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."
sanction them all, let the UN sort 'em out.
THL phish sticks
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
It seems as if every country speaking out against Iran already has nuclear capabilities. In what way is this not a double standard?
- I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
- Or else what
- Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
and the sad part we will bicker about this until they use one on Israel or force Israel to do it first.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
The Inheritance, by David Sanger. A terrific book, I read it from cover to cover in three sittings. It's basically what Obama was sat down and told about the world and global nuclear proliferation and what his options are. It details some fascinating history, esp. around Khan in Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan) that will be making you shake your fist and say "Khaaaaaaaaaannn!". (He gave the Iranians much of what they needed to build a nuclear program).
http://www.amazon.com/Inheritance-World-Confronts-Challenges-American/dp/0307407926
Posturing aside, giving the talking heads and think tankers something to chirp about on CNN - the real threat isn't Iran. Pakistan is the threat. Iran has uranium and reactors. They don't have a warhead. Pakistan has LOTS of warheads, and they MAY or MAY NOT meet your definition of "secure". They could very easily go missing, as the programs in place to account in such matters sort of don't work in Pakistan.
Again - the book lays all this out in exacting detail. I recommend the book to everyone.
Does M.A.D. work on governments based on the premise of religious martyrs? They guy pushing the button my believe the 71 virgin shtick.
Table-ized A.I.
The difference is that in the last 50+ years, the U.S. has used it's nuclear arsenal exactly twice, and those during a time of war.
Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
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. Absent IAEA verification of the peaceful nature of their nuclear program, Iran has no justification to be pointing fingers. Iran with nuclear power is scary. Iran with nuclear weapons doesn't bear thinking about.
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
But isn't Iran already operating under pretty severe sanctions?
I can't imagine this new threat of sanctions will particularly make a difference to their behaviour.
While the followers of the world all would like us to shoot our nukes into the sun and be done with it, our fearless leaders still consider them, and likely rightly so, a deterrent against invasion. The only thing that gives the U.S. the ground to deny Iran nuclear weapons is that the U.S. doesn't want a country that opposes our way of life to also have them. It's not moral or righteous -- it's about staying alive and on top.
I'm not sure what sanctions do aside from starve out a portion of the country's populace. While there are likely examples of sanctions doing some good, they seem mostly to punish the followers for having a leader with whom we disagree. It takes a quick Google search to show that sanctions have done a lot more damage against a populace than any attack.
So the trick is to either educate the leaders of the other country to your way (which, in this case, I have to agree with the West...human rights outweighs religion) or just let the cards fall where they may. Perhaps once the country gets nuclear weapons, relations will improve since we're starting on equal ground. If they don't, if there actually is a direct threat of nuclear attack, then take in the bombers and flatten their sites. Don't kill the followers. They don't want to fight anymore than our followers do.
War on a large scale should be over.
All this anti-Iran propaganda seems to be coming out at the same time Iran is switching from Dollars to Euros for its oil transactions. Strangely enough, Iraq previously tried this too, just before the 2003 invasion.
"I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
Go read William Forstchen's book "One Second After" about an EMP attack on the United States, and then ponder on whether you want a country like Iran to have warheads and missiles.
So they want nukes? Who can blame them? Given the "western leader"'s previous behavior in the region, they would be fools not to get a strong deterrent.
America funded Iraq's war against Iran and now America is at Iran's borders.
Soviets tried to take over Afghanistan, and are now acting aggressively again.
Pakistan is nuclear armed and Sunni while Iran is Shia. Iran got to see what happens when the two clash in Iraq.
Israel is nuclear armed and has openly expressed their desire to unilaterally attack Iran.
Geez, I can't for a second think why they would want to build nuclear weapons. I think the Iranians are smart enough to understand the real purpose for nukes: deterrence. And with those four points above, I think Iran has a lot to deter.
Sanctions won't do anything, and military action will only make other countries in the region think that maybe Iran had a point all along and they should get some deterrence of their own.
So you know, good luck with all of that...
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Why should some rich Western countries who already have nuclear weapons get together and decide who can enage in nuclear technology them or who can't. I'm proud that my own country despite major political pressure from the West block has completed the contract for building the peaceful Busher nuclear power station and is continuing to engage in peaceful nuclear cooperation with Iran. Iran has never attacked a foreign country, Iran is not ruled by mad suicidal clerics, Iran is a great country of 70 million people with a unique culture, a unuque brand of eastern democracy sometimes not compatible with the West. Yes we need less weapons, we need denuclearization but you current rulers are too in bed with the military-industrial complex, they are powerless, we need more grassroot movements, more conferences and commitees for all peace loving ordinary people from the West and East to come together and learn from each other. CIA has killed Samantha Smith but they will never kill the peace loving spirits of our peoples!
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
If they keep it up, Israel may "donate" a lot of fissionable material to them, delivered via airmail.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Life isn't fair. Suck it up.
Ahmadinejad: "Israel must be wiped off the map"
but they say they will not build nukes?......I thought something must be shifting to Bizarro world....
The United States cannot afford, nor provide the soldiers for, another war.
Our troops are spread rather thin as it is.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Those nukes were developed with French support. It really wasn't till after the 6-day war that the US became the primary western military supporter of Israel.
Sparta and Athens were repressive societies, that successfully kept equal rights for women and the liberation of slaves out of the western Aegean for another 200 years.
A mere 59 years before, Cyrus the Great liberated Babylon and released it's captive peoples, encoding this in the law of the Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_cylinder
The Zoroastrian creed of Darius and Xerxes - the Achaemenid line - was that of upholding the precepts: Good Word, Good Thought, Good Deed. This was the core of worship and daily conduct of the devotee to God (Ahura Mazda).
"Darius, the Great King, King of Kings, King of Countries, son of Hystaspes, the Achaemenid. Saith Darius the King: This is the kingdom which I posses from the land of the Sakas on this side of Sogdiana as far as Kush, from India to Sardis. Over this Ahura Mazda has granted me dominion, he who is great above all the Gods. May Ahura Mazda protect me and my Royal House."
At this time, the Spartans were still obsessed with sodomy, and destroyed their girl-babies.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Because they made the Big Iraqi Gamble and are taking Euros rather than dollars for their oil.
This is an unforgivable affront. Based on the US's debts and balance of trade, the dollar should be junk currency. Its only remaining value is in purchasing oil, and the US cannot allow resource rich countries to wean themselves off of it.
Make no mistake, the US must and will find a casus belli against Iran. The only question (for Iran) is whether they can become a nuclear power before that happens.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It's Iran vs. most of the 1st world. Iran keeps pointing fingers at the U.S. while most the world is pointing fingers at them.
Gone!
But A) Iran signed the treaty too, B) if they don't want to abide by its terms they can always withdraw from it (that would be honest -- then they can hide whatever they want rather than break agreements saying they wouldn't), and C) although the U.S. and Russia (not to mention the other nuclear-armed countries) have dragged their feet for years, they have just negotiated a new nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
I've never understood Iran's real direction on this. For example, why have a heavy-water plant when the only nuclear power reactor they have planned doesn't use it (it's a pressurized water design that therefore needs the enrichment that people are so worried can be diverted to weapons production)? One possible reason for a heavy water plant: properly built, heavy water reactors are really useful for generating weapons-grade plutonium. For example, this is exactly how India made their first weapons -- not by enriching uranium, but by running uranium through a heavy water "research" reactor. Uncoincidentally, Iran is also building a 40MW research reactor, apparently to come on line this year or next.
It sure as heck looks like they are pursuing the two well-known weapons paths: enriching uranium and generating weapons-grade plutonium (a different isotope mix from the usual plutonium generated in regular power plant reactors). If the enriched uranium is purely for power production, why the heavy water route too?
Shut up, 137. You're just pissed that Yahweh kicked Zoroaster's ass.
I really think that eventually the Middle East is going to be one large, glowing plateau of molten radioactive glass. And then how will we get the oil out?
about iran and nukes:
"israel and usa has it (and used it), so why can't iran? typical western hypocrisy"
ok, if you are a westerner, a chinese, an indian, a russian, a resident of bora bora or lower botswana, wherever... in other words, no matter WHERE you are from, you are probably interested in nuclear nonproliferation. with that in mind, you would be interested in those states with current nuclear arsenals giving them up, correct? you would also be interested in NO OTHER STATES GETTING THEM. right? nuclear nonproliferation is something important to you? or is it not important you as your overriding conceptual and moral concern? is it not the most important issue to you?
so please, by all means, talk about western hypocrisy. the west is indeed hypocritical. but if western hypocrisy is more important to you than nuclear nonproliferation, then i call bullshit on your morality and your sense of priorities. hey: how about grudges against the west being LESS important than your interest in seeing nuclear weapons curtailed? say this instead of "why can't iran have them if the west has them": "i think iran shouldn't have nukes. oh, and btw, while we're on the subject, israel and usa should give up theres"
now you are being morally coherent in my book. now you are talking from a point of view of logic and morality and a set of guiding principles as the foremost concern in your mind. rather than "the usa has them so iran should have them, fairs fair". when you say that, i don't see morality or a human conscience, i see typical tribal backbiting
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
...and those were the terms under which other countries would give assistance with nuclear technology. It seems that Iran has violated the NPT. Sanctions should follow.
This isn't about the morality of the situation. Some countries deliberately opted out of the NPT.
For example, Israel never signed it. They have a reactor in the Negev desert (Dimona) which they will not allow anyone to inspect. Israel has never admitted the existence or extent of their nuclear arsenal, though intelligence and leaks suggest that they may have as many as 300 war heads.The Israelis have left everyone guessing as to what their intentions or capabilities might be.
The question we should be asking is whether the NPT is still a worthwhile vehicle for slowing the growth of nuclear weapon ambitions. The problem faciing us is that lately we have seen some despotic regimes with ambitions toward nuclear weaponry and they're getting increasingly successful. If the NPT isn't worth doing, then what other methods and measures should be taken to slow the spread of nuclear weapons?
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
The only country to ever use nuclear weapons against another country is the USA. I don't blame Iran for wishing to defend themselves from war-mongering nations.
they can complain about what nations that HAVE signed it do, until then, they can go to dimona and stfu.
seriously... isreal has yet to sign the npt and they get off scott free with their nuke program. double standard anyone? no wonder the arabs hate us. duh.
-.no
Xerxes for prez! Don't be scared away by the dark beard.
Table-ized A.I.
After seeing a lot of random anger and misinformation in our media, I'm *very much* hoping that cooler heads will prevail in this situation.
For those of you saying we should push the inspections and threaten with sanctions, good for you! This is a way to make sure Iran is in compliance without starting a conflict.
For those of you demanding swift military action, remember what happened the LAST TIME we invaded a country without enough information. What if we invade and it turns out Iran is honest afterall? "Oops, sorry for destroying your civilization and killing your babies! CNN told me you guys were bad."
But this is of course an exaggeration. In reality, we wouldn't apologize.
For those of you who think I'm full of it and ask "What misinformation is he talking about?", consider this: The expression you most hear that they want to "wipe Israel off the map" makes *no sense* in their language. There's absolutely no reason for them to say that. That'd be like you saying "let's balance our geese in the gutter" or something. But the news is still quoting that routinely. Something is amiss here.
Conspiracy theory attack, GO!!
2) They *are* ruled by mad suicidal clerics; their stated goal is to dominate the world with Islam, they don't care who they kill or if they die trying.
3) They have said multiple times that they would "wipe Israel off the map" if they had the means.
4) These newly disclosed enrichment facilities have nothing to do with the "peaceful Busher nuclear power station".
Is that enough for you?
Did they banned The Simpsons??
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
if it really worked.
You people have the collective memory of a goldfish. An attack on Iran would be a world-scale catastrophe that would destroy Israel, ruin most of the Middle East with revolution and war, finish off America's gutted economy, and collapse anglophone hegemony FOREVER. Afghanistan and Iraq were never military threats, but Iran IS and some people don't recognize it. Just because they're brown doesn't mean they're weak and undisciplined.
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
It crazy not to !
I not Arab hater. I Persians hater, yes !!
Oh my God, a LOLcat learned how to post on Slashdot.
Someone tell the UN about Vault-Tec in case there's a nuclear war
Iran was always a bigger threat to the US than Iraq. N Korea was always the state most likely to develop nuclear weapons. The reason Iraq was invaded and not another member of the "axis of evil" is because, first, we thought we'd be able to win in Iraq relatively easily, and, second, a misguided sense of paternal loyalty.
Even George W Bush knew that Iran would be a cluster fuck, and the cost/benefit of invading Iran didn't make sense.
I dont understand.
MC would kick some serious ass!
Even today William Poundstone's "Prisoner's Dilemma" commands $3.95 used from Amazon Marketplace, while some other great books like "On Call In Hell" by Cdr./MD Jadick go for a penny.
Game Theory gets messy with more than two players. Googling (( TRUEL )) finds even a Wikipedia article on the subtleties of a three-person-duel. Someday, inevitably, at least a dirty bomb, maybe a primitive Hiroshima-class terrorist nuke is going to go off, probably in a harbor-city because primitive nukes won't fit in carry-on baggage. WHODUNNIT, who to retaliate against ?
Consider the difficulties of retaliation against folks in what one might think are open-and-shut cases.
(( Brian Nichols 1.8 million )) reveals the legal bills to retaliate against the guy who took an officer's gun while IN CUSTODY.
(( Yale Raymond Clark Annie Le Defense Budget )) will be an interesting story. What with the card-key-swiping and DNA evidence, one might think a defense impossible. In other words "The cost of prosecuting open-and-shut cases" I think is a good benchmark of a legal system.
Yet the cost of retaliating instinctively are also high. Even the old book "Blackhawk Down" is full of indiscriminate-return-fire incidents, that was long before Pat Tillman.
For sure, we will look back nostalgically at the 2-player-Cold-War days.
In the US there's always money for war, no matter what else has to fall through the cracks.
The problem is that Iran signed the "Non-Proliferation Treaty".
They have consistently broke this treaty by persuing their nuclear ambitions. Wether it's for peaceful uses as they say or for weapons, is irrelevant. The treaty specifically states that if you do this, you allow inspectors in to check things out. If it's proven that you are going the weapons route, then you will receive sanctions, finiancial pressure and perhaps other very bad things if you do not comply. Plain and simple.
If you really want to build weapons or "power plants" without the watchful eye of the other members. Then go for it. Just be sure to withdrawl yourself from the treaty. Sure you won't get all the perks they come with being a member and perhaps your country will be attacked, but at least your country won't look like a two-faced Iblis to the world.
And as a side note, you probably shouldn't talk about wiping someone off the face of the earth while building your "power-plants". This gives the impression that perhaps you are a little bit unstable and perhaps are really telling the truth about your "power-plany" ambitions.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
"Iran maintains that it 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."
Not FAIR? FAIR? A country who's stated political objective, time and time again is "Death to Israel"?
I don't care if you're pro-Israel or not, its sheer madness to believe that Iran is really a peaceful country out to defend itself. Their leaders have stated again and again that the West (meaning Israel, the US, and capitalism) are sick and on the way out, that Jihad is the duty of every Muslim, and martyrdom is the highest calling. These people glorify death and war, and are looking to put every one on earth under the yoke of their twisted Islamic law. Its ridiculous to compare the US, faults and all, with Iran as a pair of equals with apposing viewpoints. These people are twisted, evil, and not worth such recognition, and I really don't understand your idiotic viewpoint. It always amazes me when people want to point fingers at past US injustices yet turn some strange, myopic eye to plain murderers and give them a pass.
Whatever your view point, I ask this; lets see how your view looks to you as soon as Iran has a nuclear weapon, and they will, unless Israel takes care of the situation.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Hey, Bush is out of office, now, leave him alone.
... that we have failed to remove the nuclear weapons from the only country which have used them against civilians, and which (allegedly) also wanted to use them in Korea and Vietnam (only prevented through presidential refusal), I cannot see how we can deny them to others. United States, in case you wondered.
Iran's mistake was signing the NPT, if they had not they probably could have gotten what knowledge and materials they needed on the black market and not been bound by that treaty. It's not like North Korea is being punished for selling this to whomever pays them...
Sorry, but this is more pro-Persian propaganda. Even if the Persian Empire had been so terribly great and liberal, which it wasn't, modern Persians are not their inheritors.
It's actually more pathetic than Muslims referring back to their greatness of a few centuries past. You are reaching back thousands of years.
Quoting a translation of the Behistun inscription is also rather pointless. That said, if you think that makes an argument stronger, we should switch to quoting the original Old Persian, oh, and the Spartan and Athenian evidence in Ancient Greek. I'm certainly educated enough to handle both languages. How about you sport? You have an actual fucking clue there?
Only criminal states will have them!
Oh wait...
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
... I note according to Wikipedia the United States has 104 power stations currently in operation. So how many enrichment centres are currently in the United States?
One. It is an (obsolete) gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky owned and operated by USEC Inc. 9the United States Enrichment Corporation). There is also a small USEC pilot gas centrifuge plant Piketon, Ohio.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
Bullshit. I hate the fucking bullshit line about not being able to prove a negative.
You can in many fucking cases prove a negative.
Simply define your negative as contrary to a provable positive, then prove the positive.
Green is not Red.
This ball is red.
Ergo, this ball is not green.
Not an easy thing to do in many real-world cases, sure. But the reason why it's hard is not because it's hard to define something as contrary to another, but because it's hard to prove anything - positive or negative.
Typically, bitching about proving a negative involves undermining the confidence of the observations, and relying on the "fact" that the universe is infinite (the universe is quantum, finite, and deterministic damn it).
"...thus, there is no God." will always be met with some form of "He exists outside of your observations, measurements, and enumerations.".
The same "logic" could be used for any proof of anything. "Maybe there are in fact a finite number of primes, and there's a flaw in that proof no one has seen yet." "Maybe there exists something contrary to what you have proven, but we haven't found it yet."
Prove that Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons:
Enumerate all nuclear facilities in Iran.
Prove the purpose of each as "weapons", "power", or "both".
If you argue that you can't do either of those things, then what you're really arguing is that you can't prove these two positives:
Iran has a finite number of nuclear facilities.
Each nuclear facility has an observable purpose of weapons, power, or both.
The difficulty in proving a negative does not come from anything inherent to negatives, it comes from the difficulty in proving anything at all.
It all boils down to the simple "can't know anything for certain" issue. And when you're throwing that one around, you've effectively removed yourself from the conversation.
I'm pretty sure you need to post logged in to undo a mod.
Simple - drop our political occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and wherever the fuck else we station our troops.
Let those fuckers sort their own shit out while we fight an actual war.
Oh, Iran doesn't have nukes yet and doesn't even possess the capability of launching anything our way?
Let Israel deal with it. And let them deal with it alone.
Not our fucking problem.
Russia and China will be the ones to fucking worry about it before we do. When they get to the point of realizing the UN is more impotent than <Insert troll here>, and they need to act, then we can give a shit.
How can we tag this Iran topic as offtopic and avoid it in slashdot front page?
I mean, if I want to read about evil Iran I go to cnn.com or bbcnews.com. If I want to read about tech news I go to slashdot, but clearly reading 2 Iran articles per week means slashdot is becoming another propaganda machine, whatever that means.
I just want tech news in /., like in the old days, anyone?
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
I just want everybody to calm down, killing people or erasing countries are bad, I agree, but Ahmud A. never told to kill all the people of Israel, He said to move all the people of Israel to Europe and then erase Israel from the map. Which is bad too.
But the media keep insisting in that "erase" word prompting another war. And nobody needs a war or erase of a country.
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
I agree the US and our allies don't have a moral leg to stand on when they claim Iran doesn't have a right to have nuclear weapons,
since the US has nuclear weapons(and has used them).
But I still believe all available measures should be taken to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons(up to and including the use of military force)
simply because it is our best interest. Iran ha proven to be a hostile nation, it supports terrorism and is very clearly anti western, anti US and obviously anti Israel.
For these reasons we wish Iran to be weak, we wish to able to threaten them with military force and we don't wish to level the playing field.
we also have a genuine concern that Iranian nuclear weapons might actually be used if not directly by a misguided Iranian leader trying to start Armagedon
then by a terrorist organization supported by Iran.
Terrorism denies MAD its effectiveness, if Russia bombs the US the US wipes them out, everybody dies hence we get MAD.
however if an unknown terrorist cell blow up Manhattan with a suitcase nuclear warhead, who do we destroy in response? MAD doesn't work against terrorists so it is doubly important to make sure we never get nuclear terrorism or at least delay it for as long as possible.
(a) It's not active - we've known about the facility for some time, if it were active it either would have already been bombed or we'd never have heard about it (and probably both).
(b) A boy scout with a physics textbook has the technical expertise to turn weapons grade uranium into an atomic bomb.
(c) Posturing - and probably not - it's a lot easier to make an atomic bomb that will fit on a B2 than one that will fit on a missile.
(d) Nope, Iran has a plant to enrich uranium, they claim it's for a peaceful civilian nuclear power program, we think that the size of the facility isn't consistent with that claim. They promise to let IAEA inspectors into the plant now that they know that we know about it (we'll have to see if that happens.) At any rate, it would appear that Iran isn't interested in building a nuke today, but is very interested in developing the capability so as to keep it's options open.
Change we can believe in, except the US has never changed its foreign policy, EVER.
It makes sense that any oil exporting nation would like to preserve its main source of revenue - OIL, and find alternative energy elsewhere. The more any oil exporter grows, be it Iran, Canada, Brazil or Venezuela, the more oil it needs for domestic consumption. Therefore exports are doomed to shrink - unless another source of energy can be found.
Of course it's soooo easy to spin this into a "hostile act" by the warmongering US, still irate because it was incompetent enough to deal with the fallout from its unsuccessful meddling in Iranian politics and sovereignty in the 70's (business as usual). But even in the worst case, islamic nations are not stupid. With the near anarchy in Pakistan, somehow no one seems to be mentioning the fact that THEY TOO have nukes, despite being a nation far less stable than Iran.
The funny thing is, the US is pulling out of Iraq (mission accomplished yet?) and struggling in Afghanistan. So everyone knows that for all the US bluster against Iran, it's just a bluff. The Russians/CIS will never tolerate a US occupied Iraq, Iran AND Afghanistan on their southern border, and the Chinese will never allow the US to interrupt their flow of oil from Iran - China's main source of the black gold.
So yeah, not only is this off topic, it's also NOT NEWS for anyone smart enough not to watch FOX or CNN.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Much like in the (somewhat) open stock markets of the world, immediate value is not the only backing for a currency or stock. The largest thing "backing" the value of US currency (and the reason it doesn't collapse like simple analysis would indicate) is the value of American innovation and industry. I know that sounds corny, but it's true. The world puts a lot of value on our future ability to continue being a dominant power in the world through innovation and bleeding-edge industry.
11*43+456^2
If they have the means, they will use it.
(If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
With the US and Russia holding about 90% of the worlds nuclear weapons, MAD only really exists between those two countries. Everyone else gets to a lot of damage to a small area and then wait for total destruction from somewhere else
Distracting your critics from a suspect election by letting the world know you have a secret uranium enrichment plant is a little like arguing that you couldn't have burgled that house because you were busy strangling a hooker at the time.
Correction: "The guy pushing the button may believe the 71 virgin shtick."
That's what I get for typing before my coffee kicks in.
Table-ized A.I.
Sorry, but Iran doesn't get a pass because of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Why? Because of their leadership, whose mains spokesman has constantly talked about wiping out another country. Most of Iran's boasts can be written off as giving their own people an outside bogeyman to focus their woes on. Its common practice in many countries, focus the attention and discontent of the people anywhere but at yourself.
With Iran essentially acknowledging paying terrorists; I keep forgetting - if they are attacking Israel they are freedom fighters; and having the penchant for making threats of destruction what sane world would take the chance?
Honestly, our idea of sane is so upside down anymore. We release killers, rapists, and molesters, from jail only to have many repeat it and then we pad ourselves on the back at how nice, sane, and civilized we are, all the while ignoring the victims. Well the same scenario plays out many times on the international stage as well.
I know, when it happens, the same groups will all be nodding "well they asked for it"
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Sparta and Athens were repressive societies, that successfully kept equal rights for women and the liberation of slaves out of the western Aegean for another 200 years.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
No question that Sparta was a society built upon the repression of slaves. I'm with you there.
But Sparta was incredibly progressive when it came to Spartan womens' rights. Spartan women recieved education and were literate, and they could own property. This was unheard of in that age. There had some bizarre wedding customs, but compared to any other society back then the Spartans were champions of gender equality.
Don't lump Athens and Sparta together. They were very different societies. Sparta was a slave state run by the military, for the benefit of the military (and it makes a good object lesson to show how a strong military can warp a country). Athens was more egalitarian in some respects, but much more backward when it came to women and war.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Yup, because pulling out of Afghanistan without investing in rebuilding the country worked really well at the end of the Cold War, so there's no reason why it wouldn't work again now...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I think the time is up. This is ridiculous, they hid it, they violated every rule in the book. They could easily have a nuclear weapon we do not know about, and use it on Israel, or sneak it into the US. This is like playing russian roulette with suicidal maniacs. The idiot president before Obama invaded iraq, mistake from the beginning. He should have invaded Iran, Iraq was never a threat. I am very liberal, alwasy vote dem etc, but enough is enough. Being Liberal, and having balls are two seperate things. They should give them an ultimatum to shutdown all nuclear plants or face a constant barrage of bombing across the entire country. No Ground troops, just bomb them back to the stone age.
My angry two cents from someone who worked in WTC, and really would not like to see it happen again ...
My Web Site - www.ocean-liners.com
Get into a warring states situation and it's every bastard for themselves in a no-holds-barred deathmatch.
I think this is a little bit of a self-serving justification. The Kings of Europe used to believe that their authority was a divine right, and that it was "unnatural" to question their authority, since they kept order. IMHO, this meme is alive and well in your comment. The solution to the power-corrupts-King problem came with the division of powers. There is probably a similar structural solution to the no-holds-barred deathmatch that you're describing. Perhaps economic integration and education of the masses, as well as independent media. And a cultural abohoration of jingoism.
Many great empires fell after they started to create large standing militaries. They are economic leaches, and serve no cultural purpose other than stoking the pride of jingoists and hawks. It happened to the Romans, and the Soviets. Eisenhower himself coined the term "military-industrial-complex"; an impotent warning to the USA citizenry. That's what's taken over the USA, which seems to get involved in military action every few years.
While you might opine philosophical justifications for a USA hegemony, based on the principle of world peace, others are screaming beware the ides of March. There is some sense of the USA sowing the seeds of its own demise.
Someone needs to brush up on their history a bit.
It seems we've met a mirror image projection.
Based on my knowledge of history, and IMHO, the best thing the USA can do, is reduce it's military budget, increase education standards, focus on internal cultural issues (such as freedom of the press) and further economic integration with the rest of the world. And invest in high-tech sustainable technology. It seems unlikely that any of these issues will be given the priority they deserve.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The United States cannot afford, nor provide the soldiers for, another war.
Our troops are spread rather thin as it is.
If Iran keeps waving the middle finger at UN repeatedly offering everyone to kiss it, and especially in light of the discovery in TFA, this is much more likely to end up more like Afghanistan than like Iraq - in a sense that it will be a UN-approved operation with heavy involvement of all NATO countries, and not a U.S. solo performance. Israel would probably offer significant military aid, as well.
Sorry, but this is more pro-Persian propaganda.
In a growing chorus of anti-Persian comments that I hear in mainstream media and other generous people I meet on a daily basis, I would say that it's a breath of fresh air. Shouldn't every person be proud of their background? Or should everyone be anti-wherever-they-come-from ?
Even if the Persian Empire had been so terribly great and liberal, which it wasn't,
Seeing as how the Cyrus Cylinder is known as one of the original formal declarations on human rights, I would say that they were pretty liberal for their time. Liberating Jews and allowing them to return to their homeland? Unheard of in that era. They weren't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but very forward-thinking for their time. They were one of the first civilizations to use women-warriors in their military, which scared other armies shitless when they would see swarms of "Amazonian women" charging at them.
modern Persians are not their inheritors.
Modern Persians haven't really changed much culturally in the thousands of years, at least in terms of hospitality and politeness. If you've ever bothered to visit the country or actually meet a real Persian, you would see that they've retained their culture quite nicely. No, they're not the same. We've been bombarded by invasions over the last thousand years and that has somewhat shaped who we are, but we've retained our core being.
But hey, ignorance is so much easier!
That said, if you think that makes an argument stronger, we should switch to quoting the original Old Persian, oh, and the Spartan and Athenian evidence in Ancient Greek. I'm certainly educated enough to handle both languages. How about you sport? You have an actual fucking clue there?
1. \ adam \ DÃrayavauÅ \ xÅÃyathiya \ vazraka \ xÅÃyatha \ xÅÃyathiy
2. ÃnÃm \ xÅÃyathiya \ PÃrsaiy \ xÅÃyathiya \ dahyÃnÃm \ ViÅt
3. Ãspahyà \ puÃa \ ArÅÃmahyà napà \ HaxÃmaniÅiya \ thÃtiy \
4. DÃrayavauÅ \ xÅÃyathiya \ manà \ pità \ ViÅtÃspa \ ViÅtÃspahyà \ pità \ ArÅ
5. Ãma \ ArÅÃmahyà \ pità \ AriyÃramna \ AriyÃramnahyà \ pitÃ\ CiÅpiÅ \ CiÅp
6. ÃiÅ \ pità \ HaxÃmaniÅ \ thÃtiy \ DÃrayavauÅ \ xÅÃthiya \ avahyarÃ
7. diy \ vayam \ HaxÃmaniÅiyà \ thahyÃmahy \ hacà \ paruviyata \ ÃmÃtà \ ama
8. hy hacà \ paruviyata \hyà \amÃxam \ taumà \ xÅÃyathiyà \ Ãha \ th
9. Ãtiy \ DÃrayavauÅ \ xÅÃyathiya \ VIII \ manà \ taumÃyà \ tyaiy \ paruvam
10. xÅÃyathiyà \ Ãha \ adam navama \ IX \ duvitÃparanam \ vavam \ xÅÃyathi
11. yà \ amahy \ thÃtiy \ DÃrayavauÅ \ xÅÃyathiya \ vaÅnà \ Auramazd
12. Ãha \ adam \ xÅÃyathiya \ amiy \ Auzamazdà \ xÅaÃam \ manà \ frÃbara \ th
There's your original Old Persian inscription, and that was just the first twelve lines of the first column, which had roughly 96 lines. (Of course, Slashdot screws up accent marks.) Happy, sport?
Best "String" Ever!
Point taken. Thanks!
Athens, however, practiced mandatory veiling and seclusion of women and their ban from public life.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
omfg!
Yeah, Libya was "scared" into opening to the world by USA actions that actually strengthened indigenous jingoist elements through-out the Middle-East.
rotfl dude.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Maybe. It seems that finding new bodies to send to Afghanistan is already a problem, I'm not sure the UN could mount a similarly sized operation in Iran.
(Just glancing at Wikipedia, it looks like more than 50% of the soldiers in Afghanistan or U.S. soldiers, and I have a feeling the bias is even greater if you consider combat troops alone, instead of together with logistical support)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons... the United States intelligence community has reaffirmed as recently as two weeks ago that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program, and the IAEA has certified within the last several weeks that NONE of Iran's uranium is being enriched beyond 5% or being diverted to anything other than energy production. The new facility is not anywhere near completed and Iran told the IAEA about it last week, more than six months before it is expected to be operational, which is the legal requirement.
This run-up to war is a combination of jingoism and sloganeering, and it would be completely farcical if the United States hadn't already started a massive war right next door on the identical pretext.
Face it, US hates Iran because Iran won't kowtow to the US government.
Sure. 100% agree. Iranian leaders also seem to be crazy, at least to us Western observers. Iran is not winning international support for its leaders truculence and scurrilous claims about the USA and GB. Their stinky brand of self-serving nonsense must surely be aimed at a domestic audience. Kinda like Mugabe.
Now... the US might hate Iran because it wont kowtow, but the there's also the fact that Iranian leaders have next to no credibility, stoke ideological rivalries and beat war-drums. Keep in mind that this is a country that denies the holocaust occurred, and that Israel should be wiped off the map. I'm the last person to defend Israel's domestic policy, but I think you get the idea.
Hostility is a two-way street. What would you do?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
There's no indication to suggest that staying and wasting untold billions will improve anything.
I would suggest that the "world leaders" "band together" against Israel, which:
a. Has nuclear weapons
b. Is not a party to the non-proliferation treaty
c. Has the means of delivery of said nuclear weapons
d. Does not allow IAEA inspectors
e. Is extremely aggressive
Compared to Israel, Iran is in kindergarten. If you're going to apply sanctions to Iran, get rid of the double standard and apply them uniformly to Israel as well.
Make no mistake, the US must and will find a casus belli against Iran. The only question (for Iran) is whether they can become a nuclear power before that happens.
A nuclear Iran just presents the opportunity for the US and Israel to "detect a launch" thereby initiating a disguised first-strike that will eliminate any nuclear capabilities that Iran has for centuries. More likely Iran is trying to deter the US from supporting government opposition parties, and since this opposition probably consists of the majority of the population, annihilation is an acceptable risk.
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.
Maybe. It seems that finding new bodies to send to Afghanistan is already a problem
It's true, especially with Brits and Canadians planning to withdraw soon. However, this has more to do with the recent political failures in the handling of Afghanistan, as more and more people realize that there isn't going to be "proper" democracy there anytime soon, and that Western forces in the region are now essentially backing a corrupt, authoritarian regime with their guns, and at the cost of their lives.
The initial military invasion and occupation was by itself quite a success, however. And we don't have to occupy Iran to fix the nuclear problem - just take out their manufacturing capacity. Heck, just give green light to Israel, and they alone can take care of that, and ensure that it stays that way. This won't fix the underlying problem of Iran being a state that it is, of course, but that's not on the agenda at the moment.
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.
lol!
I recommend The Power of Nightmares. Not a perfect documentary, but award-winning, and with respect for objectivity.
This BBC documentary is a free download, and describes some of the political history behind characters dominant in Republican politics. Do not watch this documentary if you've got no stomach to look in the mirror and actually see your reflection.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Many people here are focused on the Iran/Israel connection, but what about our understandings with the Saudis? If I recall correctly, there are agreements with the Saudis (a Sunni majority nation) to "protect" them from Iran (a Shia majority nation), and there is no love lost between them. If Iran attacks Israel using nukes, that is an attack on Jerusalem - an attack anywhere on Israel would have major negative effects on Jerusalem, the second most holy site in Islam after Mecca. The regional power play is mostly between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis "condemned" the last attack by Israel on Iranian reactor facilities, but apart from that did nothing. Iran uses Hezbollah as a proxy against Israel, to good effect, without nukes. Isn't Saudi Arabia the real strategic target of Iran's nuke program? What say you all?
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
Making nukes is just technology and most every country becomes more technologically advanced every year. In the end, sanctions are just a delaying tactic. Hopefully, we have or are developing some coherent bipartisan policy for when everyone has a couple nukes around. Maybe that's way too optimistic in our polarized politics.
Iran has bad the bomb since 1991, if I had to guess.
Imagine it's 1991 and the USSR is busting apart at the seams. You're a Soviet general in the Turkmenistan area, managing a bunch of nuclear bombs and missiles. Are you going to:
1) do nothing, and watch the missiles fall into the hands of whatever small country gets created in the area
2) sell the missiles to a stable government nearby that has the desire to buy them and can pay cash
Anyone sane would go for option #2. Iran has probably had bombs for almost 20 years. They're just an unannounced nuclear power, rather than an announced nuclear power.
Shlomo? Why should someone disagreeing with you automatically possess or earn the name "Shlomo"?
This isn't about desroying Israel. Iran's leadership would not kill the Palestinians they claim as bretheren in faith. You can't selectively nuke a tiny country like Israel without massive casualties throughout the region. The fallout isn't selective based on religion.
So why would Iran build nukes - if that's what they are really about? Perhaps they are planning on developing the technology as a deterrent for the US and Europe. Iran can develop an ICBM that can reach the US - they are scientifically capable of it.
Or they could just be refining Uranium for electricity like they claim.
This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
If you're being invaded and use nukes, wouldn't that mean you're nuking your own country?
You ARE talking about the country and leadership that sent thousands of THEIR OWN high-school kids charging through minefields in "human waves".
Continuously. It was a strategy, not a one time thing.
"There is not a single school or town that is excluded from the happiness of "holy defence" of the nation, from drinking the exquisite elixir of martyrdom, or from the sweet death of the martyr, who dies in order to live forever in paradise."
Theocracies don't lose wars. How can they? You die, you go to heaven. It's a win-win situation.
Persepolis by Marjane Satrapi is an easy read to start with.
Not that much about the details of the war, but it is quite insightful regarding life prior, during and after the war that lasted for nearly a decade and gave birth to today's Iran.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The United States is NOT perfect. It IS, however, the BEST nation on this planet. There isn't a single other nation that comes as close to pure LIBERTY for its citizens. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, has the opportunity to achieve their best.There is nothing in place to prevent ANYONE to achieving whatever they can dream. There is no guarantee, though. You can't be lazy. You can't expect anyone to help, but if you are trying your hardest, you'll likely get some. We should revert back to the policy of our Founding Fathers. Strict neutrality in all cases where our security is not in peril. We will trade fairly with any and all countries regardless of form of government. We should pull our troops and equipment from all other countries and bring them back to the United States. Our presence is not appreciated, and we certainly aren't getting much out of having them there. When they get home, we have plenty of things for them to do, like guarding the borders. If there is a war, trade will continue as possible with all involved countries. We should cutoff all funding to other countries be it military or humanitarian. All you other countries do is complain about us anyway. We should eject the United Nations from our country. They are not following their charter and are no longer of any value to the United States. In the event of natural disaster, the United States will offer all possible assistance in terms of personnel, equipment, and knowledge at no cost. Nothing will be expected in return except the opportunity to trade freely with that nation. If that does not happen, no will assistance will be offered in the future, until such time as free and fair trade has been established. We should refocus our energy policy to within the borders of the United States and develop known oil reserves, resurrect our nuclear power industry, work to improve efficiency and cleanliness of coal, continue development of secondary energy sources such as solar and wind. We will still purchase energy where necessary and consider any restrictions placed on that trade as a hostile action to be dealt with proportionately. We should continue to develop our capability to shoot down incoming missiles. We should continue to develop our capability to detect and protect against hand carried nuclear devices. We should continue to develop our capability to detect and protect against biological weapons. All of these capabilities would be made available (for sale) to other countries who we believe to be "important" to our security either militarily or economic. It is in our interest to make all of these weapons obsolete and ineffective. We should retain our nuclear capabilities in order to be prepared for the worst case. If there is a case where the strategic defense is overwhelmed, then we must inflict maximum damage to the offending country. We should continue to develop our conventional defense capabilities in case we are invaded. We should not withdraw from the international community, but we should not entangle ourselves in external matters. We can make our approval or disapproval known, but we should take no other action unless our security is threatened in a real and meaningful way.
Sanctions also are only effective if everyone abides by them. With Iran though, if the western world stops selling them the widgets they need, China or Russia will fill the void. Then they become stronger allies and we have even less leverage than before.
I was reading an autobiography of one of the Sudanese exiles from the Darfur (What is the What?) region and he'd said something similar: British rule was good for Sudan since it kept the rivalries between north and south in check...plus the Brits built schools.
Seemed a bit better to him than mass human slaughter and exile.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
>> In a nuclear war, America is the only state
>> capable of defeating China or Russia.
In a nuclear war the US can't defeat any other nation which has ICBMs of sufficient range, or has a neighbor which has ICBMs of sufficient range. Once US ICBMs are anywhere close to Russian airspace (which means they could be striking China, for all they know), Russia will fire back with all its might, including mobile launch platforms roaming the tundra and nuclear subs patrolling the East Coast of the US.
Under this scenario, both the East and West coast will be completely destroyed. I wouldn't call that a "victory".
I guess it isn't THAT offtopic for slashdot after all!
Free Martian Whores!
This is very interesting. This is the real threat to US dollar hegemony, and hence, US hegemony. But if Iran has nukes, that's a pretty good defense against the inevitable US invasion. Even so, it's never been a better time to live in a remote place in the US. Think of the false flag operation that would be required (bodycount) to "justify" such a response. I hope I'm wrong.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
It is one thing for countries to pick sides when smaller nations go to war or rival factions spring up in a civil war. The USSR backing Iran vs. NATO pushing Iraq, or the PRC backing North Korea and NATO backing South Korea. It is an entirely different kettle of fish when a country is arming, financing, and training extra-national networks to carry out terror attacks. The nuclear ambitions of nations that engage in that last sort of activity can't be tolerated. Eventually some random "infidel den of inequity" is going to eat a nuclear or severe dirty-bomb attack from Hezbollah or a similar state-sponsored terror proxy. At that point you'll have to either declare war on the sponsor-nation based on gathered intelligence, or accept that sort of savagery as the new face of war-making and "diplomacy" that the rest of the world must accept.
Given the alternatives, bombing Iran's nuclear program back to the stone-age every 5 years until they stop sponsoring terror proxies like Hezbollah seems the least awful.
Al Qaeda and other extremist groups believe in the "cosmic" battle of good and evil. Iran is nationalist instead of cosmically religious, just as Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt are. Nationalists can be bargained with, because they want something that actually exists. They want a sovereign state where they can do as they wish. Reza Aslan gave a great talk on this.
http://fora.tv/2009/05/15/Reza_Aslan_How_to_Win_a_Cosmic_War
Every argument against allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon can equally be applied to the United States, where very recently the President literally believed in the rapture, where a very huge portion of the population believes in hastening the return of Christ. Iran did express interest in a nuclear free middle east, but the US refused to even negotiate on the basis that Israel would have to give up it's nuclear arsenal.
The United States is digging itself into a grave with the one sided nature of it's foreign policy. As soon as we finish bankrupting ourselves with our empire, I don't doubt the calls from everyone to disarm the evangelicals with the thousands of nuclear warheads will seem fair to us. But it will happen.
I heard a soundbite from Obama stating that Iran has a right to pursue ways to meet its energy needs (or words to that effect). I had to laugh - we're not even allowed to do that in the States. Build a nuclear plant I mean.
Of course I don't really believe Iran is enriching Uranium for energy purposes....
US giant bunker-buster bomb project rushed since Iran's Qom site discovered
DEBKAfile Special Report
September 28, 2009, 6:26 PM (GMT+02:00)
Estimated location of Qom enrichment plant
Estimated location of Qom enrichment plant
The Pentagon has brought forward to December 2009 the target-date for producing the first 15-ton super bunker-buster bomb (GBU-57A/B) Massive Ordinance Penetrator, which can reach a depth of 60.09 meters underground before exploding. DEBKAfile's military sources report that top defense agencies and air force units were also working against the clock to adapt the bay of a B2a Stealth bomber for carrying and delivering the bomb.
The Pentagon has ordered the number of bombs rolling off the production line increased from four to ten - a rush job triggered in May by the discovery that Iran was hiding a second uranium enrichment plant under a mountain near Qom - a discovery which prompted this week's international outcry.
Congress has since quietly inserted the necessary funding in the 2009 budget.
All this urgency indicates that the Obama administration has been preparing military muscle to back up the international condemnation of Iran's concealed nuclear bomb program, its sanctions threat and his willingness to join the negotiations with Iran opening on Oct. 1 in Geneva. Tehran may have to take into account a possible one-time surgical strike against its underground enrichment facility as a warning shot should its defiance continue. In particular, the world powers this week demanded that Iran open up all its nuclear facilities and programs to full and immediate international inspection. Failure to do so could bring forth further US military action.
According to our military sources, the earliest date for the accelerated Pentagon program to produce a super bunker buster bomb mounted on a stealth bomber is December 2009 or January 2010. This too is three years ahead of its original schedule.
Pressed into service are two US Air Force research centers for work on adapting the radar-evading stealth bomber to the giant bomb: the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the Munitions Directorate and Air Armament Center, both headquartered at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida.
Last month, DEBKAfile quoted Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford as disclosing that the Pentagon had decided to accelerate the production of 10-12 giant bunker buster bombs in response to intelligence received of Iranian and North Korean underground nuclear plants.
How come we never hear about this stuff here? hmmm
Get up!
Personally Iâ(TM)m not too worried about the whole affair, because I doubt Iran will use nuclear weapons even if they have them. There have only been two nuclear attacks in history, the two that the U.S. dropped on Japan during WWII and since then everyone, even the U.S., has been too scared to use them. Granted the Cold War was an intimidating time in history, but Mutually Assured Destruction did prevent the U.S. and Russia from destroying each other, and I think the same approach will keep Iran, and North Korea, and everyone else from using nukes. It isnâ(TM)t the best approach but until we get rid of nuclear weapons all together it will have to do. Maybe I am being naive but thatâ(TM)s my opinion, and if I am wrong, well, itâ(TM)s not like anyone will be left around to say âoeI told you so".
Let's start with Iran facts: Iran has been building nuclear power facilities for years and has a long history of allowing independent inspections of any requested facility. None of the inspections have shown weapons development. Iran supports a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East.
Israeli government and military facts: Israeli military has nuclear weapons (there's enough evidence to convince, among others, the US assistant secretary of defense). The Israeli government refuses to agree to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses inspections. The Israeli military bombed a Syrian nuclear energy plant in 2007. The Israeli government and military have plans to use nuclear weapons on Iran.
And just to show that no one is pure: Iranian and Israeli military jets bombed a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1980 and 1981. When it comes UN inspections of nuclear energy and weapons production facilities, is the US as open as Iran? The US demands some other countries account for all fissionable material but can it account for its own? Does the US support nuclear free zones on its own continent, or is that just for others? In your opinion is the US government being fair or hypocritical?
Let's move on to FUD: The Israeli government and military have fears that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. If, and this is a civilization threatening "if," bombing nuclear facilities that produce energy but could be used to develop weapons is allowed, then every nuclear facility in every country is a risk and could (should?) be bombed by any country. This is a policy so stupid it could only be inspired by private greed for power and supported through public fear; with no apparent concern for consequences.
Iran currently has oil and gas energy available, and could cheaply use those instead of nuclear power. Perhaps, though, the people of Iran are aware of the limited availability and the climate warming effects from burning oil and gas as established by climate scientists. So Iran has chosen a climatically safer energy source (which has its own serious issues). Like every government Iran's is not perfect, but on this issue its respect for inspections, nuclear weapons-free zone, and rational energy plans makes it a better example than a target.
...is that everyone seems to think that Ahmenidjad and/or the Holy Council are mad/insane/stupid.
Far from it.
Just look at what happened with North Korea? We were treating them like crap right up until 0500 UTC on October 9, 2006. Now all of a sudden we start treating them with respect and giving them a better seat at the bargaining table.
Iran is not stupid. They know that all they have to do is detonate one. Just one.
And then everyone is going to be treating them with a heck of a lot more respect than they're getting right now.
That, and Israel will suddenly have a VERY good reason to not try and use their weapons. Israel may have lots of nukes, but the other guy only needs ONE to make you really, really regret using yours.
[End Of Line]
I can't believe there are so many slashdotters who defend Iran but have nothing more to say than "Look over there! Israel! Jews!" Anti-Semitism is soooo twentieth century.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
yes, i am indeed 100% against the theocratic GOVERNMENT of iran, not its people
and you might have noticed a teensy weensy happening in iran in june of this year, in which the people of that country pretty much spoke out loudly in disfavor of their illegitimate government. you could call it a rant on their part ;-)
so if that makes me a moron, so be it, i embrace the label. that i stand with the iranian people, whom i love for their spirit, then i am happy to be a moron in your eyes for that
pray tell, who do you stand with?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Iran has a valid point. Why indeed should it be condemned when the major superpowers have stockpiles of missles?
I think that iran's point is that the US is in the position of a pot calling the kettle black.
Whether the US rightly enjoys the privilege of outranking Iran in terms of nuclear armament is another matter entirely.
I wonder...what if Iran were to join the UN Security Council?
Iran's policies and motivations are naturally fit to be condemned, but their logic in accusing the US of PKB is sound.
The secret ambition has been known by the US for a few years,and Iran notified the IAE prior to the US stooges yelling about it.They thought they were going to trump it up that Iran was doing dirty and Iran beat them to the punch.According to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,Iran only has to notify 6mos prior to the start of enrichment.So what you have is Iran outsmarting the USA,and any chance of making the sanctions that Obama and pals plan to employ seem just has vanished.Unlike the rogue nations of India,Israel,and No.Korea; Iran is complete compliance with international law.
I found this assessment by intelligence company STRATFOR very informative.
mod parent up
Let me add to your comments by saying that the elephant in the room is that the non-proliferation treaty is basically a joke.
The idea was, get all the non-nuclear powers (or most anyway) agree not to develop nuclear weapons. In exchange, the "big 5" will help them with the very much non-trivial engineering challenges of getting nuclear power up and running. And the nuclear powers agree to give up their nukes.
It simply isn't possible to have a "grown-up conversation" about nukes while the 'big 5' are implicitly advocating one set of rules for them and one set of rules for the rest of the world.
It's better for all to have a non-nuclear-armed world. But if nukes are in play, then the rational strategy for any given state is to maintain "minimum deterrence" - just barely enough nukes to make it undesirable for somebody else to nuke us, and not a single dollar more.
Charles de Gaulle had a line about "no country without nuclear weapons could ever be considered to be fully independent."
The traditional strategy of the great powers of the day was to either bribe or coerce countries to sticking to their NPT obligations.
But you can't do either with Iran. They have oil, so they have enough money. They can close the straight of Hormuz, so you can't treat them like Iraq.
So, there's only one way to get Iran to not work on nukes - you have to actually convince them using, wait for it, rational arguments.
I realize this is a new one for great powers. Using force is attractive because it works. But it's not viable here.
So if the argument they wanna use on Iran is "we get to have nukes and you don't, because, um, because we're special or something" that's not gonna fly.
The only way to convince non-nuclear powers to stay that way is for nuclear powers to become non-nuclear powers.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
There is not a single human who has "been religious for thousands of years" ... and anyone else, maybe when they're staring death in the face, they'll realize that life is too short for that shit.
Or they'll kill each other off, and solve the problem that way.
If they want to fight so bad, let's give them a territory to fight in, nothing but their bare fists, and let them go at it. They want to behave like animals, let them.
With all due respect, it sounds corny because it is. "The world" (hello, I live there) doesn't view the USA with awe, but with envy and fear. Yes, America still has exports, but they're increasingly franchises and intangibles ("intellectual property") rather than physical goods. You can only innovate so many new ways to sell burger outlets, movies and pharmaceutical recipes. The balance of trade figures show that pretty clearly. When does the "innovation and industry" kick in and result in a net export? If there's anything beyond oil-purchasing behind the dollar's value, it's the threat of American military power, expressed as "sanctions" (i.e. blockade). Envy and fear.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think this is the most offtopic submission I've read here ever! This clearly shows that /. is not immune to biased journalism. Have any of you know what's happening in Honduras? Personal liberties have been suspended! Why nobody's talking about that? Because the new guys in power are functional to Washington, that's why. I don't see /. following Honduras situation as closely and I understand why, because this is NOT a site to talk about such things.
Oh, but it's the evil Iran right? What? Now Iran has WMDs? Yeah right. This time is for sure, right? And if so: So what? Israel has an unaccounted number of nukes and nobody says anything about it and a guy in Iran shoots a .22 and they are all "Oh no the evil terrorists have shot a .22!"
Please... All of them, and I mean ALL of them are a bunch of greedy leaders fighting for power. And that's it. It all comes down to that. Who controls what and for how long.
Now please stick to the f'ing News for nerds and stuff that matters.
I'm surprised he didn't misspell "Anonymous Coward".
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
The pervasive US imperialism is ridiculous.
This is 'Iraq' all over again. Lies, lies and lies.
Iran did nothing wrong w.r.t. the NPT.
Yet they, the stupid neocon propaganda, make it appear otherwise.
Of course nobody except the USA can have nuclear knowledge. We will not discuss other countries that the US sells nuclear knowledge to. We will not ask Israel to allow inspections or to remove the nukes there.
Iran invaded no countries in that region as the USA did under _false_ pretences.
Yes, the bankrupt nation and its leaders lied to us nad betrayed us.
No WMD's, no El Qaida link for Iraq. No Osama found in Afghanistan. No progress in iraq, no progress in Pipelinistan. No exit strategy, no end in sight. No bounds to cost for a bankrupt empire.
See e.g. http://zapruder.nl/portal/artikel/maandagmorgen_briefing_week_39/ : US gives nuclear technology to India, yet India did not sign NPT.
Nucleaire tech for both Iran as North Korea was delivered by... USA
Also see the âoeSibel Edmonds scandalâ where USA officials and politicians sekk nuke tech to Turkey and IsraÃl. No NPT for Israel.
Sarkozy. French president is sells âoenuke techâ. Almost every arab gulf state and complete North Africa is offered nucleaer tech. Needless to say: no NPT....
In the Gulf, France will get through these deals a nice military base opposite Iran.
Russia delivers nuke tech to Iran but also builds nuclear power plants in Turkey.
So who is the bad guy here?
Oooooh, the big bad scary Iran is coming for Israel!
Look, even if we take the statements of some of the more wacko members of the Iranian government at face value (which we shouldn't), um, if Jamaica declared that the USA was an illegitimate state and their intention to destroy it as a matter of public policy, would anyone care?
OK, Iran vs Israel isn't quite that big a difference in military power, but seriously guys, c'mon. Israel is what, the 4th or 5th most powerful nation in the world, militarily speaking? (Off the top of my head, they're less powerful than the USA, Russia, China, and...? They probably have as many or more nukes than Britain or France, right?)
Israel vs "the entire combined military forces of every arab country in the region" would still be no contest.
_One_ of Israel's regional neighbors, with whom they've never actually gone to war, maybe-sorta-kinda-possibly getting a handful of nukes, doesn't change that.
Israel's nukes are basically defensive anyway. It means that nobody, not even say, NATO, could invade them. It means that even if they lost conclusively in a conventional war, they have the nukes as a 'last resort' to end that kind of war. But I don't see the Israelis being defeated in a conventional war, by arab countries, um, this side of the heat death of the universe.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Actually, that's true, but there's another side to it.
He was trying to buy stuff from Pakistan's AQ Kahn's network. When the Libyans figured out that Kahn had sold them "last year's model", i.e. stuff that would give him low-grade enrichment, or just didn't work very well.
So you're absolutely right, on Quadaffi saying "this nutter's _serious_!" was part of the motivation, but they basically traded intel on the nuclear smuggling ring for goodwill from the Americans.
Smart, really. Nuclear weapons, like chemical and biological ones, aren't really that useful, and they're expensive. The reason they've only ever been used _once_ in war isn't because the world's leaders are just such moral people who would Never Do That, but because dollar for dollar, nuclear and biological and chemical weapons just aren't that effective.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Yeah, once more, Israel never misses a chance to miss an opportunity.
Israel's bigger problem is, if they don't find a way to integrate with their regional neighbors, they're not long-term stable.
Israel currently has
1) unquestioned military superiority in the region
2) Nuclear monopoly in the region
3) (basically) unqualified support of the Americans.
Now, those three things are that way now, but will they be that way forever? I'm sure the Crusader kingdoms of the 12 century or so looked pretty stable, too. But eventually the crusaders had to go home.
Israel I'm sure would like to keep their nuclear monopoly, and yes they've said "if the rest of the world won't deal with Iran, then we will", but I'm not sure that they can _do_ anything about Iran's nuclear program. (Or alleged nuclear program, whatever)
It's not like when they hit the Iraqi nuclear site in the 80s, took it out with an air strike. All the Iranian nuke sites are either hardened, or underneath cities, or both.
Also, you attack Iran, they can close the Straight of Hormuz, and not even the full might of the Americans could prevent that. Anybody got a contingency plan for dealing with that?
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Iran has been rattling sabers recently. Their government is irresponsible and wants to wipe Israel off the map. Talking to these people is like trying to reason with a pit viper. The Iranian people are decent people but they have no say about their leaders and end up in jail or dead if they disagree publicly. Since we don't seem to be able to do much with the two wars we are already involved with, it is probably going to be up to Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. If they don't, they can expect to be attacked with nuclear weapons as soon as Iran can make them and has enough to get the job of destroying Israel done. There are no maybes about this. Since China seems unwilling to go along with sanctions, which usually only hurt the populace, we don't have many options. I know the US government would never do it but a few well placed small nuclear devices could put a halt to Iran's nuclear program and also their missile development. If we don't do something, we will have a major crisis in a few years which will involve the death of millions of people. I am against war unless it is necessary for survival but the necessity is coming very soon.