Slashdot Mirror
Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
selven wrote in with something a bit offtopic for Slashdot, but I figured it's worth a discussion today. He writes "Following Iran's revelation regarding its secret nuclear enrichment plant, western leaders are banding together against it, saying that it violates Articles 2 and 3 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and suggesting serious sanctions against the country if it refuses to back down on its uranium enrichment program. Iran maintains that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only and that it's not fair for the US to be criticizing them in this way while having thousands of nuclear warheads."
If I saw both my neighbors being invaded, I would rush to get the nukes as fast as I could, too.
I'm not an expert, but the news reports seem to indicate that this new facility (at a military base) doesn't have the capacity to produce a useful quantity of enriched fuel for a power plant, but could potentially produce enough for 1-2 bombs per year.
Combine that with the fact that Iran flares enough natural gas daily to more than meet its internal energy generation requirements, pardon me for being a bit skeptical about their motives.
- 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
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.
Gee,
Look the other way, for Israel.
Look the other way, for India.
Maybe proliferation is not the real issue, and they will find the excuse to demolish Persia - by hook or by crook.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Well, on one side you have a county of war-mongering, religious fanatics and on the other side you have a country of war-mongering, religious fanatics.
You see the difference now?
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
I'm a bit confused about the concept of "fairness" in this context. Do we allow anyone who wants to have nuclear weapons the option to acquire them because there's some natural "fairness" law? Only a cretin would say so. The way it works is if you're a threat to us, or a region containing friends of ours, then we don't want you to have them (Iran, Syria). If you're an ally, we'd rather you didn't have them but there's not much we can do to stop you acquiring them (India, Pakistan). If you're already strong and powerful, we assure your destruction if you fire them at us (Russia, China).
Israel refuse to co-operate with UN on nuclear inspections
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."
Iran launches one at Isreal, in which case it is 100% Iran's fault.
-Or-
Isreal launches one at Iran, in which case it is 100% Iran's fault.
The logic there is amazing. For the record, I'm not trying to say that it's 100% Isreal's fault either. Just trying to point out that it's a bit more complicated that your statement seems to imply.
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)
And if you're Israel, apparently we pretend that we don't know that you're packing.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
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.
> Iran, on the other hand, has repeatedly declared it's desire for the total annihilation of the the nation of Israel (among others).
Well, no, actually. He did call for the regime to fall, a much different meaning. Did Iran threaten Israel with nuclear attack? No.
On the other hand, we had a U.S. presidential candidate singing "Let's Bomb Iran". Why the double standard?
> demonstrated intent to export insurrection with the stated goal of complete domination
Source? (other than Fox News, of course)
This isn't American propaganda. All this is saying is if Russia or China fires on us, we have enough nukes to fire back ensuring that both parties are wiped out. It is base purely on the nuclear arsenal and not military might per se. So chill the fuck out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
In a conventional war the US would require allies.
In a trade war, China can ruin the US economy - but they'd severely hurt themselves in the process. In a trade war, Russia influence is limited to cutting off gas supplies to Eastern Europe.
If you prove to the world that you are an idiot and want to eliminate other countries, you don't get nukes. Iran has proven this. Israel just wants to exist as it is and has proven this. A portion of the Muslim world is just too radical!
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Ironically, the best way to destabilize a ponderous, oppressive government such as Iran's is to ensure the growth of a strong middle class in the target country with an educated and politically active youth. Sanctions tend to do the opposite by denying (or reducing) a country's access to trade, economic growth, pharmaceuticals and health benefits, knowledge and innovation. It stigmatizes countries' populations against the world, which often entrenches hard-line governments with staunch supporters. Sanctions also reduce positive effect of the global community's political feedback: if a country is already a pariah, their leaders have little incentive to conform to accepted norms (e.g. human rights).
That's not to say that sanctions are never appropriate. It's just an observation on their effect.
I saw 300 and I have to say the atrocities the Persian's commit on a daily basis are unholy and deserve our Christian justice.
Of course it can.
Do you really think the bullshit in Iraq or Afghanistan is a full showing of force for the American military?
They're political occupations designed to stagnate and fail.
It won't be until the next real war, where American soil is under threat of attack or takeover, that the US military will unleash some of the new toys its been hiding.
I don't think settlements can be considered as "just exist".
Dilbert RSS feed
It crazy not to !
I not Arab hater. I Persians hater, yes !!
Oh my God, a LOLcat learned how to post on Slashdot.
Say what you will, but Israel is not a country I'd mess with.
Consider their history....there have been countless efforts to wipe them off the face of the planet, from back in Biblical times to the Nazi regime. Yet not only are they still around, but they've managed to get their country re-established, in the same location, after not existing for hundreds of years.
That's one country I want to keep on our side, packing or not...
Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran was NOT in the best interests of any nation. It WAS in the best interests of British Petroleum. Let us be honest here: a democratic government was thrown under the bus for the sake of money, nothing more, and nothing less.
Yes, our past sins are haunting us.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The US is too busy destroying the middle class in their own country to worry about supporting the growth of it in another. All this warmongering is just an excuse to start up more intervention in the Middle East. What's surprising is even /. is joining in with the MSM to try to whip up support for more military action. The irony being that all this is occurring under a president that won a significant number of votes by appealing to people that wanted a less interventionist government.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Ah yes: a huge, eternal, post-mortal D&D session awaits the faithful jihadist.
Optimus Prime?
Seriously, right now the US is fighting wars in 2 theaters and is limited by the will of the politicians in power. If American soil were occupied or under imminent threat of occupation, I don't think the politicians would 1) worry about popularity of the upcoming war poll numbers 2) need to worry about said poll numbers. Americans would band together, at least for a while, to expel and destroy with prejudice an occupying force just so we could get back down to the business of our own politics without outside influence.
--Mike
As long as the US has nuclear weapons, Iran will have a legitimate reason to develop its own nuclear weapons. That is, to protect against American aggression.
The best way to avoid war with Iran is to disarm, pull our forces out of the region, and open trade with them. We need to help develop their middle class, show that we are not a threat, and give them a business interest in becoming more moderate.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Agreed. The American Military is capable of deploying a terrific volume of horrific violence. A volume and ferocity inconceivable to most. That's their job and they do an excellent job of it.
In a nuclear war, America is the only state capable of defeating China or Russia.
Unless your mythical strategic defence shield is now working and the propaganda machine hasn't started working yet, this is false. In a nuclear war, America is not capable of defeating China or Russia, it is capable of ensuring that both sides lose. Putting China and Russia in the same category is a bit odd, as both France and the UK have more nuclear warheads than China but an order of magnitude fewer than Russia. Both have enough to destroy every major city in Russia or China, even accounting for some missiles being intercepted.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
As long as the US has nuclear weapons, Iran will have a legitimate reason to develop its own nuclear weapons. That is, to protect against American aggression.
The best way to avoid war with Iran is to disarm, pull our forces out of the region, and open trade with them. We need to help develop their middle class, show that we are not a threat, and give them a business interest in becoming more moderate.
You forgot the holding of hands and singing Kumbaya.
By that reasoning, you must tremble at the thought of messing with Greece. Better keep them on our side at all costs!
Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three.
Trouble is, this is a country run by crazy religious zealots, that quote their religion when they blow stuff up. The powers that be over there, can't be trusted to 'play nice' with their nukes. They would be very likely to start shooting them off unprovoked.
So why is Israel allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Football Odds
You are talking about a country run by people who have repeatedly stated that it is the duty of all muslims to work towards being in a position to start Armageddon (or Ragnarok, basically the apocalyptic battle at the end of the world). In addition to these statements, they have also expressed their own desire to trigger said battle.
What is the source for these statements? Whatever it is, it is not an official position of the Iranian government. Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that Iran shall never acquire these weapons.
Exactly how does MAD deter people who wish to start an end of the world battle?
By deterring the majority of rational people who don't wish to start the end days. It should be noted that the same concerns have been expressed about evangelical Christians in the USA who want to bring about the end days. e.g. the Concerned Christians who planned terrorist attacks in Israel to try and start Armageddon. These people believe that they must destroy the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem so that Jesus can return. Some of them finance settlers because they believe this is the quickest way to start a war between the Arabs and Jews that will lead to Jesus returning. Many religions prophesize the End days, and there are a minority of followers in all of those religions who want the war to start so the Saviour will return and take them to Heaven. Hopefully, the rational people will prevail.
On the other hand Israel has a vested interest in having the bomb so they can use it as a threat in the end game scenario where the Arab world actually successfully teams up against them. There is a lot of speculation that the reason the US intervened in '67 and concocted the camp David accords to pay Israel and Egypt annual sums to avoid war was precisely because US intelligence assets saw Israel prep'ing their nukes for delivery to Cairo during the losing portion (for Israel, 12,000+ casualties is near catastrophic for the IDF). It's speculated that the US emergency equipment airlift was a concession to stop Israel from nuking Cairo (and or using the weapons tactically against the Egyptian tank forces) and the successive Accords were to prevent Egypt and Israel from doing the Tango again.
Ironically it's precisely this accord that got Osama and his Egyptian buddies panties in a bunch because they saw the double wammy of supporting Israel (which up until '67 the US didn't do) and supporting the Egyptian dictator who ordered the torture of many of the Al Queda higher level people before they were evicted from Egypt.
Damned if you do damned if you don't. Had we allowed Israel to go forward with the deployment of Nuclear weapons the damage both direct and indirect would have been catastrophic yet we are blamed for stopping something very very bad from happening. Of course Al Queda has demonstrated to the Arab world their willingness to sacrifice innocent Muslims to their cause and probably would have preferred that Israel use the nuclear weapons and the successive generations of damage the fallout would have caused, let alone the direct casualties.
Probably because someone thinks pointing out the double-standard for Israel is un-american or something. Anyway, the idea of sanctions is doomed unless the US can get both Russia and China to go along with them. China because (major reason) it has a permanent seat on the UN security council and can veto any sanction request and (minor reason) they can hit back at the US if they ever wish to by engaging in mildly self-harming trade war with the USA (which they own a lot of thanks to government borrowing and so can dump US dollars). Russia because it has a similar veto right and (especially) because if it wants to it has enough reserve capacity to fuel the whole of Iran and can provide it by (in order of convenience) rail, Caspian sea or road.
Anyway, the GP is right to bring Israel into this. One of the big pressures on the USA (I suppose THE pressure) is that Israel is threatening to initiate bombing raids on Iran if they aren't satisfied with it reigning in its technological progress. Israel is confident that the US would back it up in any action (indeed, Israeli bombers would need to pass over US controlled airspace to carry out the attacks as I understand it, which would make the US complicit even if it didn't supply military aid beyond the tech and money over previous years).
What the inner government of Iran thinks privately I don't think many people really know. It's quite possible that they think Israel wouldn't be stupid enough to start a war which would drag the whole region down in flames. There has to be some doubt in their minds about that - after all this is Israel - but publically, they're not showing much willingness to roll over for US demands.
At anyrate, the US will have to pay quite the price to Russia to get it to help with sanctions (after all, Russia is fine with Iran, though they probably don't want to see it nuclear-capable). The US has already backed down on Ballistic Missile Defence (alienating Poland and the Czech republic who were supposed to be hosting two of the bases, incidentally), but BMD was an over-priced failing project anyway and Medvedev pretty much said that Russia just considered withdrawing it merely a return to the negotiating table. If the US wants sanctions against Iran, other people will probably be paying the price - that will be the US giving in on pushing for greater control of Georgia and the Ukraine (or from a certain point of view, throwing them to the Bears).
If Iran is a lot closer to creating nukes (it would make sense that they are trying to do so - so would you if you were threatened by two nuclear powers - but nobody's shown any good evidence that they are)... if Iran is a lot closer to creating nukes than we think and US or Russian Intelligence know this then perhaps Russia will be more amenable to sanctions. But if Iran is not near to having nuclear weapons as everyone appears to think, then Russia's only going to help at a big old cost of some kind. After all, they hold a bargaining chip that could stave off US involvement in a long-term and very destructive war.
So that's more or less how I see sanctions and the cost of them if they come about. If we do get sanctions then (a) a lot of Iranian people will probably suffer in the same way that the Iraqi people suffered when that country was put under sanctions during Saddam's regime; (b) moderate elements in Iran (e.g. Moussavi's former supporters) will become hardline elements in droves strengthening Ahmadinijad enormously; (c) Iran will probably mine oil shipping routes causing a massive interruption in international oil supplies.
If we don't get sanctions, then we have to hope that either Iran gets nuclear weapons and everyone has to accept it and play more nicely in future, or that Israel isn't willing to plunge the whole region into a great bloody struggle. If they do, then Russia will probably sell Iran some more modern weaponry (they've been turning Iran down for years) because they see no reason why the US and Israel should be attacking a fairly non-aggressive country next door to them.
I welcome constructive criticism of the above.
Harmony.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Its clear.
After being attacked a few times, Israel conquered the area, and intends to keep it.
At one time or another, most countries have lost lands to conqueroring nations. Most ancient and modern states were constructed this way.
This idea that conquered lands should be "given back" is a relatively new idea. (And one that, oddly, does not apply to Arab states.)
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Why is that modded as funny?
The logic is simple. Change the internal reward structure for their behaviour with a win-win situation.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That is exactly the strategy we have followed with "Red China." Some would say it has worked out pretty well.
Boy this is a hard topic to discuss without feeling like you're inadvertently supporting one side or the other.
I'll just preface this by saying this is a topic that has interested me for many years, but especially in light of 9/11, etc. I do not pretend to be any kind of expert on this (who could?)
So:
I was all set to say "how could you have missed all these news quotations saying the he wants to blow up Israel?!?!" But after doing some digging: It turns out that this is the first time I've heard anyone make a genuine distinction between what CNN / FOX / etc. keep quoting and what was actually translated from his original speech:
Source: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel (Oct. 26, 2005)
Now: I am not supporting this guy (I can't overstate this), nor am I in support of Iran's totalitarian government, but it does appear that the press seem to have reinterpreted his speeches in words that will rile up Western populations.
His argument seems to be a common one from that region:
- Israel is a state and government which he and many others do not recognize, but which Western governments do.
- Israel as a state was created by Western governments following WWII and placed in what used to be known as Palestine, thus his (and many others) continuous reference to "occupied Palestine."
- He considers the state to be a fiction, and wants the Islamic world to work together to remove that state from the region, essentially returning it to the Palestinians.
I could only find this translation regarding his statements about the Holocaust:
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Statement_on_Holocaust_Remembrance_Day
So again: I don't see in that quote that he's "denying" the holocaust. (And yes: I know it's out of context, and it's from Wikipedia) He's saying that an "outcome of the Holocaust" was that they made these claims for reparation and compensation, and that they achieved this (the creation of Israel within Palestinian land) via less-than-acceptable means.
The fact that you clarified this particular oft-misquoted statemen
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
Bush: God Told Me to Invade Iraq (sourced from The Independent)
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'
Uhhh....ever read up on The Six Day War? Israel has been stirring up shit with its neighbors for DECADES because it knows the USA will always be there to cover its ass if the excrement hits the cooling device.
Allow me to quote the former defense minister Moshe Dayan "After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that's how it was. I did that, and Laskov and Chara did that, and Yitzhak did that, but it seemed to me that the person who most enjoyed these games was Dado."
That BTW wasn't something made up by some Arab, the man bragged about it in his book. So I don't honestly see how you can describe any of the players in the region as "responsible" as BOTH sides have been major asshats, only IMHO Israel has gotten extra assholey thanks to having big daddy USA backing them up and selling them really nice hardware. Oh and you might want to know that even with our economy in the shitter we are sending them ultra fatty checks to the tune of $7,000,000 A DAY! Frankly as long as we are running deficits we shouldn't be sending jack shit to anybody, especially when the country we are sending it to is gonna use it to act like douches. We need to quit propping up these countries and stay the hell out of everybody's business and mind our own, sadly something we haven't done since before WWII.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.