Slashdot Mirror
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
selven wrote in with something a bit offtopic for Slashdot, but I figured it's worth a discussion today. He writes "Following Iran's revelation regarding its secret nuclear enrichment plant, western leaders are banding together against it, saying that it violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and suggesting serious sanctions against the country if it refuses to back down on its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."
If I saw both my neighbors being invaded, I would rush to get the nukes as fast as I could, too.
I'm not an expert, but the news reports seem to indicate that this new facility (at a military base) doesn't have the capacity to produce a useful quantity of enriched fuel for a power plant, but could potentially produce enough for 1-2 bombs per year.
Combine that with the fact that Iran flares enough natural gas daily to more than meet its internal energy generation requirements, pardon me for being a bit skeptical about their motives.
America to Iran:
"If you do not begin considering the possibility of maybe one day relatively soon pondering the beginning of the dismantlement of your nuclear program - NOW - you might possibly maybe perhaps one day face SEVERE SANCTIONS ZOMG.
I mean, if that's ok with you."
"I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
Gee,
Look the other way, for Israel.
Look the other way, for India.
Maybe proliferation is not the real issue, and they will find the excuse to demolish Persia - by hook or by crook.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Well, on one side you have a county of war-mongering, religious fanatics and on the other side you have a country of war-mongering, religious fanatics.
You see the difference now?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination.
True, however this has only been the case since the beginning of this year.
Iran launches one at Isreal, in which case it is 100% Iran's fault.
-Or-
Isreal launches one at Iran, in which case it is 100% Iran's fault.
The logic there is amazing. For the record, I'm not trying to say that it's 100% Isreal's fault either. Just trying to point out that it's a bit more complicated that your statement seems to imply.
And if you're Israel, apparently we pretend that we don't know that you're packing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
"Defeat" isn't the point of nuclear deterrence. The point is that they know we could level every moderately large city in their respective countries if they were to launch nukes at us.
Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
In a conventional war the US would require allies.
In a trade war, China can ruin the US economy - but they'd severely hurt themselves in the process. In a trade war, Russia influence is limited to cutting off gas supplies to Eastern Europe.
If you prove to the world that you are an idiot and want to eliminate other countries, you don't get nukes. Iran has proven this. Israel just wants to exist as it is and has proven this. A portion of the Muslim world is just too radical!
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Ironically, the best way to destabilize a ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying (or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth, pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions also reduce positive effect of the global community's political feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).
That's not to say that sanctions are never appropriate. It's just an observation on their effect.
Nor is the U.S. led and controlled by a radically conservative theocracy with a demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination.
True, however this has only been the case since the beginning of this year.
Agreed on the led, but not on the controlled. We voted out a leader because we didn't like the direction our country was headed. Iran is led by a non-elected religious figure in perpetuity, and attempts to vote in even a new figurehead were met with violent opression.
It's disingenuous to claim that those are the same thing.
Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
You've got a pretty disingenuous way of explaining it there...
The *point* of nuclear weaponry *is* MAD. If we consider you a threat, and you don't have them--then you're by definition pretty much powerless to stop us. We do have the largest, best equipped and funded military in the world.
Telling Iran we don't want them to have nuclear weaponry is pretty much proof positive of our intent to attack them if we don't get our way at some point. Otherwise--it presumably doesn't matter, since there is such absolutely massive pressure *not* to fire a nuke once you have one. The entire point of a nuke is it makes it basically impossible to engage in a war of aggression against your homeland.
When we tell Iran we don't want them to have them--we're really telling them we intend to invade them. Fairness or lack thereof has nothing to do with it. Do you seriously think Iran would launch at us? Even if they believe in 72 virgins, it would literally be the end of their world within 15 minutes.
CAPTCHA: deterred.
I don't think settlements can be considered as "just exist".
Dilbert RSS feed
Say what you will, but Israel is not a country I'd mess with.
Consider their history....there have been countless efforts to wipe them off the face of the planet, from back in Biblical times to the Nazi regime. Yet not only are they still around, but they've managed to get their country re-established, in the same location, after not existing for hundreds of years.
That's one country I want to keep on our side, packing or not...
Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran was NOT in the best interests of any nation. It WAS in the best interests of British Petroleum. Let us be honest here: a democratic government was thrown under the bus for the sake of money, nothing more, and nothing less.
Yes, our past sins are haunting us.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The US is too busy destroying the middle class in their own country to worry about supporting the growth of it in another. All this warmongering is just an excuse to start up more intervention in the Middle East. What's surprising is even /. is joining in with the MSM to try to whip up support for more military action. The irony being that all this is occurring under a president that won a significant number of votes by appealing to people that wanted a less interventionist government.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Optimus Prime?
Seriously, right now the US is fighting wars in 2 theaters and is limited by the will of the politicians in power. If American soil were occupied or under imminent threat of occupation, I don't think the politicians would 1) worry about popularity of the upcoming war poll numbers 2) need to worry about said poll numbers. Americans would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
--Mike
(Score:-1, Not Politically Correct)
Agreed. The American Military is capable of deploying a terrific volume of horrific violence. A volume and ferocity inconceivable to most. That's their job and they do an excellent job of it.
As long as the US has nuclear weapons, Iran will have a legitimate reason to develop its own nuclear weapons. That is, to protect against American aggression.
The best way to avoid war with Iran is to disarm, pull our forces out of the region, and open trade with them. We need to help develop their middle class, show that we are not a threat, and give them a business interest in becoming more moderate.
You forgot the holding of hands and singing Kumbaya.
Because it tells the truth, which is contrary to Israeli values. ...be-tachblt ta`aseh lekh milchmh... "Through deception you can wage war, with this advice comes victory."
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Trouble is, this is a country run by crazy religious zealots, that quote their religion when they blow stuff up. The powers that be over there, can't be trusted to 'play nice' with their nukes. They would be very likely to start shooting them off unprovoked.
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Football Odds
Then you don't go building a uranium processing plant into a mountain.
There are only two reasons you want to build a uranium processing plant in a mountain:
A. It's bomb proof, in which case why are you worried about it getting bombed if it's purely for peaceful processes?
B. You're Dr. Evil.
I think we can safely say it's likely A, although I wouldn't rule out B with Ahmadinejad.
Yes. Either every nation can have nuclear weapons, or no nation can. I'm not saying that "should be the case, I'm saying that over time, these are the only stable alternatives.
Only a cretin would expect an unfair scheme whereby only certain nations -- including historically aggressive nations such as the US, USSR, UK, and Israel -- are allowed to have nukes, to stand for long. The NPT requires us to work for disarmament; we have failed to do so.
And the fact that "we don't want you to have them" means beans. The world is not (and I know this is shocking news to many of my countrymen) run for the convenience and pleasure of the United States.
If we have nukes, we have no persuasive moral authority to tell other countries that they can't have them.
If we use force to prevent other nations from getting the bomb, everyone will notice that we attack only non-nuclear states, and will be more strongly motivated -- for their own protection -- to develop nuclear weapons in secret. Fission bombs are 1940s technology; if North Korea can make them, anybody with a decent industrial base can.
There are only two possible outcomes: everybody gets nukes who wants them (most nations will probably find it easier to ally with nuclear powers), or nobody (except maybe the U.N., with a dozen layers of safeguards) gets them.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Its clear.
After being attacked a few times, Israel conquered the area, and intends to keep it.
At one time or another, most countries have lost lands to conqueroring nations. Most ancient and modern states were constructed this way.
This idea that conquered lands should be "given back" is a relatively new idea. (And one that, oddly, does not apply to Arab states.)
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Why is that modded as funny?
The logic is simple. Change the internal reward structure for their behaviour with a win-win situation.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That is exactly the strategy we have followed with "Red China." Some would say it has worked out pretty well.
Uhhh....ever read up on The Six Day War? Israel has been stirring up shit with its neighbors for DECADES because it knows the USA will always be there to cover its ass if the excrement hits the cooling device.
Allow me to quote the former defense minister Moshe Dayan "After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado."
That BTW wasn't something made up by some Arab, the man bragged about it in his book. So I don't honestly see how you can describe any of the players in the region as "responsible" as BOTH sides have been major asshats, only IMHO Israel has gotten extra assholey thanks to having big daddy USA backing them up and selling them really nice hardware. Oh and you might want to know that even with our economy in the shitter we are sending them ultra fatty checks to the tune of $7,000,000 A DAY! Frankly as long as we are running deficits we shouldn't be sending jack shit to anybody, especially when the country we are sending it to is gonna use it to act like douches. We need to quit propping up these countries and stay the hell out of everybody's business and mind our own, sadly something we haven't done since before WWII.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
In the same location ??? Are you one of these tossers who actually believes what's written in the bible ? There was NEVER a kingdom of Israel. God may have promised them a kingdom, but he never delivered.
And as for being scared of them - let the arabs off the leash and then see how long they last. Just for fun, tell them if they use nukes the west will nuke them ! See how fucking tough they are then.
The ONLY reason the israelis are still in one piece is because of the USA. They gave them nukes, they send them money. As usual, Uncle Sam sticks his nose in and fucks an entire political region. You obviously don't know the first thing about the subject, how even the US were pissed when the Israelis declared their state (before the agreement was settled with the people whose lands they were taking away). Read a fucking book.
thats strange... I just googled "israel threatens iran" and got 1.8 million results.
I guess you're a liar, or just good at ignoring reality.
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?