The United States Just Might Be Iran's Favorite New Nuclear Supplier

Lasrick writes: Nick Gillard from Project Alpha points out that for more than 3 decades, Iran has purchased goods for its nuclear program largely from the shadows. With the Framework Agreement, that will almost certainly change: "According to the US State Department, one of the agreement's provisions creates a dedicated procurement channel for Iran's nuclear program. This channel will monitor and approve, on a case-by-case basis, the supply, sale, or transfer to Iran of certain nuclear-related and dual-use materials and technology." That is terrific news for US companies, because Iran is known to covet US-made parts required for their program, most of which are "dual-use."

Comments

What

[Anonymous Coward]

I feel like it's April 1st or something. Or this is just fake.

Re:What

[Redmancometh]

Whoops this was me.

gosh

[captnjohnny1618]

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

What could go wrong? The US could again refuse to supply fuel for the Iranian nuclear program, that the US began with the Atoms for Peace program, and additionally coerce other countries from supplying Iran, thereby leading Iran again to develop their own ability to produce their own fuel.

Re:gosh

[FatdogHaiku]

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Their shiny new centrifuge bearings seize up, ruining a few hundred thousand dollars worth of equipment, and they end up waiting 20 minutes for help from a Manila call center?

Re:gosh

[Black Parrot]

What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

I dunno, maybe they'll get nukes and the warmongers will have to find another country to bomb?

Or, who knows, maybe we could get attacked by Saudi-sponsored terrorists again?

Re:gosh

[Dog-Cow]

When Iran gets nukes, they will start WWIII.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet that the US wouldn't want to lose one of their best customers. There's probably a lot of money in this business.

Re:gosh

[Harlequin80]

Rubbish.

Nukes are a thoroughly shit offensive weapon. If you throw a nuke at anyone you will get stomped out of existence. Even if Iran had ICBMs and nukes on a scale of the US or Russia they would not attack anyone with them. That is the whole concept of M.A.D. If Iran nuked Israel the nukes from the US, UK, France and the distributed nukes of Israel would completely destroy Iran within days. Nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons, they are all weapons that change the status quo too far. If you deploy any of them against an external party it is game over. As a result they are useless for offence.

Defensively though they are brilliant. The make your borders essentially inviolate to other state actors. Yes you can have rebel or guerilla actions (think Pakistan) but you are safe from someone like the US or Russia. And given the US and Russia have a history of invading countries in that region it seems like a fair incentive to want them.

For Iran to start WW3 after obtaining nuclear weapons would require them to have the drive and the motivation to fight against major obstacles to get them combined with a desire to eradicate themselves from existence. Not normally the sort of thing you get in the one person.

Re:gosh

[tnk1]

There is no guarantee that we'll nuke Iran just because they nuked Israel. In fact, it's very likely that we wouldn't do so. Iran's government knows that as well as anyone.

Besides, their "defensive" capability is merely cover for them to increase their regional presence in terms of more overt support of groups in other countries. They don't really want to nuke Israel. They just want to increase their influence in Iraq or Syria or Lebanon. If Israel is likely to have a problem, that will come about due to more overt activities to support proxies like Hamas.

The real threat of Iran with nukes isn't nuclear war, per se. It's that they get a free hand to increase their interference in the region and that's very dangerous. Say what you will about US invasions, but no one seriously believed that we were there to stay. Iran is right next door to a lot of countries that don't want to have to deal with a nuclear Iran which would be able to hold off the US, because the US is what is guaranteeing the balance in the region between Muslim states that hate each other's guts. A nuclear Iran could cause a country like Saudi Arabia to obtain its own nuclear weapons because the threat of a US invasion in support of the status quo is lessened.

The reality is that we're not just trying to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians, we're trying to make sure that the rest of the ME doesn't enter an arms race which puts nukes in the hands of other countries.

Re:gosh

[TheRaven64]

Even if we didn't nuke Iran in response to an attack on Israel, you really don't want to be using high-yield nuclear weapons on someone that close to you - fallout blows in the wind quite a long way. The USA, Russia, India, and China are all good targets for strategic nukes, but smaller countries are likely to end up not containing the effect and Iran would be very unpopular if they covered their neighbours in radioactive dust. Given that they're already quite unpopular with their arabic neighbours, they'd likely expect a fairly large conventional response if they fired nuclear weapons anywhere in the middle east.

Re:gosh

[jcr]

There is no guarantee that we'll nuke Iran just because they nuked Israel.

There doesn't need to be. Israel is certainly capable of destroying Iran completely in a retaliatory strike.

-jcr

Re:gosh

[silentcoder]

>The reality is that we're not just trying to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians, we're trying to make sure that the rest of the ME doesn't enter an arms race which puts nukes in the hands of other countries.

And who exactly appointed you to do that ? Americans elect an American government to govern America. It has no jurisdiction anywhere else and "protecting your interests" should have been unconstitutional. Unless somebody actively asks for your help, stay the hell out of everybody else's business and America would be a lot less hated.
Do I like the government of Iran ? Hell no, I live in a free country and I despise autocracies, but I also don't believe I have a right to interfere in Iran's business unless Iranian people ask my help.

Seriously - the US should watch a lot of Star Trek and simply replace their ENTIRE foreign relations doctrine with the prime directive and not only would the rest of the world be a lot happier, the US would be too.
You fear chaos ? I am quite confident that there will be a lot less suffering around the world for which you are (rightfully) blamed, and thus a lot less people who want to kill you. If you believe the Iranian style theocratic autocracy is primitive, fine, believe that, but stop interfering in their natural development - they won't thank you for it, nobody has EVER thanked you for it.

America has more than enough problems to solve at home - like when you're going to do SOMETHING about Puerto Rico - either give them statehood or given them back their independence but right now you're conquering overlords there - no better than Iran's government.

Let me put it very simply: because I have no power to vote for or against American politicians, they should have NO power to influence my life.

Re: gosh

[DigiShaman]

Or Iran could use one in space over N. America to knock out infrastructure via EMP. That would certainly cripple us with a renewed effort America from breaking down into civil war and anarchy. Iran meanwhile owns the ME.

Re: gosh

[jo7hs2]

For the record, the United States is not the problem in Peurto Rico. They've held multiple referendums about independence, statehood, etc... They continue to choose the status quo each time, by a narrow margin. We've never even had the opportunity to address statehood in Congress because they've never gotten that far, and we can't force statehood OR independence down their throats. So maybe back off on that one.

Re: gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask me how I know you don't know what you're talking about...

Re: gosh

[TheRaven64]

There are two problems with this idea. The first is that EMPs, like other EM phenomena, disperse via an inverse square law. Anything high enough to be line-of-site to the ground in most of the USA would need to have an enormous explosive yield (even by nuclear weapon standards). There are some designs that try to channel more energy into the EMP than normal, but they're very complex to build (a good 10-20 years more R&D beyond the Fat Man / Little Boy style bombs).

The second problem is the delivery. Iran does not have a significant ballistic missile capability. Getting something into space above the USA would require launching something in a suborbital trajectory. A very high suborbital trajectory if it were intended to explode that high up. The size of such a rocket would be such that it would be pretty hard to miss on satellite observation. The time in the air would give the US a very long time to formulate a response and destroying it would be relatively easy (remember, the problem with strategic defence shields in the cold war was not shooting down a missile, it was shooting down the large number of real and decoy rockets that the Soviet Union was capable of launching).

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Shia doctrine is that Armageddon needs to be started and the Shias driven to near annihilation for the Hidden Iman to reappear? This is why people are scared of Iran getting nukes... They *want* to be annihilated.

Re: gosh

[bill_mcgonigle]

lemme guess, American public school student?

It's rich since the government in the region of Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 1820's but jingoistic Americans insist that they need to be attacked before they strike again. The irony is laid on thicker than the blood of the millions of victims of American imperialism. Or the women in Iran who have been repressed and murdered since the US overthrew the Shah there and installed theocratic thugs 40 years ago.

Even the CIA admits that all the imperialists are doing is creating more terrorists. We need to take down these morons - for our own safety.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a balance to strike. The US most certainly should tone back the interventionist policies, but at the same time they can't ignore the rest of the world.

There are two great wars that show what can happen to the US when they pursue an isolationist agenda.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

the US should watch a lot of Star Trek and simply replace their ENTIRE foreign relations doctrine with the prime directive

LOL, you should watch less. You know that's a TV show, and not real life, right?

And also, that most of the time the Prime Directive is central in an episode, the focus is on it being a double-edged sword, with somebody making pretty good arguments for breaking it.

Re:gosh

[ScentCone]

Let me put it very simply: because I have no power to vote for or against American politicians, they should have NO power to influence my life.

So, should China have had any power to influence the lives of people in Japan when Japan started its whole Pacific Rim debacle some decades ago? Should the people of Eastern Europe have considered it just too rude to think about modifying the capabilities or behavior of their friendly neighbors, the Ottomans, as those neighbors gathered up a head of steam and sought to spread their friendly culture westward?

Do you live in a country that begins its legislative sessions with group chants about the destruction of other countries? Does your country aggressively support groups that state their objective of slaughtering others specifically because of their religion and/or heritage, and then indeed actually go and help them do it? Do you really think that the world isn't connected, and that people bent on an apocalyptic world view aren't a good fit for having the leverage of nuclear weapons as they seek to control, among other things, major global shipping lanes?

Do you think that just because you don't think someone else should be able to impact your life, that that will actually stop someone who thinks you should be killed for allowing your daughter to read, or for trimming your beard, etc., from not exactly seeing the world in a way reciprocal with you? Being an isolationist doesn't work when someone trapped in a brutal, medieval, theocratic mindset thinks you're suitable only for death, and thinks that isolationism by others is for the weak, and is to be exploited.

Re: gosh

[Blaskowicz]

I suppose you could disguise it as a real space launch, substitute a real satellite with the evil "payload" at the last moments possible before launch. Then pretend your launch is going wrong, or give it a sensible orbit but have the payload maneuver to deorbit above the US. If you can detect a US launch and have your bomb asplode just before the US rocket hits it, the better.

But not only this is a ridiculous evil plan, you will mostly succeed at destroying or ruining many satellites that belong to many nations or companies on Earth, and seriously piss off everyone.

Re: gosh

[ScentCone]

It's rich since the government in the region of Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 1820

Right. It's too much trouble. That's why they send material and support to others to do it for them.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're missing though is that unlike Iran, no one leading the US or Russia gets up on TV talking about countries who have "no right to exist" and should be "wiped off the map". These are not rational people. If you're not part of Islam you are of the great satan and need to die. If they kill you their reward is in heaven. This is their perspective. Would you really like to see these people holding nuclear weapons?

Re:gosh

[jittles]

America has more than enough problems to solve at home - like when you're going to do SOMETHING about Puerto Rico - either give them statehood or given them back their independence but right now you're conquering overlords there - no better than Iran's government.

The people of Puerto Rico have been given the choice to choose independence or statehood MANY times. The people of Puerto Rico would prefer to stay the way they are, and I don't blame them. They may not have the same legal rights as a state, but they receive all the other advantages of being US Citizens without having to pay federal income tax, in most cases:

Though the Commonwealth government has its own tax laws, Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes, with the major exception being that most residents do not have to pay the federal personal income tax. In 2009, Puerto Rico paid $3.742 billion into the US Treasury.

Re: gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

lemme guess, American public school student?

It's rich since the government in the region of Iran hasn't attacked another country since the 1820's but jingoistic Americans insist that they need to be attacked before they strike again. The irony is laid on thicker than the blood of the millions of victims of American imperialism. Or the women in Iran who have been repressed and murdered since the US overthrew the Shah there and installed theocratic thugs 40 years ago.

Even the CIA admits that all the imperialists are doing is creating more terrorists. We need to take down these morons - for our own safety.

Iran openly and secretly supports a number of terrorist organisations.

But, a rabid leftist would skip over that, now wouldn't they?

Re: gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two problems with this idea. The first is that EMPs, like other EM phenomena, disperse via an inverse square law. Anything high enough to be line-of-site to the ground in most of the USA would need to have an enormous explosive yield (even by nuclear weapon standards).

Not nuclear EMP. Nuclear EMP is caused by high energy electrons (stripped from the air by gamma radiation) circling the Earth's magnetic field lines to generate a relatively narrow beam high-intensity EMP. See the Wikipedia page for more information. Interestingly, the yield is more or less irrelevant for HEMP effects: you can generate intense EMP with even a small nuke, albeit with less coverage.

Re:gosh

[drinkypoo]

Seriously - the US should watch a lot of Star Trek and simply replace their ENTIRE foreign relations doctrine with the prime directive

Ah yes, the "I seen it on the teevee box" school of foreign diplomacy.

Let me put it very simply: because I have no power to vote for or against American politicians, they should have NO power to influence my life.

That's a dumb thing to say in every way.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the idea that a bunch of corrupt bastards shouldn't be trying to rule the world, but that is the argument you should be using, because your other ones are hilarious at best. Sophomoric is too generous a description.

We all share this mudball together, so we affect one another. Some of the people living on it are inconvenient for other people, and they need to be reined in periodically. The argument isn't that this shouldn't be done. The argument is that the USA is one of these corrupt entities wandering around the globe sticking its fingers into things solely for its own goals, and is thus unqualified to determine what is good for everyone — or more to the point, cannot be trusted to enact it faithfully.

Now, to seriously address your point, and why it is ridiculous: The "prime directive" doesn't even come close to applying here because it had to do with remote species who were by definition separated by the gulf of space, since it only applied to pre-warp cultures. These were cultures that could not be inconvenient to the Federation. In order to become a significant power, they would have to develop warp technology, and at that point dicking with their culture becomes fair game. But since we all live on the same planet, and one nation's outputs become everyone's inputs, we cannot afford to take a "hands off" approach to foreign relations.

Let me put it very simply: Because you have an effect on other people, they should have power to influence your life. And since we all share one biosphere wrapped around one mudball, they do. Whether you like that or not is irrelevant. All you can do about it is responsibly exert your influence.

Re: gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

The real worry is non-state actors or fanatical idiots getting their hands on the weapons or materials. You have to admit, the chances of this are basically exponentially higher for scenarios involving weirdo countries like Iran.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

The world isn't about strange exotic planets, and the Prime Directive will cause us to suffer Japan's fate when they decided to close their doors and isolate themselves.

Should the US pull out of the Pacific Rim, there is a good chance that some countries there will immediately fire up their tanks and invade their neighbors. Genocide was a very common thing over there, on massive scales that make the horrors in today's Middle East look tame in comparison. In fact, WWI's casualties were nothing compared to the lives lost in the wars China was fighting.

I say, if it keeps the peace and keeps countries trading and not fighting, stay in the area. The US is a far better power than North Korea who would immediately overrun Seoul and become a regional, if not global threat.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

We were more than happy with our isolationist foreign policy until Europe demanded we fight their wars.

Re: gosh

[DigiShaman]

Your second point is valid with regards to delivery. But the first one, please see Starfish Prime. We all know fragile the NE electric grid is. Knock that offline, and it will be a very bad week, if not year. And then there's the introduction to the IC. Depending on strength, an EMP could fry gates on the chip. Now imagine what isn't controlled with circuit boards complete with CPU and RAM ICs. It's too frightening to think about the logistics involved in get all that replaced. Without running water pumps and electricity, it would make Katrina look like a walk in the park.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming rational thought. Not much of that coming out of the middle east that I have seen in recent decades. Not that I am stating the west is much better but there is a decidedly lower percentage of foaming rabids with the intent of genocide and those that do exist are sat on well enough to limit their opportunities to act on the desire.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, you really have NO clue how US domestic politics work, do you?

I'll admit I don't fully understand it, but here's a few clues:
American "elections" and who is in office are driven by what is going on in the economy, and most importantly, the market. Lobbyists sway public opinion and public opinion, at a glacial pace, changes (think gay marriage).
International Policy has nothing to do with who's in office. Tick off ALL aspects of foreign policies of the post-Reagan administrations and they're not all that different.
YOU FUCKING PEOPLE (aka, the other governments who decry our actions but don't do anything, and you mister silentcoder) silently approve of what is going on and let the US 'do the dirty work', invading, giving sanctions, playing on our high horse. Anyone can sanction us, disagree, but they don't to any real degree. You let us play peacekeeper and daddy for policies that are positive to your governments and economies.
OUR ENEMIES are actually economically linked, and serve to keep the "ooh ahh, we won't let you win" dialog going, but in reality, they want the status quo.

In short: US' best interest is stable economy and stable world economy, Other governments, the same, Iran, same.

STOP FUCKING BLAMING US asshat. You know what we're doing? We're trying to keep the ostriches from coming into power, taking a nationalist tack on the sails, and destabilizing the status quo with pro-American propaganda.

You can go on believing that my vote is affecting you.

Re: gosh

[ChrisMaple]

Both Iran and Iraq partnered with Germany in WWII. "Iran" is equivalent to "Arian".

Re:gosh

[ncc74656]

Even if Iran had ICBMs and nukes on a scale of the US or Russia they would not attack anyone with them. That is the whole concept of M.A.D. If Iran nuked Israel the nukes from the US, UK, France and the distributed nukes of Israel would completely destroy Iran within days.

MAD only works when dealing with rational actors. The Russians were rational enough. Iran? Not so much.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the whole concept of M.A.D. If Iran nuked Israel the nukes from the US, UK, France and the distributed nukes of Israel would completely destroy Iran within days.

And Allah will have a whole lot of virgins on hand for them all. Bombs away!

Protip: MAD only stops people that DON'T want to get themselves blown up.

Re:gosh

[slackoon]

>The reality is that we're not just trying to keep nukes out of the hands of the Iranians, we're trying to make sure that the rest of the ME doesn't enter an arms race which puts nukes in the hands of other countries.

>And who exactly appointed you to do that ?

Being a moral and just society who thinks of others is what appointed The U.S.A. and it's allies to "do that". Countries like Iraq, Libya and others have proven they cannot even keep their own people safe. They have little to no ability whatsoever to safely keep stockpiles of munitions. So why would we want them to have NUKES? organizations like ISIS would get them very quickly, then what? It sounds great to say but what about protecting the innocent who cannot protect themselves. If ISIS did use a nuke, who would be responsible for that? ISIS, the country they got it from, the country who could have stopped it? ALL OF THE ABOVE!

In World War II should we have just let them handle it themselves. Well that depends, are you OK with genocide, would you like saying hail Hitlerlet’s get real here!

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

But you're assuming that if Iran wanted to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon that it would be as black and white as Iran launching the missile from within its own borders. Retaliation isn't as clear cut if Iran get's a couple of shorter range missiles into Syria and launches them from there - or from Turkey, or both. Not sure how eager Israel or her allies would be to launch retaliatory strikes against one of the US's key strategic allies in the region. Israel might strongly suspect Iran had a hand in it but solid proof could take a very long time to collect.

Re: gosh

[cyberchondriac]

Wow, completely ignores Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, etc.. Iran engages in war and unrest via proxy. This is their best strategy at the current time. Given nuclear capability, that changes the game and thus likely their strategy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel is certainly capable of destroying every city in the ME in retaliation to any nuclear strike on their territory.Tehran, Mecca, Riyadh, Cairo, Damascus, and Bagdad would be smoking holes in the ground before the US or anyone else in the world even knew anything was happening. What makes the Iranians so dangerous with nuclear weapons is they have funded and supplied every major terrorist group fighting against Israel in the ME for the past 25 years and if they were to lose control of only one nuclear device it is game over. Which in some ways might not be a bad thing when you look at the never ending mayhem spewing from that part world. When is the last time Israel has ever asked for permission to attack anyone if they felt threatened? The Israelis are the only the country in the world who have never hesitated in launching preemptive attacks or dealing out payback any where in the world without giving a single good god damn about international opinion. Israel doesn't need US protection either militarily or diplomatically. China and Russia also control veto power in the UN and neither one of those countries even pays lip service to the never ending Palestinian arguments. The US-Israeli relationship allows the US to place limits on what Israeli military technology can be sold internationally. The 3 Billion a year in US foreign aid is nothing but corporate welfare for US weapons manufacturers and the aid was part of the treaty between Egypt and Israel peace agreement brokered by Carter.

Re: gosh

[slick7]

Considering the equipment supplies of the past, this too, will bite US in the ass. Russia controlled Afghanistan, Israel, Central and South America, Saudi Arabia, Africa (ie Benghazi, S. Africa and elsewhere). I personally see no good coming from this.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

And who exactly appointed you to do that ? Americans elect an American government to govern America. It has no jurisdiction anywhere else and "protecting your interests" should have been unconstitutional.

Well fuck it all then, lets totally abandon all non-proliferation efforts and encourage nuclear arsenals for everyone.
The world isn't free until Somalia has nukes.

Jurisdiction? When did this become a matter of law?

Re: gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

Out of all of the problems one might rightly point out about the US, you pick Puerto Rico? That really illuminates your ignorance. 1) they alone have the choice to either become a state or petition for sovereignty. 2) in various elections they've made the choice to remain a territory 3) because the reality is they'd be foolish to change from the status quo. They enjoy ALL of the benefits of statehood in the most powerful union on the globe, including representation in congress, without much of the liabilities of being a state (taxes, regulations), and most of the benefits of being sovereign. Where's the motivation to do anything else?

Re:gosh

[Harlequin80]

The people in power don't care what Shia or any other doctrine is. Religion is a tool used to control the mob. It always has been.

From where I sit America is bat shit religious as well. And there is nothing that makes me think a Christian based religion is any less violent or intolerant then an Islamic equivalent. But I don't believe that the US will do anything too stupid because the people in power are nothing if not pragmatic. They will lose their benefits and the comforts in their lives if they destroy it all.

Iran is exactly the same. I'm sure the people in power make all the right observations of faith. But when it comes down to it they want their comfy houses and their nice cars and their pretty women. Just like everyone else.

If the US wants to make itself safer, to reduce tensions in the ME and generally make the world a better place to live it should start helping countries rather than hindering them. NOTHING beats education and quality of life to make blowing yourself up and throwing it all away appear totally stupid.

Re:gosh

[farble1670]

Nukes are a thoroughly shit offensive weapon. If you throw a nuke at anyone you will get stomped out of existence.

completely misunderstanding the problem. the fear is that if iran gets nukes, they'll supply smaller groups that can't be retaliated against without massive collateral damage (not that you can ever avoid collateral damage with nukes).

e.g., a nuke is launch from the mountains around the pakistan / afghan border. what do you do? nuke pakistan?

Re:gosh

[cavreader]

It has been the nuclear stockpiles of the US, China, and Russia along with the MAD doctrine which has basically neutralized the threat of a large scale nuclear attack. The premise has always been if one side or the other were to execute a nuclear strike there would be an immediate retaliatory strike within minutes. The problem with Iran having nuclear weapons is that their foreign policy doctrine has consistently, and quite openly, revolved around supporting non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas, and all the various offshoots as proxies to fight Israel and any Sunni aligned group in the ME they wish to hurt. If one of their proxies were to get their hands on a nuclear weapon and detonate it in the US or Europe there would be no immediate counter strike option. It could take months to positively identify were the weapon originated. Would there be the political will to launch a retaliatory nuclear counter strike months if not years after the original attack? Now if a nuclear weapon was detonated in Israel their investigation of the weapons origin would last about 30 seconds and Tehran would be a radioactive wasteland 30 seconds after that. The countries in the ME will be lucky if the Israeli's don't decide to take out Riyadh and Mecca at the same time just for spite.

Re:gosh

[Harlequin80]

That would require them to be totally irrational and for them to act in ways they currently haven't with their advanced conventional weapons. Iran already has the capability to build advanced weaponry that can cause headaches even for US forces. Those are never seen in the hands of Hamas or others.

Despite all the US propaganda Iran has acted rationally throughout this whole process. They see the US as a threat, and the only way to stop that threat is to be nuclear capable. The US has responded with crippling sanctions but despite that Iran has managed to continue to expand its economy and its technological base.

As your example for who to retaliate against in the event of a disguised launch there are a couple of points. The first is that transporting launch capable nukes secretly is almost impossible, and even if you did manage to move it to launch secretly the chances are it would have been caught on satellite footage in advance of its launch and it can be identified later.

The more real risk is a lead lined shipping container arriving in a port somewhere. But it is possible to identify where a nuclear warhead was manufactured from the debris it leaves behind. The US isn't backwards about invading countries with fairly flimsy evidence of involvement. How much evidence would it need to attack Iran if it found Iranian specific markers in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion?

Re: gosh

[doccus]

For the record, the United States is not the problem in Peurto Rico. They've held multiple referendums about independence, statehood, etc... They continue to choose the status quo each time, by a narrow margin. We've never even had the opportunity to address statehood in Congress because they've never gotten that far, and we can't force statehood OR independence down their throats. So maybe back off on that one.

Golly.. That is the very same argument Britain used about India, in the Victorian era.

Re:gosh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you throw a nuke at anyone you will get stomped out of existence. Even if Iran had ICBMs and nukes on a scale of the US or Russia they would not attack anyone with them. That is the whole concept of M.A.D.

With the caveat that you're assuming a rational enemy that is focused on self-preservation as opposed to say martyrdom, bringing about the last war over the temple of David, etc.

M.A.D. was an amazingly successful strategy against a few specific enemies that assumed a rational enemy.

Re: gosh

[jo7hs2]

Spurious argument much? This isn't the Victorian era. They've had free and fair plebiscites on the matter repeatedly and elected to continue their current status. The U.S. Government actually had a vested interest (due to taxes, etc...) to make them a State or cut them loose, so it isn't exactly like we are holding them captive...if you haven't been paying attention, the U.S. Has been divesting itself of territories willingly since WWII. If they wanted to go, we'd let them.

Capitalism....

[Ryanrule]

...conquers ALL.

Re: Capitalism....

[bill_mcgonigle]

"peace and commerce with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Re:Capitalism....

[ChrisMaple]

As Marx pointed out, a capitalist will sell the rope used to hang him.

More precisely, additional factors are in place here

• shortsightedness
• US government corruption
• US government incompetence
• defective ideologies coming from the White house, a mix of anti-Americanism, socialism, sympathy toward violence, and sympathy toward Islam.

The intellectual caliber of the current administration is so minuscule that there's no realization that their policies are literally suicidal.

I'll be your huckleberry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing that couldn't go wrong already thanks to bad US policy in the past.

We kept the Shah in power for our own interests while he and his agents broke every opposition except the most fanactical. The ones most willing to hate the US.

Then we gave Hussein the tools to piss them off.

Then after he went too far (or perhaps he did what he was told to do in order to give the US a leg into Saudi Arabia), we messed up Iraq and screamed about Iran being evil too.

Frankly, we're lucky they haven't just decided to ruin the whole Middle East with some conventional weapons. That alone would probably fuck the world up enough to ruin everybody's day.

The US handled Germany and Japan better. I guess because of the fear of the USSR?

Ozymandious where are you now? We need a giant squid or something to blame.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because it's a great poem and you brought it up.

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away".

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[Black Parrot]

We kept the Shah in power for our own interests

s/kept/put/

In 1953 they had a democratically elected, very westernized government. The US and UK staged a coup when that government wasn't generous enough with "our" oil.

Worked out about as well as all our other efforts to tell the rest of the world how to run their countries.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our efforts to tell certain countries like Germany and Japan how to run their countries worked out reasonably well, actually.

As for the whole "our oil" thing, let's not be naive. Oil is the resource that makes the world go round. Some other power with a death grip on its supply is a strategic problem of the first order. Pretending that we have no important strategic interests there is silly. We don't have to believe that the oil belongs to us to understand that securing the ability to obtain it is important.

We quite simply failed to achieve the strategic goals we needed to achieve, but failure does not imply that the effort was unwarranted. Would we have been better off if Operation Ajax did not happen? That's actually not clear. In 1953, Iran had a government that was led by a popular secularist, but the government was anything but "very westernized". Mostly, the government was anti-imperialist, but it was rife with division. That's how the coup actually ended up succeeding to begin with. The US and UK managed to simply make use of existing divisions in Iran to obtain their desired result. Even without external pressure, those divisions could have gone either way.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[silentcoder]

>Our efforts to tell certain countries like Germany and Japan how to run their countries worked out reasonably well, actually.

I wonder what we may learn from this ? Mmm, wait a moment, the people who wrote their constitutions were Rooseveldt's cabinet... they implemented in those constitutions the second bill of Rights that Rooseveldt had championed in the USA but had died before he could do anything about it.

Seems to have worked out pretty well for Japan and Germany though...
The most liberal president you ever had, and you tried all his ideas in OTHER countries, where they worked fantastically well - while rejecting them at home.

Charles Dickens would have wept.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[drinkypoo]

As for the whole "our oil" thing, let's not be naive. Oil is the resource that makes the world go round.

Hahaha. Let's not be naive, while parroting that old tired bullshit. We've been able to make oil out of algae since forever. We just don't do it because of the entrenched oil interests. If they let other people become rich, they won't be able to be the richest any more, and they're already rich so they don't need new revenue sources which is the answer to the beyond-childish assertion that oil companies would just exploit new energy sources themselves. Well no, obviously not, because the current energy sources are centralized and they can control them, while the new ones are distributed and they can't. If we reprocess nuclear fuel and we need less of it then they can't control it by controlling the supply of fuel. And so it goes.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[dunkelfalke]

Which was not the first time, by the way.
UK and USSR have occupied Iran together during WW2 and that was the first time they've put that particular Shah to power.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[ChrisMaple]

FDR and his cabinet were nut cases, and that anything they wrote for other countries worked at all was sheer random luck (actually, more likely the successes in Germany and Japan were due to an elective government being put in place over a productive culture.)

Roosevelt's "second bill of rights" had nothing to do with rights, but were instead fantastical claims on the labor and property of others. (For instance, the "right to a job" - provided by whom, at what cost?)

As as as "The most liberal president you ever had" is concerned, if you mean liberal in the modern sense of thief, then FDR has to compete with Wilson and the treasonous Obama. The classical liberals include mainly Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[ChrisMaple]

Being able to do something, and being able to do it for a profit, are not the same thing. Gold can be made from nuclear reactions, so why is gold still high priced? Same reason we're not making oil from algae, it costs more than pulling it out of the ground.

Re:I'll be your huckleberry.

[drinkypoo]

Same reason we're not making oil from algae, it costs more than pulling it out of the ground.

Right, as long as you make the whole world pay for what it actually costs to get it out of the ground, you make out like a bandit.

Keeps the Russians out

[fustakrakich]

That is the idea, isn't it?

Re:Keeps the Russians out

[ezdiy]

Pretty much. Combined with Snowden, US has come out of its closet and said "fuck this shit about moral facade". While nobody likes russians in the region (as historically their imperialism was still far worse), europeans are now between two grinding stones - one completing an encirclement, and second having a good pretense to "feel threatened". Interesting times ahead.

Remains to be seen if NATO members signed the faustian deal with lesser of the evils.

Re:Keeps the Russians out

[rtb61]

The EU could drop the US, pick up other like minded countries around the world and create a more capable union, creating a more effective third pole to global politics. It should be obvious to everyone by now that the US doesn't want allies it just demands vassal states that will obey corporate edicts coming out of the US. Russia went though it's own self destructive imperialistic stage and isn't much of a threat at the moment. Asia is really much more diverse than being defined by generalised appearance characteristics and there is no real union possible along those lines, more an independent, mutually supportive association, with India, China and Japan creating separate poles within the Asian political pole.

The EU really needs to pick up members that will make it independent from both the US and Russia and avoid disruptive members that are a burden rather than a benefit ie Ukraine (it should be pretty obvious by now Russia didn't lose the Ukraine they dumped it, what a chaotic debt bomb, US spent 5 billion to pick up 100 billion of debt). Russia is big enough to pretty much do it's own thing on it's own. Then we can see how the five politics poles work together (fifth being the associated association).

Re:Keeps the Russians out

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU really needs to pick up members that will make it independent from both the US and Russia...

Yeah, and like, who's left? The 'EU' is Germany, and they are conquering Europe via wire transfer. You still want Turkey in there? Please! You may as well go for North Africa. Let the Brits deal with the Middle East (disputed territories), with their US muscle.

Re:I SAY LET'S DO IT! NUKEM NOW!

[Gavagai80]

Although US export laws forbid its sale, I'm sure Iran has already downloaded pirate copies of Duke Nukem.

The new definition of Diplomacy

[SuperKendall]

Diplomacy, old definition:

"The art of saying 'Nice Doggy' until you can find a rock". - Will Rodgers

New definition:

"The art of handing rocks over to the doggy until it can bury you, while hoping that it is nice".

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[circletimessquare]

If we attack Iran militarily, they will race and have nukes in a few months. The idea that we can prevent that with a military strike is naive or maliciously dishonest.

We were told toppling Saddam would lead to dancing in the streets of Baghdad and mature democracy and peace in Iraq. Hasn't exactly worked out that way. Now we have lies and foolishness about striking Iran. Iran could pursue nukes in the center of a number of mountain bunkers and we could not capture or find all off them in time before a bomb was created and *used* in Israel or Europe or the USA.

Yes, *used*.

If we invaded Iran, our threat to the regime would be existential. Nations build nukes precisely for deterrence against existential threats.

Therefore, by invading, we will hand Iran a perfectly legitimate reason for using a nuke, on a silver platter. If someone was toppling our government in Washington DC militarily, you can be certain nukes would be flying out of bunkers in North Dakota. You think the same standard for using nukes doesn't apply to Iran?

And all you need is an anonymous lead lined shipping container out of tens of thousands delivered to a port. No need for a stinking ICBM.

Are some of you braindead chickenhawks sobering up yet?

Do some of you morons think invading Iran will be a breeze? Fucking pathetic Afghanistan wasn't even a breeze. The blowback from Iraq and letting Saddam's entire Baathist military establishment walk away is still going on in the form of ISIS. You chickenhawk morons just don't fucking learn do you you pathetic assholes? How many trillions in national treasure and thousands of young vital lives do you want to waste now? While you complain about taxes and welfare recipients from the other side of your ignorant mouths? There are some seriously stupid assholes in this world isn't there, you chickenhawk assholes gung ho for war are exhibit A.

Iran is not Iraq, wide open flat desert, it is mountain fortresses. We played hide and seek in the mountains of Afghanistan for years with scruffy pushovers who continue to mount destabilizing attacks. The Revolutionary Guards of Iran are not pimply teenagers promised religious lies from Al Qaeda and Taliban stooges, they are a serious and professional fighting force, fighting on their land, for their country. Remember Vietnam you moronic chickenhawk douchebags? Is someone going to tell us our intelligence on Iranian nuclear sites is ironclad, we know all of them? Really, you're certain of that? You want to bet an Iranian nuclear strike on that conviction you arrogant smarmy pricks?

So we will pursue a deal. Not because it will work with certainty. But because all other options are clearly worse.

Diplomacy simply serves our national interest. A deal is better than no deal. Pragmatism. Shrewd intelligence. Not that you warmongering assholes know what those words mean. You don't have to trust the Iranians, you stupid fucks, no one trusts them. Verification is in the deal.

All the assholes with hard ons to invade Iran are genuinely ignorant or maliciously cavalier about the severe blow back we would experience. Fuck the irresponsible braindead chickenhawk assholes: the crappiest deal is still 1,000% better than the best case military scenario.

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Dog-Cow]

The obvious solution then is to nuke Iran now, before we know they have their own. Because when Iran has what they consider a sufficient number of warheads, they will start WWIII. So either way we will have to nuke Iran; may as well do it before they can kill us too.

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[circletimessquare]

i know you're joking, but there are people in the world who really believe that

sobering

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Neil Boekend]

Yes, Nuclear bomb owning Pakistan would love a country being nuked upwind from them. The prevailing winds in the altitudes above 3km would give them all that precious nuclear fallout.

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Anonymous Coward]

We were told toppling Saddam would lead to dancing in the streets of Baghdad and mature democracy and peace in Iraq. Hasn't exactly worked out that way. It did until we left. We taught a toddler to walk, then we walked across the street alone. Any surprise the toddler walked in front of a car?

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Vermifax]

Except not only do we know they don't have any, the CIA and Mossad have confirmed that they aren't working on any either.

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Hodr]

I enjoyed your well reasoned and thorough argument, which I imagine was delivered in an even and temperate tone, with it's occasional turrets style invectives. I want to believe you use the same style when talking with your spouse, attending formal functions, at work, and at the PTA.

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[circletimessquare]

LOL ;-)

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Preach it, brother!

Re:The new definition of Diplomacy

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious solution then is to nuke Iran now, before we know they have their own. Because when Iran has what they consider a sufficient number of warheads, they will start WWIII. So either way we will have to nuke Iran; may as well do it before they can kill us too.

I'm going to be honest - I have no idea if you're joking or being totally sincere. The fact I can't tell the difference tells me a lot about myself as well as the state of the world.

Henry Limpet: I wish, I wish I were a fish.

[Anonymous Coward]

ooooh yeah lady fish.. OOOOHH YEAH!!!

Just look at the previous post

[Required Snark]

Disney Replaces Longtime IT Staff with H-1b Workers

As I posted there:

Corporations only have one goal: making the upper management as rich as possible. They will throw anyone under the bus to achieve that end: employees, stockholders, customers.

I underestimated just how greedy the bastards really are. They will sell anything, including the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, to a country who's foreign policy goals include getting the US out of the Middle East, the end of the State of Israel, and replacing Saudi dominance with Iranian dominance. (Not that I think much of the Saudi government, but at least they are a devil we know, and can buy off.)

Ending the Iran embargo shouldn't mean helping them with their nuclear energy program. That's insane, unless the west has 100% access to all their facilities. The last I heard access was one of the main unresolved issues.

Clearly this is in the agreement due to corporate influence. At what point does profit become treason?

Re:Just look at the previous post

[circletimessquare]

if a crazy person wants to shoot you, and you make a deal with him to not shoot you as long as you feed him gun parts...

then when the time comes and he pulls out an assembled gun and fires at you... do you really think that gun is going to work?

Re:Just look at the previous post

[Culture20]

Crazy does not necessarily imply incompetent. Anyway, in your example, Iran is better represented by an enemy soldier or a man with avowed criminal intent.

Re:Just look at the previous post

[circletimessquare]

and shall we proceed down the slope of retarded alterations to a throwaway analogy and miss the demonstration of the simple point?

the USA is stupid in many ways, but it's not THAT stupid, maybe you are.

Re:Just look at the previous post

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody surely ate her Trollies this morning.

Re:Just look at the previous post

[circletimessquare]

how do you tell the difference between a troll and someone who believes some of this ignorant shit?

we have a comment in this thread that wants to preemptively nuke iran, and it is modded up

so either slashdot is nothing but a pointless trollfest nowadays and everyone serious should leave, or i'm correcting the ignorant

either way, there are indeed a lot of fucking retards in this thread

Re:Just look at the previous post

[ChrisMaple]

The Obama administration is that stupid. B.H.O. just wants to get out of office before the bomb drops.

Re:Just look at the previous post

[circletimessquare]

...says fat low iq loser on the internats, so it must be true

A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

Obama President (LOL)
Hillary Clinton Secretary of State (ROFL)
John Kerry Secretary of State (ROFLMAO)

Really you have people whose goal in life is to martyr themselves running rings around these idiots, and Russia is resurgent. Good job.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

russia is imploding. thugging on ukraine while its economy shrivels is not the definition of resurgent. it's called a distraction, appealing to ultranationalist douchebaggery while it makes grave enemies of neighbors and previous slavic brothers, who used to be part of the USSR with russia not that long ago. russia is on a long decline that started in the 1980s. this is just the latest evolution of that decay. by the end of this decade china will be taking back outer manchuria and NATO will be seizing kaliningrad to stop food riots while russia points deficient rusting ancient war machinery at much more powerful foes who laugh at it. you can't have a powerful modern nation without a serious economy, and putin turned russia into a kleptocratic petrostate to preserve his power, at the expense of any hope for a real russian future of a diverse economy and a mature democracy. russia is pathetic, weak, and finished

and iran has been chanting death to america since the 1980s!

but it's all obama's fault

of course

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

while it makes grave enemies of neighbors and previous slavic brothers,

You're out of your mind, or have a negative IQ with regard to the region, perhaps both.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

ukrainians and russians are not slavs?

ukrainians and russians were not fighting on the same side, under the same government, for centuries?

ok then, i must have negative iq

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

The Ukraine didn't experience genocide under Stalin ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...

You really get to loving a country when they kill off 5 million of your neighbors.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

And yes you do have a negative IQ.
Learn a little about the region before you beclown yourself.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Anonymous Coward]

and Russia is resurgent. Good job.

Resurgent? You're like the bully that keeps asking, "why are you hitting yourself?" -- take a look at Russia's exchange rate with other countries. The western world has obliterated their economy.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Anonymous Coward]

And yes, I know a bit about the area, and no, I don't think Russia is the most amazing thing in the world. But I'm telling you many of my Russian friends won't even think of returning home (to, I don't know, their families?) to get a job, because there isn't one that wouldn't be considered by any western nation to be massively below the poverty line.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

Resurgent? You're like the bully that keeps asking, "why are you hitting yourself?

First that doesn't mean what you thought it meant. You really need to rework it a bit to make it an insult directed at me .

Second here you go

http://hir.harvard.edu/archive...

Maybe you should get together with the guy who thinks all slavs view each other as brothers (pro tip ask the Poles about that) and form a reading circle.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

ROFL NYET KULTURNI

There's I haven't known anyone who has left Russia who would want to return since members of my family fled the Czars. You delude yourself.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Required Snark]

King George Bush 1st: Head of the CIA, just like Putin was the head of the KGB, and just like Putin, dedicated to democratic government and free enterprise.

King George W Bush 2nd: Dumber then a box of rocks. Hand puppet for Cheney. Known to be comfortable holding hands with (male) Saudi royalty. Ignored warnings about 9/11 attack, then invaded the wrong country. Engineered the worst financial crash since the Great Depression. Will eventually go down as the worst president in the post WW1 era.

King Jeb Bush: If elected, will complete the disastrous projects started by his father and brother. Invade Iran? Russia? North Korea? No matter what, will invade somewhere, since it's a family tradition. Will turn the economy over to Greenspan, or his current equivalent, and complete the destruction of the US economy. Convert the US to a right wing Christian theocracy? Possible. It's impossible to predict what he will do, because the Bush clan is so out of control that no sane person can foresee their future actions.

Before you go slinging mud, you had best consider what happened whey your side was in charge.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

Lincoln had a secretary named Johnson, Johnson had a secretary named Lincoln

This is true is except that both are false.

But it as 100% relevant as your comment, which is to say not at all.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Anonymous Coward]

There's I haven't known anyone who has left Russia who would want to return since members of my family fled the Czars. You delude yourself.

I suppose I have imaginary friend who worked in three countries in Europe who went back to Russia last year that I plan to visit, then. (Who may not like Moscow, but that's where the jobs are, and the beer is cheap.) And another imaginary friend who goes back each year to visit her grandfather. And another ....

Russia is a freaking large country, and the actions of the head of state do not speak for the rest of the people. And just because it may not be logical for people to return, for many it is also question of finding work visas and citizenship elsewhere. At the minimum, your experience is not the only one.

I do know Jews that fled the Soviet bloc back in the day, and they would almost speak like you do, but they still know enough people from before that they would not be so ignorant to speak for everyone else.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

So which group of imaginary friends are making your point ? The ones that won't go home or those that are ?

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to clarify that minority was on Hitlers side and lived between the USSR and Germany.
In the context of WWII wouldn't you send them to the Gulag? Just like the USA did to the Japanese living in their soil after pearl harbor?

Mate when your roof is made of glass you shouldn't throw stones....

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[dunkelfalke]

Have you actually read the text you are linking?

It was part of the wider disaster, the Soviet famine of 1932â"33, which affected the major grain-producing areas of the country.

In the absence of absolute documentary proof of intent, some scholars have also made the argument that the Holodomor was ultimately a consequence of the economic problems associated with radical economic changes implemented during the period of liquidation of private property and Soviet industrialization.

Russia had famines every 10 years or so until the early 1950ies.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[dunkelfalke]

Give it a rest already. I've been hearing this kind of speeches for decades, as long as I can remember. Hasn't happened then and won't happen now either. Food riots in Kaliningrad, very funny. That was kinda sorta believable in 1993.

Besides, this "making enemies of neighbors and previous Slavic brothers" is, in case of Ukraine, absolutely mutual. It is like there has been a contest of which country's politician can be the greater dick, and that contest has been ongoing for over 20 years. Don't think that exactly the same appeal to "ultranationalist douchebaggery" doesn't exist in the Ukraine. I had the opportunity to watch a national guard volunteers' bootcamp training in Kiev two weeks ago. It was scary as hell for a German. Exactly like Freikorps at the Weimar Republic time. Ukrainian TV has been hysterically crying wolf all the time.

Eastern Ukraine was a more pleasant experience.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Anonymous Coward]

"Resurgent" means they are focussing externally again instead of internally. And when Russia focusses externally, it's usually through conquest.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

The Ukrainians and the Russians are both slavs who lived under the same empire for centuries, fighting on the same side of many wars.

You throw insults about stupidity when you are the clear ignorant on this topic.

There has always been yearnings for Ukrainian nationalism and independence, but there has also always been love, affection and respect between the Ukrainian and Russian people. Even now. Both Russians and Ukrainians understand this recent split is driven by politics and economics. But the split is doing serious damage to the regard both peoples have for each other: this is real fruits of Putin's yearnings for past Russian glory by thugging on Ukraine and Georgia, birthplace of Stalin, for 1815 style imperialism in 2015: lasting hatred, fear, and disgust by Russia's near neighbors when before there was begrudging respect.

You are welcome for the remedial introduction to the basics of a topic you stick your loudmouth ignorance into. I suggest you educate yourself on a topic, then speak, next time.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

Hello Russian propaganda retard.

Your country's economy is going down the toilet while Russia makes enemies with close by regions that used to be friends, even part of the same country once. Over the long term, since the 1980s, it is nothing but a slow downhill that will only continue. And its all the creation of the lying blindness and ultranationalism on display in your comment. Your country is politically moronic: it holds all rule to the sole right of one ex KGB mafia thug, cult of personality bullshit like pathetic North Korea, instead of mature democracy. Your economy is about how to distribute oil money between corrupt oligarchs and stooges of Dear Leader, exactly as oil money dries up. It's not a diverse, mature economy. This is the real "benefit" of Putin's "good" leadership.

You can't rule when you don't have enough money to buy new tanks. China outnumbers you 1.4 billion to 140 million. China desires resources. China is also an imperial thug like Russia, enemies and border conflicts with all its neighbors, but unlike Russia, it has the healthy economy to back up its thugging. It will forget stealing tiny islands from the Philippines and Vietnam and barren mountains from India, and notice the weakness to the North and the vast Siberian riches, and notice that for most of history, it ruled north of the Amur. It doesn't even have to invade: those areas are largely and in some places mostly Chinese population already. Texas was ripped from Mexico by the USA by the same slow colonization.

That's your future this century Russia: more slow rot and decay, just like since the 1980s.

But enjoy your displays of thuggish desire for faded glory by picking on Ukraine and Georgia and making all your neighbors loathe you. Good job Russia.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[dunkelfalke]

Buddy, either grow up or at least acquire some manners. And stop calling people "retards" when they don't subscribe to your opinions. Because that is what your statements are - opinions. Which are notably absent of actual facts.

My country's economy is doing fine, by the way - it is currently the strongest in Europe. You also should check your numbers, only 80 millions live in Germany, not 140 millions.

Also I think, you might be somewhat delusional if you find anything nationalistic in what I have written. I don't like nationalists, they make me very uneasy. Most Germans feel this way. What I have written is what I have seen in the Ukraine during my several visits there. I've also been in Russia twice, but it was very long ago - in 1987 and 1988.

I have no idea what stuff you have been inhaling/snorting/injecting to get the kind of delusions you generally seem to have. I, on the other hand, have been traveling in Eastern Europe for a long time. I also speak Russian more or less fluently (somewhat outdated idioms and a German accent notwithstanding) and Czech and Estonian well enough to get by. What credentials do you have, beside your inflated and inflamed self-importance?

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

Eastern Ukraine was a more pleasant experience.

you're not in germany. you are a *retarded* russian troll. no german would say that sentence

unless, highly unlikely, you are a mercenary or, even worse, some sort of sadistic conflict tourist

in which case you are indeed a greater *retarded* loser than a russian propaganda victim, and are utterly devoid of merit or worth in registering any opinion

go swallow a shotgun you lying demented fuck

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[dunkelfalke]

*facepalm*
There are other cities in Eastern Ukraine than Donetsk and Lugansk. Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk for example. There is no war there. Life there goes on as usual, the only exception is that there are soldiers now at the central railway stations, which was not the case three years ago. Also some right sector recruitment boots - unheard of previously. And yes, these cities were more pleasant than Kiev. Cleaner, better looked after, even though both are actually heavy on industry - for example Kharkiv is defined by its tank and aerospace factories (wanted to visit Khartron, but, alas, no entry for foreigners). Also people were generally more relaxed. Kiev had more historical sites, but otherwise the city is fugly and dirty. The all-encompassing poverty is also much more pronounced there.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

that's central ukraine you dumb fuck

why the fuck did you say " i went to eatern ukraine, hurrr durrr"

that's the warzone

you lack basic communication skills. you switch your story. you don't understand the topic

i'm so glad you went to ukraine you fat fuck. i skyped with ethnic russians in dnipropetrovsk every day for months, on a dev team i managed a few years ago. good guys. rocket city

now do i get to claim some special knowledge completely at odds with basic fucking reality like you do?

hear, have a greasy sausage you shitbrain kraut and try to educate your ignorant assmouth before opening it next time. especially since the best historical precedent for what russia is doing in crimea is sudetenland, your country's glorious contribution to international thuggery

you don't know what the fuck you are talking about, fat dumb tourist

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[dunkelfalke]

*double facepalm*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

The territory is heavily urbanized and commonly associated with the Donbas. The three largest metropolitan cities form an industrial triangle within the region. Among the major cities are:

        Kharkiv
        Dnipropetrovsk
        Donetsk
        Zaporizhia
        Luhansk
        Mariupol
        Kryvyi Rih
        Makiivka

Central Ukraine starts at about Poltava so it seems that the only ignoramus here are yourself.
I seriously doubt that you have managed anything, besides of hurling baseless insults at other people. From how you communicate here, you'd be 16 at most writing out your parents' basement, having that teenage rebellious phase right now. Seriously, grow up. Get some universal education. Learn a few languages. Go and see more of the world. Then we can have a discussion on eye level. And for fuck's sake, stop being hysterical if you want people to actually take you seriously. If you can't do it by yourself, go see a therapist.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

you said "eastern ukraine"

eastern ukraine is the war zone, yes?

so you meant "sort of towards the east but still far from the the warzone in eastern ukraine"

that's called basic communication skills

if i said "i went to fukushima," and i really meant "i kind of got around the outskirts of tokyo and saw a government vehicle on its way to the exclusion zone," i could be accused of lying and manipulating by creating a false impression, right?

understand the communication problem you made here you lying asshole?

did you want to leave the impression you were running around a warzone like an internet tough guy?

instead of the reality of just being a fat greasy kraut on holiday eating ice cream?

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[dunkelfalke]

No, I said what I meant. Eastern Ukraine. Not the war zone, because it is just a part of Eastern Ukraine. If I wanted to say "war zone", I would have said so. My basic communication skills are good enough and you are the first person who has interpreted me like this. So it is your reading comprehension that is malfunctioning. Please don't project your own problems on me.

If you said "I went to Fukushima" then it would mean that you went to the Fukushima perfecture, or maybe to the city of Fukushima, which is still outside the exclusion zone. So the problem we have here exists only in your head. And if I say to you that a visit to Pripyat and Chernobyl is next on the list, presumably in mid-October when I have more time, then this is what it is.

Your problem is that you absolutely cannot admit that you were wrong. Instead you weasel around, move the goalposts, accuse others of being liers and and generally hurl more insults. Like I said, go visit a therapist. You might not recognise it, but you really need professional help.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[circletimessquare]

No, I said what I meant. Eastern Ukraine.

i stopped reading there. my turn to face palm. you're a really dumb fuck you know that?

moronic thread over

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[ChrisMaple]

There have been a few who have willingly gone back, for a variety of reasons like family, or after 70 years of shortages coming to the west and being unable to cope with a wealthy society. Stalin's daughter Svetlana went back.

Re:A Fish rots from the head down

[Crashmarik]

here you go

http://www.historyplace.com/wo...

It's one thing to have a famine, it's another when someone uses it to eliminate people they don't like.

Re:I SAY LET'S DO IT! NUKEM NOW!

[Anonymous Coward]

Rights are owned by a Chinese company.

hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US as nuclear arsenal and has been the only country so far to unleash it under a war, why cant Iran have them too? Why is the USA allowed to continue to have these weapons and also other countries? There's something wrong with this picture.

So the middle east is a radiation poisoned

[Cafe Alpha]

graveyard, it will have been American parts that put it there.

Yay?

Re:So the middle east is a radiation poisoned

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there's always a bright side. If the Middle East turned into a radioactive no man's land, people would stop fighting over it. *shrug*

Re:So the middle east is a radiation poisoned

[Anonymous Coward]

It already is.

See the usage of depleted uranium in middle-east war theaters.

Re:So the middle east is a radiation poisoned

[ChrisMaple]

What part of "depleted" do you not understand?

No need to attack

[SuperKendall]

All we have to do is nothing. The sanctions are working, it's greatly slowing progress they are making to obtaining nuclear weapons.

If we lift the sanctions, we CANNOT restore them (the Iranians have said repeatedly it's absurd to think we could). They will absolutely have a nuclear weapon inside a year, probably much sooner.

The real assholes are the people like you willing to put the world to the torch because of your imaginary fears of invading Iran, which no-one wants to do. It makes no sense because what do you invade? The people are generally friendly to the U.S., it's only the rulers that are not - and they will use the entire populace as a human shield (that is also incidentally why they rightfully think they can use nuclear weapons against enemies without similar reprisals).

If the sanctions are lifted and millions die I hope you have the decency to at least feel a tiny bit guilty.... but then people like you so often rationalize all repercussions of your mistakes away.

Re:No need to attack

[silentcoder]

Just out of curiousity... why exactly should Iran NOT have a nuclear weapon ?
You got them... you have THOUSANDS of them and your track-record with them is atrocious, you've accidentally dropped some on your own people at least 50 times, you've left them unguarded and forgotten on civilian runways more than once. On at least one occasion they were discovered by the damn catering staff.

You have not been very responsible with yours. Yet you maintain you have the right to have them. If you do... so does Iran. Either EVERY country has that right, or NO country has that right.
You can't make selective laws for countries anymore than you can for people.

Now take that as a fundamental premise and rethink your entire view of hte world. You'll find you come up with one that doesn't make the rest of the world hate Americans. One that produces a world where Al Queda could never have existed. One where your nation is not seen as a bunch of arrogant imperialists comparable to Elizabethan and Victorian England.
Take it as a basic premise that your country can ONLY do what it allows EVERYBODY ELSE to do as well - if something is truly to scary for North Korea to do - you can't do it either. Give COUNTRIES equal rights.

Then maybe we can negotiate in good faith. Then maybe the world can know some peace and stability. Then you'll have gained some philosophical soundness in your arguments. Go on. Think about it. I'll wait.

Re:No need to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Its so slowing the progress that both the CIA and the Mossad agree that they aren't working on nuclear weapons and haven't been.

Re:No need to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

You got them... you have THOUSANDS of them and your track-record with them is atrocious,

70 years and thousands of nuclear weapons in the possession of the United States, and exactly zero people harmed by one since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Including a period of time post-WWII when NO ONE ELSE had any, when much of the world was in ruins. When the world was truly helpless to resist the power of a United States fully mobilized for conventional war, with a monopoly on nuclear weapons, with a proven willingness to use them. If the United States had the desire and will to employ that power, no one could have resisted.

That's atrocious?

Your vitriol and anger are clouding your judgment.

The fact is, the United States (and the UK, and France, and Russia, and China) have been good stewards of their nuclear arsenals, so far. The only evidence needed to acknowlege this fact is the lack of any mushroom clouds over cities since 1945.

Re:No need to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiousity... why exactly should Charles Manson NOT have a gun ? You got them... you have THOUSANDS of them and your track-record with them is atrocious, you've accidentally shot some at your own people at least 50 times, you've left them unguarded and forgotten under mattresses more than once. On more than one occasion they were discovered by children.

The answer to this question: Charles Manson has stated exactly what he will do with a gun. Just like Iran has stated what they'll do with a nuclear weapon: wipe Israel off the map, and maybe start WWIII to weaken the Great Satan and summon a prophecied Shia messiah.

Re: No need to attack

[silentcoder]

And the facts prove that luck was mostly good luck. There was no anger in my post your defensiveness is clouding your judgement .
My own country was a nuclear power. We gave it up voluntarily (we still generate electricity with it though). Dismantled our bombs.

I didn't ask more give a crap about whether the us is a good steward or not. I said countries should have equal rights. I said it's impossible for you or anybody else to ever have moral authority when you prohibit other countries from actions you still do yourself.
If owning nukes is legal for you its legal for Iran. If you don't think it should be legal for them then give up your own.

It's logically, morally and philosophically impossible for there a legitimate justification why the same country can own nukes and deny them to others.

Re:No need to attack

[ScentCone]

Just out of curiousity... why exactly should Iran NOT have a nuclear weapon ?

Because of their frequently asserted world view and actions.

Re:No need to attack

[Greyfox]

Um, and that minor incident at the Bikini Island Atoll. Entire island nation loses their homes permanently and a bunch of people get cancer and die within a couple of years. But you know, you want to make an omelette, you need to break a few eggs. The USA and the USSR were doing open-air testing until nearly 1960, when the USA finally screwed the pooch hard in the south pacific. And then there was that time some jackass decided to detonate a nuclear bomb in the Van Allen Belt. That was in the mid 60's and for a year or so you couldn't launch anything without it being disabled by the trapped radiation. There was some concern that we'd ended space exploration permanently. But you know, minor little whoops there, no need to mention that in history class.

Re: No need to attack

[silentcoder]

More that they are all equally evil. The winners just get to write the propaganda.

Re: No need to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't about morals, given the large gap between our morals and that of the ayatollah how do you reconcile? The truth is it is about power. Iran is an expansionist country in its own way. Even without nukes and a large conventional army they are currently active in multiple countries(syria, yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan) and also have a history of targeting civilians with government sanctioned terrorist attacks. I do not imagine Iran will use nukes if they get them but what they will do is become incredibly bold in spreading their particular brand of morality first to the shitte world and then beyond. Their goal is simple, expand Shitte islamism(or whatever you call their politics) far and wide. If you want that then support Iran getting nukes, if not then support sanctions ect. Iran cannot and should not have the ace card based purely on their barbaric form of government and its political philosophy.

Re: No need to attack

[silentcoder]

So give every other country some too. Ace neutered.

Re:No need to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

All we have to do is nothing. The sanctions are working

Sure, and if we kept that up in Cuba, in another 50 years or so people would finally rise up against Fidel Castro and overthrow him.

Meanwhile any government operation that produces a measurable outcome is "not working". I wonder if someone's been giving conservatives a dictionary of antonyms or something.

Re: No need to attack

[ChrisMaple]

Equally evil? You see any Christians or Jews beheading people recently?

Re: No need to attack

[ChrisMaple]

Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work as a preventative when the aggressor doesn't care if it's destroyed

Re:No need to attack

[radarskiy]

How many countries has Iran invaded since the revolution in '79?
How many has the USA in that same time period?

Re:No need to attack

[ScentCone]

How many countries has Iran invaded since the revolution in '79?

Iran, or their armed and funded proxies?

Re: No need to attack

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, did you say that Nazi Germany and WWII Japan were just as evil as the US was/is? Because that's insane. The US internment camps sucked, and were a very bad thing to do, but they weren't set up to kill millions of people like the concentration camps were, and the US never did anything as bad as what Japan did to China.

Fixed the article title for you Uncle Sam-zenpus.

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel Just Might Be Iran's Favorite New Nuclear Target

Par for the course

[Anonymous Coward]

The US was lending money and supplying Nazi Germany for as long as they could get away with it.

The US Jews like the Roschilds made their money from it, as did the Bush clan.

I thought America got out of nuclear biz?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that the French/German were the leaders in nuclear technology. The French & German governments have pushed the next generation nuclear reactor (the EPR). France is a leader in nuclear waste reprocessing. The Europeans are leaders in centrifuge uranium enrichment. The United States has old enrichment plants. American companies have gotten out of the nuclear design business. America's nuclear ICBMs are creaky relics from the cold war. This might be a good thing. Thus, America's nuclear tech is stagnant. Why buy nuclear equipment from the United States, instead of Europe?

Re:I thought America got out of nuclear biz?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, Carter put a permanent moratorium on new reactors as a knee-jerk reaction to 3MI, arguably the biggest coup Big Oil/Big Coal had since it ensured them supremecy for decades, and decades to come.

But US nuclear technology is nowhere near stagnant. Most of it has gone to the Navy and other contracts for smaller reactors used for transportation.

Even though it will be decades before Carter's ban gets lifted, the technology is still moving forward in the US.

Long term, expect the leaps in growth to happen in China where they have already passed peak coal, oil is only getting more scarce. To boot, China can do what they darn well please without worry about appeasing the environmentalists and the NIMBY crowd at every turn. So, I wouldn't be surprised to see China be the place in the world that breeder reactor refinement and nuclear progress in general gets going... which will pretty much force the US and Europe to catch up.

Tor's New Search Provider Built By Ex-NSA/Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Tor's New Search Provider Built By Ex-Google And Ex-NSA Engineers

$$$

https://blog.torproject.org/bl...
^ https://blog.torproject.org/#S...

"New Search Provider[1]

Our default search provider has also been changed to Disconnect. Disconnect provides private Google search results to Tor users without Captchas or bans."

[1] https://search.disconnect.me/

$$$

"Disconnect Search, Built By Ex-Google And Ex-NSA Engineers, Lets You Use Google, Bing And Yahoo Without Tracking"

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/...

FTA:

"notes Patrick Jackson, the ex-NSA engineer who is now CTO of Disconnect"

Yeah.. sounds like a good choice for a default TBB Search Engine... NOT!

$$$

-- On April 28th, 2015 Anonymous said:

"What prompted the change in search engine? Are we now getting paid to include disconnect as the default search engine?"

-- On April 28th, 2015 gk said:

"We don't get paid for that as it currently stands. But Startpage was not happy with our traffic and showed sometimes CAPTCHAs. Disconnect on the other hand approached us with respect to search engine traffic and donated some money."

Donated some money? Hahahahahhaaha. I wonder WHY they approached Torproject? You don't get paid for that CURRENTLY? Nice wording! But there was a DONATION, rrrriiiiight? I can't wait for future news! Please do let us know if and when you start collecting further $$ from the source.

I am insulted. I will continue to use Startpage's free web proxy service in TBB, and DuckDuckGo's .onion hidden service free search engine:

http://3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion/

So what's next, Torproject? Keystroke logging for Amazon or another company? Partnering with Recorded Future or something like it? Is this what the project has come to now? But that "Disconnect" Search Engine site is so pretty. So nice and clean, WOW! It sort of reminds me of the polished DoD sites I have wandered through.

$$$

Read Their Privacy Policy:
https://disconnect.me/privacy

Disgusting.

"I love how they "never collect your Personal Info, except when they do" and "never share your Personal Info (the one they didn't collect, remember?), except when they do""

$$$

With this new "Search Engine", I feel like a rug is being pulled out from underneath me and damn it "that rug really tied the room together."

"New Iowa"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't mind me, I'm just trying out new names for our radioactive glass covered 51st state.

What could possibly go wrong?

[MagickalMyst]

Perhaps something like The Iran Contra Affair

You'd think Dick Cheney and Halliburton were invol

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, just Obama at it again. I can't figure out if it's total incompetence, actual greed, or a Muslim plot. One thing is certain he is bucking for worst civil servant ever.

It's like this:

[Culture20]

Michelle Obama: "Iran, you're eating unhealthy. Your food purchases are questionable. If you buy from us, we'll make sure you only buy good foods without processed sugar and trans-fats."
Iran: "Oh, this is an excellent idea!" *buys healthy food from FLOTUS, then sugar and trans-fats from usual suppliers*

Where are we going to get the material to sell?

[Anonymous Coward]

The EPA just idled 40% of our Uranium production capacity and Hillary Clinton arranged the sale of 50% of what was left to Russia, leaving us with only 30% of our former Uranium production capacity. I guess we'll sell the rest to Iran and idle our Nuclear plants in the name of saving the Earth from evil Americans.

And to temper the use of that material

[Anonymous Coward]

We should see them weed, too.

There Goes The Neighborhood

[Compulawyer]

Certain items are classified as "dual use" for US export control laws because they have 2 major use classifications - military and non-military. The only way to ensure that goods sold for non-military purposes are not later used for military purposes is by monitoring and controlling.

We all know how effective the US's monitor and control systems worked in Iran.

Re:There Goes The Neighborhood

[ChrisMaple]

We all know how effective the US's monitor and control systems worked in Iraq.

FTFY

Re:Mod parent up

[ChrisMaple]

A nuclear strike now on Iran could be achieved with US deaths probably not exceeding a few dozen. A nuclear strike on Russia could easily result in a dozen million US deaths, even if only 2 nukes get through: 1 each in NYC and LA.

I don't know how to solve the Putin problem, but the idea of war with Russia is 70 years too late.

Re:Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Where in that Harvard research paper does it say that the silo locations are known and that the mobile katyusha launchers are being tracked?

i don't trust 'em

[iq145]

They sure seem to be in a "hurry" to get a nuclear program started. i wonder why... http://www.newser.com/story/20...