Slashdot Mirror
Report Claims Iran Has Data To Build a Nuclear Bomb
reporter writes "According to a startling report just covered by the New York Times, 'senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable atom bomb.' In 2007, American intelligence erroneously concluded that Tehran in 2003 stopped further research into designing a nuclear bomb. This conclusion was contradicted by German, French, and Israeli intelligence. Recently, London also concluded that the American assessment is incorrect. So, here we are. The Iranians have the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb and have been working relentlessly to perfect its design. Tehran is apparently able to create the components (e.g. enriched uranium) that can be assembled into such a weapon. Meanwhile, Jerusalem is communicating with the Kremlin about a list of Russian scientists it believes are assisting Iran's efforts to develop the bomb."
More proof that the overt cold war ended, but the covert battle continues.
Should we really be so shocked? Haven't nuclear weapons been present in the middle east for over 3 decades now, in Israel?
Doesn't that just proof that they have Internet access?
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Wiki nukes - The nuke building resource that anyone can edit.
Kim_Jong_il (Reverted edits by Ali Khamenei (talk) to last version by Sadr-e-Mumlikat)
How reliable is US intelligence today? I mean, they were wrong (or lied) about Iraq, and now they are seemingly wrong about Iran.
I cannot make up my mind which is worse, them being wrong or them lieing...
Lies, thats worse...
But them being (apparently) wrong on this makes me wonder how often they are wrong with intel regarding the The War On Terror (TM)
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
that the Iranians are trying so hard to get access to discoveries primarily made by American Jews?
As a member of the NPT Iran is well within its rights to posses the outlined technologies. The article clearly omits the fact that such capabilities can also lead to better yeilds from civilian/peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
It's perfectly possible to design a basic nuclear weapon with freely-available information today. Any country large enough to have competent physicists and engineers could do it.
Obtaining raw materials is the problem.
There was a project in the US, the name of which I forget (could someone furnish us with a link?), in which a group of scientists with no background in nuclear weapon design and no access to classified information were asked to design a nuclear weapon. They then had experts with access to nuclear test data and so on to analyse the plans and determine whether they would work. The results were classified, but so were the plans, suggesting they worked.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
And, as mentioned above, pretty much everyone with an internet access and a curious mind.
Even without it, with a little help from a Finite Element Analysis software and the most basic equation from Particle physics and theoretical chemistry, pretty much anyone can aquire the Data to build the bomb.
The Manhattan project used punchcard analog computers and human calculators (google it) to derive the necessary data, every desktop computer has much more calculating power.
However this is not the issue. The issue is how to apply this knowledge, this is what eats up all the budget of most Nuclear programs. Its not enough to know how to separate the uranium isotopes with a gas centrifuge, you have to build it, actually several thousands of them, and even then it will take years.
IMHO its not about the Data we should be worried, its about whether or not they have the necessary hardware to apply this data.
Almost anyone could make an A-bomb if they had sufficient amount of weapons grade uranium 235, or plutonium. The real challenge is extracting the uranium 235 isotope from uranium ore.
Even Wikipedia has enough detail on both purification and bomb building to give you a good head start. I don't think the challenge is the lack of theoretical knowledge or the process, but technology to do so. Those centrifuges are not easy to make (they spin up to 90,000 RPM) and something as a fingerprint on one of them will make it shatter when it's spinning that fast.
But these days, almost any country that really wants to (and does not care about political or economic repercussions) could develop nuclear technology.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
Dude, I totally see why you posted AC, but bang F@$k on man.
"You can see I know very little about pimp policy." George McGovern.
I bet they can't wait to join the lets-pay-huge-amounts-of-money-to-maintain-dormant-stockpiles-of-useless-weapons club.
Do you see what I did there?
If any country doesn't have plans for at least a 1940s-era bomb, it's for lack of trying.
Having blueprints and having the means to build a bomb are two very different things.
Besides, a lot has changed since the 1940s - it's very hard to hide the very-large-real-estate/very-high-power-demand technology the Manhattan Project used to enrich uranium.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
One thing about being part of the "Axis of Evil" is that it tends to make one feel insecure. Sometimes other countries threaten to invade and/or talk about bombing back to the stone age... and then one notices that they don't talk that way about countries with nukes...
just sayin..
seems inevitable right now and America must protect it's territory or they will be endangered by Iran in no time(or just a little bit of time).
If you RTFA you'll see that it's highly qualified to the effect that "we really don't have good intelligence."
I remember watching Colin Powell at the UN showing aerial slides that I couldn't figure out that he said were mobile chemical weapons plants.
I remember thinking to myself, "Well I think this WMD business is bullshit, but if the whole Bush Administration is going to put themselves on the line over it, then maybe there's something to it. If they're lying, Bush will lose the next election."
Anyone who unskeptically believes the government is stupid.
The Genie is out of the bottle.
Further, it is the height of arrogance that we sit on an arsenal of thousands of nuclear weapons and sit on high and tell the rest of the world, "No, you cannot have nuclear weapons."
I thought "Do as I say, not as I do" was stupid when I was a child, and I still do as an adult.
If I were in charge of a nation and any nation with nuclear weapons tried to tell me I could not have them I would tell them to come back when they have no nuclear weapons themselves.
But, given the nature of American diplomacy today, where we will invade anyone without the bomb in the name of "democracy and freedom", if I were in charge of a nation without the bomb I would make it my nation's highest priority to obtain it so that I would not be the next nation who has American "democracy and freedom" brought to me on the tip of a sword.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
This is an utterly ridiculous thing to say. The standard US warhead, the W88, has a yield of 475 kilotons. That gives it a third degree burn radius of only nine kilometres.
Do you really think it's impossible to deploy a weapon with a nine kilometre radius of effect without causing 99% civilian casualties? Really? Of course it isn't. That's not to say that they wouldn't, in most scenarios, be deployed against urban areas and cause huge civilian casualties, because they would. But huge civilian casualties isn't a property inherent to the weapon itself! It doesn't spawn a few hundred thousand civilians ready to be incinerated, you have to fire it at an area full of civilians!
as soon as dimona is opened up for inspection, the isralis can whine all they want, until they sign off on the ntp and all ow inspections, they need the seiously stfu.
-.no
If you mean, "Why is there a nuclear arms race?"
It's because Eisenhower fired Patton.
The Admin and the Engineer
Skill is a bit harder to come by.. You have to go buy/threaten an ex soviet scientist for that.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Just remember, "building a nuclear weapon" requires technology from 64 years ago.
"Building a thermonuclear weapon" requires technology from 55 years ago.
"Compact thermonuclear warheads" (deployable on medium-sized missiles) requires technology from 47 years ago.
On the engineering and manufacturing side, the hard part is creating metal parts with really, really fine tolerances. Which requires machining equipment you can buy for under a hundred thousand dollars nowadays.
The only hard part about building a nuclear weapon is getting the materials...
I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
That is the US logic about gun ownership. If you own a gun, criminals (with guns) will stay away from you.
Sure... because no criminal would ever just shoot you if they think you have a gun and just take your money of your corpse.
Iran doesn't want to be invaded so it develops weapons of mass destruction... That worked REALLY well for sadam didn't it (people forget that Saddam might have had any, but constantly pretended that he did).
Sorry, but your logic falls flat in the real world. Countless nations don't have nukes and don't invaded at all.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"We did so because other did so too."
In retrospect, I glad you - USA - haven't copied what Hitler did.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Any competent physicist who can get the tools and materials (that's the hard part) can do it.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I don't know, if the USA had killed all of their jews and homosexuals then they'd be a long way behind the rest of the world scientifically, so their military wouldn't be such a threat to small countries, and fewer people would want nukes. Mind you, they'd probably have lost the cold war, so things might not be better overall...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
SO does the internet. Operations undertaken by highly trained and specialized intelligence units have found that there is atomic bomb data available on the internet, and thus far the INTERNET has REFUSED to allow inspections - additionally there are islamic radicals taking about jihad.
Whatever your worst nightmare is, the internet has it..There is only one option:
The INTERNET MUST BE LIBERATED (by bombs).
Don't let the warning come in the form of a mushroom cloud, (or lolcat suicide bombers).
Because natural gas & oil are limited resources, so they need to start thinking now about how to replace those resources. Additionally, with oil reaching $100+ a barrel last year it's only natural that they will try to conserve as much as possible by investing in other energy resources.
Well, no.
During the Cold War period, the overwhelming majority of the nuclear weapons were targetted on the other side's nuclear weapons.
Which, oddly enough, were generally kept out in the boonies far from civilian populations.
Sure, there were Bombs targetted at command and control centers, and those tended to be in places that had civilians all around, but even if every command and control center in the USA were obliterated, there'd not have been more than 30% civilian casualties.
Now, one must, of course, keep in mind that 30% civilian casualties is horrendous. It would probably cause a complete breakdown of society above the local level....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
A ploy not to go to war? That's funny!
Just look around today-- the very same tactics that were used to get us to support invading Iraq have been rolled out to manufacture support for attacking Iran: The drumbeat of ever-more-dire media reports, claims of the "greatest threat to the world today," making outrageous demands of the target so that they look evil when they do not comply (because they cannot comply), reporting provable falsehoods and failing to retract them, et cetera. Most of the very same people who wanted a U.S. invasion of Iraq are still in high positions of influence and power, and now they want an invasion of Iran. Never mind that these people were utterly wrong (at best) or liars (at worst) about Iraq-- no nuclear weapons, no biological weapons, no yellowcake from Niger, no fleets of unmanned drones, no al-Qaeda connection whatsoever. It doesn't matter. The media still holds them up as the only credible voices, the people with realistic foreign policy "gravitas" and experience. The people who were right about Iraq are still dismissed as naive, not credible on foreign policy, or fruitcakes.
No, the United States is not "extremely pacifistic about war" now! It's definitely on course to get involved in a third major war.
The sad part, to me, is that Americans are falling for it again. We just lived through the propaganda 8 years ago, and our troops are still occupying Iraq. Yet, here we are again, cowering under our beds in fear of a nation with less than 1/4 our population and about 0.6% of our military budget. Worried sick about a country half-way around the globe that doesn't have the motive nor the means to launch at us a weapon that they don't even have, can't yet build, and may or may not even want!
Worse, getting into this war would harm us more than Iran ever could. We're already mired in an economic crisis in part brought on by the massive diversion of our resources to two on-going conflicts. An attack on Iran could very well be our economic coup de grace, finishing off the dollar as the international reserve currency and ending our ability to finance our astronomical debt. Goodbye military spending, goodbye overseas empire, and goodbye American Dream. Even if we could keep the current, unsustainable borrowing going despite an attack on Iran and more-enormous military spending, that spending will keep our economy weak.
It's ridiculous to the point of absurdity, but the U.S. government is not trying to avoid war now.
Does North Korea really have nukes? They keep saying they do, but their 'nuclear' test somehow didn't generate any radioactivity. I was in the US when that happened and I found it particularly entertaining that 'North Korea Tests Nuke!!111eleventyone' was front page news right up until someone thought to wave a geiger counter downwind of the test and then, suddenly, it vanished (and, as far as I can tell, that story didn't run in the US press at all, although the BBC carried it).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I had the data to build a nuclear bomb back in 1999! Pulled it right off the Internet! Including contacts to buy the "special materials" needed.
Fact is: The data is worth shit. What's important, is the experience of building it with an extremely low error margin. One explosive going off at a tiny bit wrong time, and the whole thing never reaches critical mass. So you have to test like crazy, and work very properly. You also need the uranium for all this tests!
The plans alone are easy peasy. I could draw a working one myself right now. Would not help anyone a bit without really good and experienced engineers though.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Israel commits crimes that make Iranian transgression look like shoplifting by comparison.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vjJ5fOtvksM/SWYvR4IFthI/AAAAAAAAAAU/AcXQzvRoxsw/S1600-R/headline9637e7.jpg
They are a house of horrors, paid for by the endless U.S. debt.
Who they are:
http://www.itisapartheid.org/
http://politicaltheatrics.org/2009/10/01/binyamin-council-head-jews-arabs-should-have-separate-roads/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Israeli-Army-T-Shirts-Mock-Killing-Palestinian-Women-And-Children-During-Gaza-Offensive/Article/200903315245946
What they do:
http://www.kawther.info/wpr/2009/09/30/israeli-army-terrorizes-teenagers-inside-a-school
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1253198149221&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_North_Korean_nuclear_test#Yield_estimates_and_authenticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_North_Korean_nuclear_test#Lack_of_radionuclide_confirmation
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
If Iran would to launch a nuke? We or Isreal would flatten the country in minutes.
Get up!
"The only way to use the A-bomb is to kill civilans en masse. Theres no military use of an A-bomb without 99% civil casualties."
That's utter babble, long disposed of by the atmospheric testing of low-yield tactical nuclear weapons including plenty of detonations within the continental US. If one uses smallish tac nukes against large military targets, from troop formations to fleets, they are viable and effective weapons.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
"Me thinks they're getting ready to start a war.
And they're engineering consent."
We should be so lucky.
Let's remember there is nothing of value in the Middle East other than oil, and that the area is so infested with religion that it will fester forever unless Something Disruptive happens.
If Israel and Iran have a nuclear war, may they empty their arsenals at each other and may Israel light up some of its other rivals when it exercises the Samson Option.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
What's that bit about Jerusalem? Maybe Israel changed its capital to a city that is a point of discord with Palestine, without anyone but the poster noticing :)
"I remember Y1K, every abacus had to get another bead"
The only way to use the A-bomb is to kill civilans en masse. Theres no military use of an A-bomb without 99% civil casualties.
That is not even close to being true, the B6Mod10 nuclear bomb has had the dial a yield feature since the 1960's alowing the yeilds to be set to 0.3, 5, 10 or 80 Kt and the Mod11 is designed for bunker busting. Variants of the W54 range from 10 tons (note not KiloTons) to 1KT. All of these have a sufficiently low yield to allow a carefully planed and executed Nuclear event to occur without excessive civilian casualties, unless you count civilian nuclear centrifuge technicians. Hell we could probably drop a dialed down B61Mod11 into a centrifuge facility and they'd never be able to prove they were even nuked.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Just saying. I don't live in NYC or San Fran but, if I did, I'd probably be happier if we invaded fewer countries and actually did meaningful border and import screenings.
No. No one thought of invading NK *BEFORE* they acquired nukes. It all revolves them being within pissing distance of S. Korea and just a catapult's launch to Japan.
Iran isn't that fortuitous. Only those within reasonable striking distance -- the Arabian Peninsula, some of S. Asia -- cared. With their development of medium-range missiles and the ability to honestly threaten Israel and Europe, more people care. Iran has no "we'll invade by land and sea" option if someone attacks, which N. Korea does.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
When I was in high school, one of my science teachers gave us a handout that described in less than 2 pages how to make a nuclear bomb. His point behind doing this was not to teach us how to make a bomb, per se, but to show that it was quite simple to build, given that one had the necessary resources to do so. From what I recall, the only particularly difficult thing about building such a bomb was acquiring and managing the plutonium. But the actual information itself was quite easy to understand, requiring no more technical background to follow than what I had at the time.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Sigh....no.
Iran has almost NO refining capabilities, and for some odd reason hasn't bothered to show any desire to build any. They have been having GASOLINE shortages over the last year or so! They HAVE to sell oil to others and have never been stingy about it.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Why do I feel like we're totally being played with all this recent "Nukular Iran" business? Last week we find out about a "secret" enrichment facility that it turns out we knew about since George Bush was president, then we get this whole kabuki dance at the UN with Gordon Brown and Sarkozi and Obama and Netanyahu each playing their respective parts in a drama that seems a little too rote.
I've got a feeling that this drama is being played to entertain us and enrich the military manufacturers and contractors. It sucks that the citizens of every country are expected to accept a lower standard of living while there seems to be no limit to the money available for these small men to play war games.
I can understand why the young crazies in Pittsburgh are so ready to have the whole thing torn down.
You are welcome on my lawn.
'Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired "sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable" atom bomb'.
Wow! Panic, everyone!!
Oh, wait. An American high school kid already did that - 32 years ago.
http://www.amazon.com/Mushroom-True-Story-Bomb-Kid/dp/0671827316/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254673660&sr=1-7
I bet no one at the Pentagon knew that...
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
*I* have enough information to make a basic fission bomb. I'm not even a physics or engineering student.
looks like it's about time for the US to start their invasion of iran, the ground work is pretty well set government subverting democracy and shit! they have nukes too.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Get real.
Let's not repeat it with nuclear weapons in the hands of unstable or theocratic regimes.
45 years ago, had the nuclear weapons states been regimes characterized by fanaticism and fundamentalism rather than ultimately by secular rationality, we might well be living, or not living, in a post-apocalyptic world. We almost were.
30 years ago Iran was overthrown by religious fanatics and angry, vehemently anti-Western mobs who established a theocratic regime that still rules unopposed today.
It's not about fairness or deserts. "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." Iran having a nuclear weapon is simply not in our rational self interest. Is it worth a few billion in military hardware to Israel and giving them the greenlight to take out some nuclear sites like then did in 1981, in exchange for being damn sure there is one less nuclear weapons state? It sure seems that way.
"A lot of talk about "terrorism" is really a discussion designed to get U.S. taxpayers to pay for Israel's security."
Exactly. For some insight, people should research Israel's economy. Basically, they don't have one. They subsist primarily on the inflow of funds from around the world. The US government is probably the single largest source of funds, but money comes from everywhere. If the donations dried up, Israel would be hurting.
And, that may well happen soon if the recession isn't cured.
"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
I just heard on the news that Iran is letting the negotiators in to their Nuclear facilities and are opening up to negotiation... can another middle east conflict maybe be avoided?
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
The Cost of Israel to US Taxpayers
By Richard H. Curtiss
Former U.S. Foreign Service Officer
October 03, 2009 "WRMEA" -- For many years the American media said that "Israel receives $1.8 billion in military aid" or that "Israel receives $1.2 billion in economic aid." Both statements were true, but since they were never combined to give us the complete total of annual U.S. aid to Israel, they also were lies--true lies.
Recently Americans have begun to read and hear that "Israel receives $3 billion in annual U.S. foreign aid." That's true. But it's still a lie. The problem is that in fiscal 1997 alone, Israel received from a variety of other U.S. federal budgets at least $525.8 million above and beyond its $3 billion from the foreign aid budget, and yet another $2 billion in federal loan guarantees. So the complete total of U.S. grants and loan guarantees to Israel for fiscal 1997 was $5,525,800,000.
One can truthfully blame the mainstream media for never digging out these figures for themselves, because none ever have. They were compiled by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. But the mainstream media certainly are not alone. Although Congress authorizes America's foreign aid total, the fact that more than a third of it goes to a country smaller in both area and population than Hong Kong probably never has been mentioned on the floor of the Senate or House. Yet it's been going on for more than a generation.
Probably the only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-ce
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
Some obvious things:
a) This story is not about "having data to build a nuclear bomb". Any accredited university engineering program has "the data to build a nuclear bomb", but it would be unwieldy to tactically deploy. The minor news is that Iran is close to the capability to produce a atomic bomb which is sufficiently compact to be mountable on a missile with decent range to threaten neighbors.
b) The major news should be that Iran is receiving assistance with deployment systems which can be used with a much wider array of conventional, chemical, biological and other categories of payloads which are much easier to deploy (politically and militarily). I would be very glad if this were a continuation of the Cold War as we knew it, since that would mean that enough of the MAD thinking is in place by both sides that sufficiently tight controls are in place to prevent the nuclear option from ever being deliberately deployed.
c) Remember that the first atomic bomb makers were working in and with what would be third-world technologies and systems were we to encounter them today. Why would it be remarkable to report that a country which does not follow our economic, social or value systems is capable of producing something now which was first demonstrated 60 years ago?
d) This has been a pretty poor "covert battle" since the belligerents manage to sneak it into international headlines on an almost weekly basis without any combat engagements. Perhaps the important message is that the proxy wars which pre-dated the Cold War, and which lasted through it, remain an important feature of the real world which cannot be simplified into alarmist and misleading headlines?
e) If we're worried about unauthorised use of nuclear material, the logical measures are to prevent everyone from having nuclear material (not possible due to the low barriers to entry), or to assist anyone who wants to work with nuclear material to do so in a secure way. There are vastly many more ways to proliferate nuclear materials from the hundreds of globally distributed nuclear stockpiles and waste bins of the former Cold War combatants than from a couple of tightly guarded and highly monitored bunkers on a mountain. The nuclear haves pretending that the nuclear have nots' nuclear ambitions represent a primary terrorist threat demonstrates a remarkably strong faith in current nuclear proliferation control systems (lost sources kill more people every year than all dirty bombs and terrorist-related nuclear incidents have in history), as well as an unassailable arrogance about LDCs.
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
There are engineering details to building a nuclear weapon that aren't well known. But they're not all that deeply hidden, either. A few minutes with Google gets you the basics.
A big, dumb Hiroshima-type implosion bomb made of uranium isn't that hard. Plutonium bombs are tougher to build; more compression is necessary. The later designs have reflectors, tampers, and quite a few layers. Considerable simulation is required to get the design right. Of course, the US and the USSR designed their nuclear arsenals with computers in the 1 MIPS range; today, any laptop has enough CPU power for bomb design. Some older hydrodynamic software for this is available, in FORTRAN. Note the test cases provided, "Detonation example" and "SSTAFF warhead".
A more modern version of that software is available from LLNL. The code was released in 1996 and was upgraded through 2005. There's a torrent available.
Making the components is a pain because many of the materials involved are radioactive, poisonous, flammable metals, or high explosives. Machining uranium is difficult. However, there's a convenient how-to guide, "Machining of Uranium and Uranium Alloys", written by a head machinist at the Oak Ridge Y-12 plant and distributed by the U.S. Government. That guide concludes "With proper techniques and safety precautions, uranium and uranium alloys can be safely machined by most shops." Exotic techniques like robotic handling and machining in a liquid bath weren't required. They didn't even use a glove box back then.
Machining plutonium is more difficult. US plants have had troubles with that for decades, and didn't even have a facility that could do it between 1989, when Rocky Flats shut down, and 2002, when Los Alamos started up. But Iran is taking the uranium route, so they don't have to worry about that.
The explosive components have to be made very uniform, to get the uniform compression required. This was a big problem for Los Alamos in the early days, but now that everyone has plastic explosives, it's easier. There's also a problem with the explosion blowing out at the gaps between explosive blocks, but there's a simple trick to fix that. (It's classified in the US, but has leaked out from the USSR side.)
The necessity for krytron detonator switches is overrated. A krytron is a gas-filled tube device from the era of the thyatron. Basically, you need a switch for about 1000 amps at 1KV that turns on in a few nanoseconds. Conveniently, the U.S. Government distributes a design using standard IGBT semiconductors. That's 15 years old; you could probably downsize that design (10" of rack space) today.
Most of the complexity in bomb design appears as bombs are made physically smaller. Truck-bomb sized units are 1940s technology. Smaller warheads require late 1950s technology, and the US did about a hundred full-scale nuclear tests in the 1950s to get that right. Some of that can be replaced with simulation. Eventually, you have to set one off to be confident it will work.
As Ted Taylor (who designed many US bombs) once said, "Everyone (who built an atomic bomb) has succeeded on the first try."
Should we really be so shocked? Haven't nuclear weapons been present in the middle east for over 3 decades now, in Israel?
Israel hasn't pledged to push it's neighbors "into the sea". As soon as Israel was created (by the United Nations, backed by American Democratic politicians), Arab neighbor states began attacking immediately, and have regularly attempted invasions since then. Iran's top politician has made a promise to "smash the Jewish" state numerous times, promising to, in fact, wipe them off the map.
The fact is that Israel has used their supply of nukes as a deterrent... indeed, no other state has attacked since they've had them. Surrounding hostile states have relied on funding and equipping terrorists to do their dirty work for them instead. But no one will send an army against Israel anymore.
Iran, on the other hand, has openly made statements to the effect that any new military technologies they develop... nukes included... will be used to eliminate Israel. They've threatened in effect that their nukes will have offensive purposes. These weapons will be in the hands of a leadership that believes they can bring about the end of days... and thus the coming of the 12th Imam... by launching a cataclysmic attack on Israel, and perhaps on her allies.
It matters who has these weapons, and who doesn't.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
That's bull$hit, I wonder why this troll wasn't moderated as such. Do some research yourself first, at least read the wikipedia article.
Opening up to inspections and destroying weapons did nothing to help Iraq avoid an invasion, and only made it a sitting duck when the invasion started. Given what Iran saw happen to Iraq, I'd say there's somewhere between zero and bugger all chance they'll actually reduce their military capability when requested.
Fighting a string of increasingly dubious "preventive wars" will not reduce the number of enemies you have in the world, but increase them.
I hate printers.
As far as I can tell Iran's Supreme Leader is an Ayatolla. The thugs cutting people with axes in the street, who shot Neda, are some sort of informal religious moral police - acting on the orders of and with the authority of the Supreme Leader. The military may take over the government soon. The entire dialog between the protestors and the leadership is just impossible for a western mind to get around. They're raping political prisoners as a matter of policy to discourage dissent. They express a commitment to ensure a nearby nation is not just defeated, but wiped out to the last man - genocide as a mission statement.
This is just not a group I want joining the Nuclear Arsenal club. They just seem a tad too unpredictable.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Being designated anything means jack to Iran. Iran is run by a loon who makes weekly declarations to the effect of destroying other countries.
The real stinker is we let them persist so long. So far we are fortunate to not have a country with a nuke that openly asks for the destruction of another. Yet this is what is going to happen because all the nice talk is basically just giving Iran the time they need. So the day you wake up $300 dollar per barrel oil will show how good that did.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Troll. How can it be trolling, when I invite people to research? Go ahead, trollbait. Use Google, or whatever other tools you have at your disposal, and research. If I am wrong, if Israel has a thriving economy independent of donations from the US and religious communities around the world, you should be able to embarrass me easily. Go for it. Post the results of your research. Karma be damned - stand up and post those findings with a real name.
"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
A lot of talk about "terrorism" is really a discussion designed to get U.S. taxpayers to pay for Israel's security.
Kind of ironic considering which two countries refuse to condem state sponsorship of terrorism.
Your claim that Israel doesn't have an economy is nothing but troll. The US aid is 1-2% of the GDP and much much less than the defense budget.
I think this whole article is sensationalist, and most likely part of the propaganda preparing us all for an invasion of Iran, just like the propaganda they spread to pave the way to invading Iraq. Frankly, the whole "possible military dimensions" concept sounds astoundingly similar to Rumsfeld's "we will in fact find weapons of mass destruction" bullshit.
I mean, really... what is there to be shocked ABOUT here anyway? Iran has the *information* to build a nuclear weapon? Whoopdeedoo. I know the basics of building a nuclear device myself, and would happily share that information with any kid who was curious about physics. Having information makes you knowledgeable, not evil. If anything, being uninformed is more likely to lead to evil.
That refers to those who attack Muslims first. The Quran explicitly states that any unbeliever who has made any agreement of peace with Muslims is immune from any form of aggression. But don't take my word for it, read the first line of chapter 9 from which you quoted:
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
There are three translations there, all say pretty much the same thing.
The Islamic rules of warfare starts off with the rule that Muslims are disallowed from casting the first stone, regardless of circumstance. There is no such thing as a "prevantative war" or "pre-emptive strike" in Islam.
Funny, you'll find both of those engaged in repeatedly by the US and Israel.
I hate printers.
The physics behind the bomb has been widely known for over 60 years. There are at least tens of thousands of people in this country have the knowledge to make a fission bomb. There are probably people in nearly every country of the world who have this knowledge. The hard part really is having a government willing to spend the incredible resources to create the material for a bomb. Iran's government is obviously willing to make the investment.
"Israel deserves more trust than Iran? Are you serious?"
I don't know about him, but I am, absolutely.
"Iran has not, in recent military history, conducted a single war of aggression against its neighbours
No, they've been smart enough to let terrorist proxy groups like Hezbollah do it for them, groups funded, trained, and equipped by Iran. And taking over an embassy is considered an act of war. And I was in the area when they unilaterally tried to cut off traffic in the Persian Gulf, and one of their mines almost sank the U.S.S. Samuel B. Roberts. No, no aggression against other states there.
For all of its history, most of Israel's neighbors have denied its right to exist, and sworn to push them into the sea. They've attacked them literally since the day the Jewish state was founded. After several failed invasions, Jordan and Egypt now have peace treaties with Israel that recognize her right to exist. There's been no wars with those countries since then. Syria, however, tired of losing to Israel in conventional warfare, conquered Lebanon and made it a vassal state... which it has stayed, from one degree to another ever since... and continues to launch attacks on Israel from that territory, using its terrorist proxies to do the dirty work. Want to keep Israel out of Lebanon? Keep Syria out of Lebanon.
Israel, on the other hand, have no such doctrine, and history demonstrates they have adopted a first strike policy.
Considering that in every major war, Israel was invaded by surrounding states, you honestly think this is bad? Are you going to seriously make the argument that taking out Saddam Hussein's nuclear facilities (which were going to produce weapons-grade material) wasn't a smart thing to do?
Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA - not flawlessly, and there are problems, but they have been co-operating.
Yeah, they've been cooperating so closely that they built a second uranium enrichment facility that stayed secret until now.
Iran does not deny the holocaust took place
Wow
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
I've always been curious about that and wonder if anybody knows. I've read that Pu based devices are much harder to build than U based ones but also less likely to detonate accidently. Is another advantage that you can rapidly produce Pu-239 vs U-235 which I take is a pain to make quickly? Is there a size limit on Pu-239 vs U-235 or something?
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
http://www.theodora.com/wfbcurrent/israel/israel_economy.html
GDP (purchasing power parity):
$200.7 billion (2008 est.)
$193.2 billion (2007)
$183.3 billion (2006)
note: data are in 2008 US dollars
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/17/world/middleeast/17israel.html
Israel to Get $30 Billion in Military Aid From U.S.
This is a better breakdown, year by year:
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/114bill.html
This estimate of total U.S. direct aid to Israel updates the estimate given in the July 2006 issue of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. It is an estimate because arriving at an exact figure is not possible, since parts of U.S. aid to Israel are a) buried in the budgets of various U.S. agencies, mostly that of the Defense Department (DOD), or b) in a form not easily quantifiable, such as the early disbursement of aid, giving Israel a direct benefit in interest income and the U.S. Treasury a corresponding loss. Given these caveats, our current estimate of cumulative total direct aid to Israel is $113.8554 billion.
It must be emphasized that this analysis is a conservative, defensible accounting of U.S. direct aid to Israel, NOT of Israel's cost to the U.S. or the American taxpayer, nor of the benefits to Israel of U.S. aid.
One or two percent of GDP? Hmmmmm - how many nations are donating that much to MY country? I can't recall any headlines proclaiming the generosity of foreign nations giving aid to the United States.
"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
30/10=3
3/200=1.5%
Learn to read, troll.
A little clarification: the previous comment referred to the fact that you quoted "Israel to Get $30 Billion in Military Aid From U.S.", omitting the word decade. Very nice way to prove a point.
The physics of a nuclear bomb are pretty simple. I learned how the bombs work when I was in middle school, which was before the WWW existed.
I looked it up in an old PAPER encyclopedia.
Taking that knowledge and making a bomb is harder than just "knowing how" but anyway, this is not exactly unknown knowledge.
Does it surprise anyone that a fairly educated nation like Iran knows how? And yes, they do have a lot of PhDs there and plenty of scientists. And foreign support from Russia and France. So no surprise to me anyway.
Sig for hire.
We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
To quote Arundhati Roy, "Why then, any nuclear power is justified in launching a preemptive strike against another."
Let me go ahead and write what I expect at least one person will respond: "But.. Iran is different. They're *evil*!" Well, that's what a lot people think about us, too, so that's a reversible argument.
As for Vietnam, they don't have an arch-enemy with 100-400 nuclear weapon-tipped missiles aimed at them.
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
Troll - again. Your insults are highly appreciated for their originality.
I supplied the link. You read it. What's the problem? BTW - that 30 billion dollars, or 3 billion per year, ONLY includes a military aid package. It doesn't include anything else. So - MILITARY AID from the US makes up ~ 1-2% of Israel's entire economy. Or, more accurately stated, this single military aid package constitutes ~ 1-2% of Israel's entire economy.
Foreign aid from the US and other sources primarily consisting of religious organizations makes up a hell of a lot more than a percent or two of Israel's economy.
Care to dig deeper? I insist that Israel's economy would be a wreck if they had to rely on their own productivity. Foreign assistance, from whatever source, keeps them afloat.
"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 same Israelis that refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? The same Israelis that have constantly warred with their neighbors, violated signed treaties, murdered civilians, taken hostages, just to name a few of their international crimes? The same Israelis who now threaten to bomb Iran, despite Iran having been non-aggressive for more than 20 years. The same Israelis who claim Iran hates the Jewish faith, despite Iran having a sizable number of citizens who are Jews that it has never bothered?
The Iran hype is the same type of bullshit hype feed to us prior to the Iraq invasion.
Iran knows how to build an atom bomb? Good. So do I.
Is that why the "peaceful" muslim countries all attacked Israel right after it was founded?
Firstly, let us not beat about the bush. The reason the US and the EU is against Iran having nuclear capabilities is to protect Israel , or rather to ensure that the balance of power is ever so slightly, in favour of Israel. Currently, Israel has nuclear weapons and unlike Iran's case, the UN seems to acknowledge this with a wink and a nod. An Iran with nuclear weapons means that Israel will find itself in a Cold War situation of Mutually Assured Destruction which will effectively prevent it from invading surrounding nations as it pleases. I also suspect that any local nuclear war between Iran and Israel will lead to Jewish refugees streaming back into Europe, whose people have historically never been very good with the Jewish people. Any other reasons bandied by the Western propaganda machine are just lies and smokescreen. Now that we got it out of the way, let us ponder the future. My gut feeling is that, Iran will eventually get nuclear capability, despite the US and Israel trying to stop them. Once they have it, there is nothing the US and Israel can do, except all out war which they could not afford. The Iranians are historically a very crafty and astute people and are masters of manipulating the UN bodies. They play for time which is what they have recently got. What this will mean is that many nations who are watching with interest will finally realise that the UN is toothless and proceed with their nuclear programs. The best case scenario is for all nuclear weapons to be scrapped but this is never going to happen. So, the second best scenario is to have all nations having nuclear weapons, to ensure Mutually Assured Destruction, on a whole new level. Once Iran succeeds, we will see an explosion of nuclear proliferation in the world. The major powers will of course would not like this erosion of their absolute power but like the introduction of gun powder, it is inevitable.
There are parasitic groups inside Israel that rely entirely on donations both from Israel and from abroad (most ultraorthodox Jews and a part of Israeli Arabs). But the rest of economy is sustainable without such aid (and I wouldn't mind if those groups would be forced to work).
I'm not going to argue about the reasons for the US military aid, that was not the point of this discussion.
Gosh, you would think anyone with survival instinct would make some pre-emptive war preventing strikes. Sounds harsh, but then you think. If some hoodlums, we'll just call them O.G.Korea and D.J. Iran were standing outside your home with weapons threatening to fire inside would you: ,your family, neighbors and anyone else who would have encountered these hoodlums. ,life or death, choose and be quick about it.
A: Get your face shot off trying diplomacy
B: Call the U.N. cops who would threaten them with "no beer" sanctions and leave, while hoods continued posturing.
C: Blow their brains to atoms and then hunt down all their homies for some of the same, ensuring the future safety of you
D: there is no none of the above
Makes you wonder just how we survived this long putting financial interests ahead of whats important.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
I have always been suspicious of that 2007 National Intelligence Estimate. As I understand it, the whole furor was caused by a single sentence. Had that sentence been buried deep in the report or in an appendix, it would hardly have been noticed. But it was moved to the first sentence in the report.
Even in 2007 it was plausible that Iran dropped research into weaponization technology because they obtained it from another source; not that they weren't interested.
The press went berserk, and jumped to their conclusions without reading past that first sentence. They rushed to publish stories about how wrong headed Bush administration policies were.
Certainly an Iranian mole in American intelligence could not write the entire NIE, but how hard would it be to alter the placement of a single sentence? If this little bit of idle speculation were true; it would have been a spectacularly successful bit of sabotage worthy of a Tom Clancy novel.
Iran had an "external interfering force" alright. The United States.
404: sig not found.
So, you allege that that the leadership of Iran consists of a bunch of suicidal fanatics? Pray tell, what exactly have they done to suggest this
Well, the leader of Iran said that he wanted to nuke Israel, even if it left Iran a smoldering ruin. I realize according to you this must seem quite a sensible plan, but it strikes most everyone else as suicidal.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As for Vietnam, they don't have an arch-enemy with 100-400 nuclear weapon-tipped missiles aimed at them.
I assume you are speaking about Israel. The fact that Israel is an 'arch-enemy' of Iran is entirely the fault of the Iranian Government. Prior to the Iranian revolution the two countries had friendly relations. After the revolution various Iranian political figures starting referring to Israel as a "cancer" that needs to be "purged" from the region. They also started funding terrorist organizations that murder Israeli civilians and military personnel.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
A bombing mission against Iran is a difficult military operation and needs the assistance of the French superpower."
That word does not mean what you think it means. Unless of course surrender is the French super power, like Hiro's mastery of time and space.
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
You got modded up for this bullshit?
The same Israelis that have constantly warred with their neighbors
You mean the same Israelis that have warred with their neighbors after being invaded by those neighbors, right?
The same Israelis who now threaten to bomb Iran, despite Iran having been non-aggressive for more than 20 years
How is sponsoring terrorist organizations compatible with being "non-aggressive"?
The same Israelis who claim Iran hates the Jewish faith, despite Iran having a sizable number of citizens who are Jews that it has never bothered?
Yeah, except for the tens of thousands of Iranian Jews that got driven out of the country during the Iranian revolution and whom now primarily reside in Israel and the United States. I guess being forced into exile is your definition of "not being bothered".
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Prior to the Iranian revolution the two countries had friendly relations.
You mean during their US-sponsored leadership, practically a puppet government, that overthrew their democratically-elected prime minster, Mohammed Mosaddeq? Led by Shah Reza Pahlevi, whose brutal secret police (SAVAK) were trained by the Mossad? And, again, who overthrew Mossadeq who, despite being secular, was distinctly no fan of Israel?
I don't know how you can possibly treat the Pahlevi regime as a *good* thing. They were despised by their own people so much that the people risked death to revolt en masse in conditions almost never seen in a revolution (none of the typical causes, rapid speed, immense popularity of the revolution, and the defeat of a lavishly financed and well trained domestic military apparatus). Our support of that government is a massive black eye for us in that region, and especially in Iran.
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
...if Israel has a thriving economy independent of donations from the US ...
Israel thrives and continue to do so, because of the promises that Jehovah God made to Abraham thousands of years ago. Because of Israel's disobedience to God, he exiled her first to Babylon and then centuries later, under Roman rule, scattered them all over the world. However Scripture also foretold of a time when Israel would be regathered as a nation in their own land which God had promised Abraham so long ago. That took place in 1948 and in 1967 Jerusalem came under Jewish rule after having been trodden down by foreigners for thousands of years. This was also foretold and that Jerusalem would become a thorn in the side of the nations all around. God's promises concerning Israel are still valid today and his hand of blessing is upon her, even though they are still a secular state. When, not if, after the United States, like the rest of the world, abandons Israel and turns against her, she will not be abandoned by God Jehovah, but they will be and remain in the land of promise forever.
All theory is gray
I said nothing about whether or not the Pahlevi regime was a "good" thing. All I said was that Iran had fairly good relations with Israel until the Iranian revolution and that after the revolution they started using anti-Israeli rhetoric and sponsering terrorist organizations that attack Israel.
Nice attempt at changing the topic though.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"When, not if, after the United States, like the rest of the world, abandons Israel"
I'm ready to cut Israel loose, and put that to the test. If Israel can stand on it's own feet - great. If not - they don't deserve to stand. In short, stop bleeding America for funds, weapons, and technology.
"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 why goes back further and wider than this. Does everyone nowadays think that these events in 1953 happened in a vacuum? Look at a map. Notice that Iran borders some country (now countries) to the north. There was this entity once called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Their leader had once conspired with Nazi Germany to annex neighboring countries, and the stated philosophy of the Communist party was to export revolution. They had just obtained nuclear weapons as well.
The elected government of Iran was turning out to be rather friendly with the Soviets. Perhaps this was considered alarming to Western countries with long-standing interests in Iran and the Persian Gulf? Being friendly with the Soviets at that time typically meant inviting some friendly Red Army divisions in to build some friendly bases, and establishing nice friendly alliances. A glance at the other end of Asia at the time might also give a hint of trouble in some of those areas, such as Korea and Vietnam.
I don't have nearly enough time to get more detailed in reply, and all this doesn't necessarily or completely absolve the US and the West in general for their parts in the coup. But simply blaming them wholely as knee-jerk reactionaries or evil would-be global tyrants is equally wrong. Try running a major government sometime and let me know how simple it is to manage and deal with world events.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
A whole lot of hearsay, rumours and fearmongering... But honestly, do you really *know* anything? And can you *prove* it?
This goes for the original poster, too.
omfg!
The most destructive bombing of the war was by incendiary bombs, in Tokyo and Dresden. Does the use of a single bomb make it morally worse than using 1000s that achieve the same or greater effect?
Dropping the nukes was only the wrong decision with the benefit of hindsight; the USA did not know the effects of fallout at the time.
Besides, you do know that there were no indications that Japan would surrender, and that a land invasion was in the works. Considering the heavy losses suffered in Okinawa and many other amphibious assaults, it was generally believed that a land invasion would result in the deaths of millions.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
The USA got the territory it has today essentially through ethnocentric conquest, sometimes with a genocidal twist.
The last attempt at annexing territory was the conquest of the Philippines, which did not get its independence until after WWII. Since WWII, the USA has been involved with hundreds of dirty little wars and a few big ones, and setting up a puppet is really only a small step below annexing territory. In fact it can often be worse when the puppets are inhumane dictatorships.
It seems that the hawks never really left congress. Not from the very foundation of the union. The USA is the least self-reflective developed nation in the world. Lots of smart reflective people - but jingoist memes have and are far more powerfully present in the USA than any other 1st world nation. Political theorists posit that that is because of how the political dialogue has been transformed and shaped by the neocons and also the "Fox effect" in mass media.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Tell me another fairy tale, I'm not ready to go to sleep yet.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
No, no, no. No. You've got it all wrong. What you've said is merely the product of widespread liberal education.
Let me correct you.
By thumping our chest real hard, and telling people how evil they are, they will become scared, and change their ways. They will then be really nice to us, because we are the land of the free.
You see it's verrrry simple.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
Then what exactly is the relevance of bringing up what a veritable puppet government thought of Israel?
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
A government can try to keep the information on building nukes classified, but the nature of physics cannot be kept secret. There is plenty of information on how to build nukes available already.
Didn't we all learn all we needed to do this in HIGH SCHOOL? Some of us learned to do it with less fissionable material in college.
It's just a matter of how good a job you want to do and how efficient you want to be.
... If not - they don't deserve to stand....
It's not that they deserve to stand, but they will in the end realize that it is God's grace and because of the promises he made to their forefathers thousands of years ago, that they are even still in existence after all these centuries. They have survived as a distinct group of people; they did not become mixed or assimilated. Unlike for example Latin, Hebrew is the only language that has ever died out from common usage in everyday life and then came back as a living language. It's interesting that in Jesus day most Jews spoke Greek, not Hebrew.
It is foretold in the holy Scripture, that because of their idolatry and disobedience, they would be driven out of their land, among the nations where they will be a stench unto them. But the same scriptures also foretell, that as they have been a curse to the nations, they will in the end be a blessing.
Human beings are under the persistent illusion, that they are in charge of history and their own destiny on this planet. This is not our world, we did not make it, we are not the boss over it and all our destiny is, whether we like it or not in the hand of an all-powerful, loving God. Of course, many no longer believe this.
We read in the holy scriptures, that God visited this world in the person of Jesus Christ, specifically Israel, but was rejected and murdered. However, scripture also foretells his coming again, at which time he will make all things the way they were meant to be in the first place. Evil and corruption will be lifted from the earth.
All theory is gray
And, I repeat - I'm ready to put it to the test. There have been holy men, prophets, holy books, seers, doomsayers, and any manner of other religious leaders since the dawn of time. If the messiah is coming, I'm all for it. One things is for sure - if there is a messiah, he's going to be mighty pissed at all the fools running around this earth who claim to speak for God.
On the other hand, if Israel falls - that will pretty much show that the zionists, at least, have stood in the ranks of fools. And, if that should happen, we may take another look at Christianity and Judaism. Zionism is of course not synonymous with either.
"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
... Zionism is of course not synonymous with either....
Because they try to achieve by human effort, what ultimately only God can do.
(...he's going to be mighty pissed at all the fools....)
You're certainly right about that. But it is also true that Scripture says:" God gives grace to the humble, but is in opposition to the proud".
(...If the messiah is coming, I'm all for it...)
He surely is coming, physically to this earth, but you don't have to wait till then. You can have him come to you in your life right now. Ignore all religious teaching you may have heard. Simply read the story of his life and teachings as it is given in the first four books of the New Testament. Take what it says there at face value. The resurrected Christ says to you:
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him and he with Me.
You can come to Jesus the Christ just as you are, but if you do, you will forever be changed into a better person.
All theory is gray
"Meanwhile, Jerusalem is communicating with the Kremlin about a list of Russian scientists it believes are assisting Iran's efforts to develop the bomb." If you are referring to the capital of Israel that would be *Tel Aviv* and not Jerusalem.
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
"I don't know how you can possibly treat the Pahlevi regime as a *good* thing. They were despised by their own people so much that the people risked death to revolt en masse in conditions almost never seen in a revolution (none of the typical causes, rapid speed, immense popularity of the revolution, and the defeat of a lavishly financed and well trained domestic military apparatus)."
So a little like the government that replaced them in recent years?
The difference is, the new government is even more brutal, has an even bigger more blindly faithful military and set of militia so that this time the citizens didn't manage a revolt.
Say what you will about that regime, but it speaks volumes that the citizens were free enough and the government was weak enough to be overthrown, in contrast to the current Iranian regime or that of say Burma, or North Korea.
I'm not defending the US' puppet regime of course, but I think sometimes it's blown out of proportion how bad it was- certainly it was no worse than what has followed, and no worse than that in many other nations.
Of course, I'm certainly not arguing with your fundamental point either- that US medalling in that way did them more harm than good in the region, in fact, with the likes of Iraq etc., one has to wonder if America ever even learnt it's lesson.
Can you provide a source for your claims?
The problem is, what you say is complete bullshit.
Israel has large exports in technology (e.g. networking gear), agriculture (e.g. oranges), military equipment (e.g. UAVs).
I'd love to know if you can provide any real data to back up your claims as a quick search for things like "Israel Economy", "Economy of Israel" and so forth suggest you're way of course. In fact, Israel is in the top 50 strongest economies in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
You say people should research Israel's economy and so, well, I did, and it turns out you're completely wrong. If you believe I'm mistaken can you tell us where exactly we're supposed to go to find unbiased sources that agree with you?
Pakistan = US Ally.
Iran = Not.
Hence "Problem".
I believe the adage of "it takes one to know one" can be attributed to people claiming Iran intends to use such technologies for aggressive non-peaceful purposes.
Either that, or the adage "pay attention when the other person is speaking".
Mossadegh wasn't properly elected, by then. He had been, previously, but then he was properly dismissed when he lost the support of the Parliament (Majlis), only he refused to go, unconstitutionally dismissed the Majlis, started to rule dictatorially, and set about procuring plebiscites to change the constitution after the fact and so on after the fashion of Napoleon III to bolster his position - greatly dividing Iran and quite unconstitutional although he was still popular, particularly in the cities. The coup was the only option he left his opponents once he had thwarted proper processes, and was arguably justified even though what they did afterwards was not. This is a story that has no good guys.
they have Internet Access?
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
As long as countries like the US (which actually is the only country who has ever used nukes when it even wasn't really necessary) still have nukes, any other country has just as much right to nukes as the US.. So until the US actually stops producing nukes themselves they should shut the hell up and not threaten other countries..
And why isn't anybody complaining about isreal which also have nukes but aren't allowed to have some, why aren't they doing something about that..
God save us all from arm-chair historians delighting in revisionist history.
"Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
Of course they have the knowledge!
We're not stealing it from Prometheus or anybody anymore.
It is wholly american to hype Iran as a thermonuclear destructor. They let the IAEA do their work and YELL even when Iran discloses way ahead of schedule some factory that is being built. They immediately demands sanctions and pressure onto this country even when Iran does nothing wrong here.
Of course nobody besides the bankrupt US of A and some of their allies can have nuclear knowledge, nuclear weapons etc. When will the IAEA visit Israel and do an audit? Same for Pakistan?
Some of us are more equal than others?
This is just Iraq all over again, can't you see?
The stupid americans are lured into a war again, even when they cannot afford it, to distract from the mismanagement at home.
Since when has France been a superpower?
Right now I hope that Israel holds off. Iran is talking about transferring it's uranium to Russia. Which is odd because Russia has never been a good friend to Iran. Also we can hope that the current government will be taken out of office soon. While the opposition is in no way I can see pro west his is not a complete whack job.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Jesus Christ, what is this ? National Pedantic Asshole Day ?
He said "military" !!!
The military use of *any* weapon is to deploy it in an area that will result in maximum opponent casualties ?
They're not going to fire millions of dollars of nukes into the fucking Gobi Desert are they ? Of course they'll fire it at the major population centres, that's the whole point !
Oh I don't know ... if that 30% were all the underprileged, the illegal immigrants, and those who can't afford private healthcare, the US might end up with a more positive balance sheet.
The hope is that the nations who currently have nukes are developed nations who are smart enough to not use them
I think the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki might disagree with you there.
You know, there's hundreds and thousands (if not millions) of Palestinians who were kicked out first to carve up the land that became Israel.
Which wouldn't have happened if the Arabs had accepted the UN's partition of Palestine rather than attempting to settle the issue on the battlefield. They lost on the battlefield and have been whining about it ever since.
As far as I'm concerned, neither side in this argument is clean -- Israel, for how it was created in the first place, and the Arabs, for the killing of innocents.
What does Israel have to do with a conversation about Iran? Or are you just interested in changing the topic so you can bash Israel?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You financed the regimes that were in place in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and you're whining now because you have to remove them ?
The only difference with Iran is that your regime was deposed 30 years ago, and now it's somebody-elses-crackpots in charge.
Somehow, I don't think that will stop you, after all they are selling oil in Euros, the bastards !
Nice coup apologist there.
The reality is that Iran's government was somewhat similar to the British system, wherein the monarch technically has the power to dismiss a head of state, but could never realistically use it. The Shah, like the British Queen, had denigrated to little more than a figurehead. What the US did was basically the equivalent of backing the Queen of England in seizing power via extensive supplies of weapons and training to royalists. You think the British would hate us for doing something like that? You better as hell believe they would. And the Iranians are no different.
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
Oh Noes!!!111!!! You mean they signed a TREATY?!?!?
Well Golly. I guess nobody has ever signed a treaty and then gone and done the exact opposite thing before.
I put no stock in treaties. Treaties are something nations sign to give lip-service to a problem and then they make their work secret.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Actually, that is, shall we say, a "gross oversimplification". Briefly: the formation of modern Israel in '48 was at best a rather high-handed move by the UN, and even by the UN's standards, Israel has been a rogue state since it's 1967 land-grab. Beating up on Lebanon periodically has not done much to improve it's reputation, either. Few people have kind words to say for Hezbollah, but it's hard to get from there to a justification for Israel's recent actions in Gaza (e.g. using banned weaponry on civilian populations).
But even if the US wanted to reign in Israel, it could turn out to be difficult to do, because of all those nuclear weapons they don't have. (On the other hand, we could stop bank-rolling their military expenses... that much would be easy.)
That is, of course, the reason that governments like to have nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't Iran want nukes? If you look at US behavior in the last decade, we went ape-shit bombing two countries, but left North Korea alone. What lesson can we draw from this, class?
I think it speaks volumes that so many people saw joining a revolution led by hardcore fundamentalists as being a better approach than living under the Shah. ;) And many if not most of that older generation are the big backers of the fundamentalist regime; it's the younger generation that's more reform-minded, the ones who never lived under the Shah.
I just invaded Grammar Czechoslovakia and duped Grammar Neville Chamberlain; now it's on to Grammar Poland.
Actually, that is, shall we say, a "gross oversimplification". Briefly: the formation of modern Israel in '48 was at best a rather high-handed move by the UN, and even by the UN's standards, Israel has been a rogue state since it's 1967 land-grab. Beating up on Lebanon periodically has not done much to improve it's reputation, either. Few people have kind words to say for Hezbollah, but it's hard to get from there to a justification for Israel's recent actions in Gaza (e.g. using banned weaponry on civilian populations).
Wow, talk about a gross oversimplification. The Israel that was 'formed' by the UN partition agreement in 1947 was much smaller than what exists today. What happened in 1947/1948 was a civil war between the Israeli and Arab populations in Palestine followed by a full on war between Israel and Egypt/Jordan/Syria/Iraq/Saudi after the British mandate in Palestine ended. The current borders of Israel are the result of a war that Israels neighbors started and lost in 1948.
Calling the 1967 war a "land grab" is a bit of a joke too. Do you seriously think there was not provocation for that invasion? What's your excuse for 1973?
Finally I'll note that White Phosphorous is not "illegal".
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
>Sure, but then they and their apologists shouldn't complain when they're called on their treaty violations.
Unless the people doing the calling are likewise busy violating every treaty they can get away with violating, too.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.