out Palestine if they could, but that (i) prevailing wind and (ii) mutually assured destruction from Israel are insurmountable problems.
Aaah, I fucking LoL'd. Seriously! (Score:3, Insightful)
"they're not rational!!!!".
FFS, look at Rapturists. Or Scientology. Or the denial machine in the USA. Rational? Hell, mainstream cable TV evangelicals are as mad as the frothingest Mullah on Al Jazeeri. With the filters you apply to "those foreign rag heads" applied to the USA, the USA is barking fucking mad, even compared to the *filtered* perception of Muslims.
And you have an army 20 times the size.
Re: (Score:3)
To the "Muzzy" mind associated to those people that go on rampage and maim, kill and do convert-or-die etc. it's also Iran that is crazy, as well as Shia Arabs, for following teachings and rituals coming from the wrong bunch of 1300-year-old dead men.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with the sarcasm, why does this get modded interesting?
Also: Considering their neighbours, I can understand their desire for nuclear capabilities. And believe you me, the rest of the world can really understand the desire for the US to take their fat fingers out of one's own affairs. Considering the history between Iran and the US I'm willing to consider nuclear armament an apropriate measure of self-defense.
Re:They are looking forward (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike ISIS, Iran is a country that has existed continuously for 2500 years. I highly doubt they would self-immolate just for a chance to 'nuke the infidel.' Even Israeli intelligence agencies have looked at Iran and concluded that, despite the sabre-rattling, they are rational agents with self-preservation as a primary concern.
Re:They are looking forward (Score:5, Insightful)
There are around 600 churches and nearly 400,000 Christians in Iran. If they were really interesting in attacking "infidels" they would start with them.
Iran considers the US a rogue state that illegally invades its neighbours and murders innocent civilians. Any way you frame it, they are not entirely wrong about that. Once you strip away the propaganda it's easy to see how they have quite legitimate security concerns.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Christians AND jews.
Anyway, Iran doesn't scare me. What scares me are the warmongering far-right lunatics who think it's a good idea to bomb Iran.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nope, they're starting with the Bahais.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany was an old land too, but if crazies get power, they can run it in a bad direction. Same goes for anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike ISIS, Iran is a country that has existed continuously for 2500 years.
The people of Persia have existed for thousands of years. The Islamic Republic of Iran has only existed for a few decades, and has fostered suicide bombings and Islamic revolution around the world.
I highly doubt they would self-immolate just for a chance to 'nuke the infidel.'
Much as Germany wouldn't self-immolate just for a chance to kill a few million Jews? Oddly enough there is another country so inclined to attempt that feat. Any guesses on that? You should look into the question of Germany's use of railway shipping to send Jews to death camps versus sending supplies to the fig
Re: (Score:3)
Where are these numbers comming from? In terms of active duty manpower the US is Second [wikipedia.org] after china. If you add reserves an paramilitary it drops to eighth.
Re: (Score:2)
The USA only wants to fight conventional wars because they have a bigger army than the next top five nations combined.
Besides being wrong on numbers, the US wants to fight conventional wars because that is what our military is designed to do. Our equipment and training is designed to slug it out with a modern, mechanized force and overwhelm them with firepower. Thats why we have tanks, fleets of jet aircraft, and a very large navy. These kinds of weapons (not including the navy, of course) are best utilized in battlefields that are large and lightly populated. A low-intesity unconventional war completely negates most o
Wait a sec... (Score:2)
but I would imagine that they could much more easily create a solar grid than dealing with the nasty politics surrounding nuclear, if energy was the primary concern. A bit fishy.
I agree with your sentiment. But wait!
First, its their legal right to nuclear energy. Second, they (Iran), are a sovereign nation and as such, are free to pursue their ambitions for whatever reason. Further, if we take a look at what "the greatest democracy" in the world has done, they have wasted [medium.com] over a trillion dollars on a plane that just doesn't measure up! This is despite having huge deficits.
Question for you: Why do ou think that their only reason for pursuing nuclear energy is for energy alone? Wh
Re: (Score:2)
I and many others don't think Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology has anything to do with power generation, and that is the problem. There are far more cost effective options for Iran than nuclear power plants if what they want is electrical power generation.
Re: (Score:2)
I and many others don't think Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology has anything to do with power generation, and that is the problem. There are far more cost effective options for Iran than nuclear power plants if what they want is electrical power generation.
So why are we still building nuclear power stations in the West if they're so expensive and pointless?
Just curious.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar power has been a real option for what ? 10 years ? That's probably generous as it has mostly been ramping up in the last 5 years or so and only in countries that have either the economy to import or the infrastructure to build solar panels. Nuclear Power is still the #1 solution for stable base load power, and the reason it is out of love (but note - not out of use) in the first world is for safety concern and NIMBY, not for anything related to weapon.
As for Iran, it has been on the world shit list