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
- 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.
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...
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 -----------------------------------
Oh, it is indeed a double standard. However, the countries condemning them haven't alluded to wiping their enemies off the face of the planet, as Iran has http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/26/ahmadinejad/index.html
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.
They guy pushing the button my believe the 71 virgin shtick.
We just need to let them know that nobody ever said those 71 virgins were women.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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
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.
They're quantum virgins: their gender depends on the observer.
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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
No, they haven't. You might want to ask yourself who's trying to fool you, and why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel
it's in my head
It crazy not to !
I not Arab hater. I Persians hater, yes !!
Oh my God, a LOLcat learned how to post on Slashdot.
"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".'
Ah yes: a huge, eternal, post-mortal D&D session awaits the faithful jihadist.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.