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."
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)
So by that logic, a nuclear power that uses its weapons cannot be trusted, right? Who gets to choose which countries can be trusted? Have you spoken with anyone from Nagasaki about this question?
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..
Umm, no.
The USA used the Bomb to avoid killing millions of people. Instead, we killed a couple hundred thousand between the two Bombs (we killed more people bombing Tokyo than both Bombs killed), and saved a few million of our own people (sorry, in the calculus of war, casualties on your side count for more than casualties on the other side).
As well as saving the millions of Japanese that would have been killed if we'd invaded the Home Islands. Not, I think, that we had nearly as much interest in saving Japanese civilians as in saving the lives of the American soldiers who would've died in an invasion.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq' (another source)
Palin: Iraq is a task 'from God.'
I'm sure we could find the same kind of thing for every country you listed, these were just the ones I could remember from the top of my head
Israel deserves more trust than Iran? Are you serious?
Iran has not, in recent military history, conducted a single war of aggression against its neighbours, even Israel. Israel, on the other hand, have conducted wars of aggression against its neighbours.
Iran's real leaders (i.e. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) support a doctrine of "no first strike". Israel, on the other hand, have no such doctrine, and history demonstrates they have adopted a first strike policy.
Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA - not flawlessly, and there are problems, but they have been co-operating. Israel has never co-operated with them, never admitted to having nuclear weapons, and has never admitted inspectors. It's also not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran does not deny the holocaust took place. That's just pure propaganda bullshit. That idiot Ahmadinejad denied it took place. I'm sure there are some others who agree with him, but there are plenty who accept the holocaust took place. The former president Mohammad Khatami is one of them, and he has spoken openly against Ahmadinejad's views. So what if Holocaust deniers were invited there? The Institute for Historical Review is well known for holocaust denial, and it's based in the United States! Holocaust deniers are alive and well in many countries around the world. I don't particularly care for shutting them up because I tend to believe in freedom of speech.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Terrorism is desperation. The ONLY way to stop determined terrorism is to hear the claims of the terrorists and negotiate. If someone blows the fuck out of himself and a bunch of other people, it might be a good idea to hear what they're mad about. Do it covertly if you want, so that it doesn't seem you negotiate with them, but do it.
Anyway, a nuke would vanish forever any chance that a terrorist has of further advancing their cause. And before you start saying that their cause is already lost, please consider Israel. It was made out of terrorism - Menachem Begin & Co. - see the King David Hotel bombing, and many others. Conclusion? They got a country and nukes. How about that?
For roughly 400 days they Iranians held those hostages. Why? Nobody remembers why, but they did it - and if nobody remembers why, it must not have been a very memorable reason (if any.)
Yeah, something about a military coup d'etat organized by the United States that overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister. Obviously, not very memorable.
Nice job evaluating historic events via modern biases. You are allowed to bullshit if you are spouting opinion, but if you are going to talk history, get your facts straight.
Modern warfighting values and decisions regarding civilian casualties cannot be applied to WW2, even though it was a mere 60 years ago. The firebombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo, and other cities during the time demonstrate that striking civilian populations were indeed seen as a legitimate use of military force by both Allied and Axis powers. Civilian losses in the Soviet Union may have been as high as 13.7 million in the Axis-occupied areas. In China alone, the civilian deaths due to the Japanese invasion is estimated to be over 9 million. Non-fatal Chinese civilian casualties were more than another 8 million.
The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed up to about 140,000 and 80,000 people, respectively. More died later from cancers, but that number varies in its estimates, and in any case is much smaller that the primary death figures. Total deaths are well under a quarter million. While that number itself may be staggering, your "millions of people" is a fallacy, to say the least. In fact, your statement would be more accurate if you were attacking the use of conventional weapons rather than nuclear.
WW2 in the Pacific theater was a horrific picture of destruction. The tenacity with which the Japanese defended every inch of every island indicated that the invasion of the mainland would have gone extremely badly, both for the attackers and the defenders. The Japanese military were training the civilian population to defend the Emperor in the case of an American invasion. Realistic projections of casualties for each side reached the millions easily, and the time frame for ending the war with conventional weapons and strategies was long.
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not out of line with how the war was actually being fought by both sides. By avoiding a mainland invasion, it certainly avoided civilian and military casualties at least an order of magnitude greater than the actual bombings.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.
Most of these "secular" nations have religious populations, and religious traditions within government operations. Isreal was a country founded as a homeland for a religion. America's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, thanks God. Many preambles of constitutions in these western nations do the same thing. God is on American money, our courthouses, and many other places. Religious populations (and governments supporting those religious traditions) does not equal a threat to others. Even Saudi Arabia, the most deeply-Muslim state in the middle east, doesn't go around invading it's neighbors.
Religion-hostile atheist governments, however... the U.S.S.R., the People's Republic of China, North Korea... have had a history of aggression against neighbors and rivals.
It seems that the magic formula for good, stable government is a certain kind of mix; governments that respect and protect, and even to a certain extent, promote faith, without strictly governing by religious rules. Religion suffuses the laws and cultures of these states... our laws are, after all, heavily influenced by religious sources... the ten commandments, etc. But we don't strictly govern by them. The best, most free, most stable,most prosperous states in history have all been ones with religious-friendly governments, yet ones that limited the government's power. After WWII, many of the recovering European states were governed by or included strong "Christian Democratic" parties. When Europe was grounded in endless wars prior to the twentieth century, it was far more about non-democratic governments jockeying for wealth and power than about religion.
You want stability? Switzerland has been around (and remained free and productive, save for one invasion by France) since 1291. Their Constitutions... including the last revisions in 1997... have always started off with "In the name of Almighty God!"
The notion of "take religion away and everything is fine" says more about your prejudices than about reality.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Pakistan developed nukes, has nukes and also was (is?) a sponsor of terrorism[1]. So what did the USA do to Pakistan for trying to make nukes? They seem to be such good friends today.
FWIW, before the US "WMD" bullshit, Saddam started selling oil in Euros, and after the invasion Iraq went back to selling oil in US dollars.
That's probably not the only reason the US Gov didn't like Iraq, but I'm sure that was one of the top reasons.
In 2007 Iran started selling oil in Euros too, and for even more fun in 2008 they started an oil bourse that allows trading of oil in other currencies, not just the USD.
Why is this bad for the USA? The fact is if everyone uses your currency to trade, you can create money (either directly or via soft loans) and by doing so automatically tax everyone else that uses your currency.
Think about it, the USA owes China/Japan/etc trillions of USD. If on the relevant due dates, the US Fed Reserve just loans the US Gov the money to pay China/Japan/etc back, or inflation has made the USD worth less, the "pay back with interest" does become rather easy ;).
It's a bit like Zimbabwe. Mugabe (US Gov) prints money, hands some to his cronies (friends and contractors of the US Gov), and the rest of the people in Zimbabwe (the countries that hold trillions of USD) end up having to carry sacks of near worthless money around.
But when Zimbabwe prints money, the rest of the world just laughs at Zimbabwe, because the rest of the world doesn't live in Zimbabwe or use Zimbabwe's currency.
The US Gov certainly wants as many countries living in its "Zimbabwe" and using its currency. It stops becoming so easy for "US Mugabe" if more and more people stop using the US dollars and switch to something else.
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5779916/Pakistani-president-Asif-Zardari-admits-creating-terrorist-groups.html