Slashdot Mirror
Analysis: Iran's Nuclear Program Has Been an Astronomical Waste
Lasrick writes: Business Insider's Armin Rosen uses a fuel-cost calculator from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to show that Iran's nuclear program has been "astronomically costly" for the country. Rosen uses calculations from this tool to hypothesize that what Iran "interprets as the country's 'rights' under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty is a diplomatic victory that justifies the outrageous expense of the nuclear program." Great data crunching.
And they would do it again.
Is there any other way for a Middle Eastern country to earn our respect, other than to be able to nuke us?
(And no, they don't need a rocket delivery mechanism -- it can be shipped pre-emptively to the country most likely to meddle with them.)
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Iranians are not trying to make or even save money.
They are trying to build a nuclear weapon. Economists need not apply...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
They still hear the "Axis of Evil" speech, and would rather be North Korea than Iraq today.
Iran is between Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Their strong desire for a deterrent weapon is understandable.
I wonder how much decisive it was in the resulting waste of money and resources.
"they're not rational!!!!".
FFS, look at Rapturists. Or Scientology. Or the denial machine in the USA. Rational? Hell, mainstream cable TV evangelicals are as mad as the frothingest Mullah on Al Jazeeri. With the filters you apply to "those foreign rag heads" applied to the USA, the USA is barking fucking mad, even compared to the *filtered* perception of Muslims.
And you have an army 20 times the size.
Where are these numbers comming from? In terms of active duty manpower the US is Second after china. If you add reserves an paramilitary it drops to eighth.
Unlike ISIS, Iran is a country that has existed continuously for 2500 years. I highly doubt they would self-immolate just for a chance to 'nuke the infidel.' Even Israeli intelligence agencies have looked at Iran and concluded that, despite the sabre-rattling, they are rational agents with self-preservation as a primary concern.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
" Something I think Iran won't be doing unless they want to deal with every country in the region."
Which is something we will never have to deal with because the worlds greatest spy network (Israel) will assure that all expenditures made toward nuclear proliferation are wasted at the most optimum timeline.
If that had or will happen, chances are the world won't ever know.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
There are around 600 churches and nearly 400,000 Christians in Iran. If they were really interesting in attacking "infidels" they would start with them.
Iran considers the US a rogue state that illegally invades its neighbours and murders innocent civilians. Any way you frame it, they are not entirely wrong about that. Once you strip away the propaganda it's easy to see how they have quite legitimate security concerns.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
so gee I wonder why nobody is funding it
It's not funded because — despite what the group-think malcontents around here have been trained to believe — the world isn't actually run by drooling idiots.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
Christians AND jews.
Anyway, Iran doesn't scare me. What scares me are the warmongering far-right lunatics who think it's a good idea to bomb Iran.
A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
How did they get this capability? Countries from all over the world helped them, including the US, France, England, Germany and China.
So given this history, is it irrational for Iran to want to get the biggest baddest weapon of mass destruction they can, no matter what the cost? A rational cost analysis is irrelevant under these circumstances.
A significant number of the world's major powers
Why is Snark Required?
This is nothing more than Pro-Israel FUD surrounding the nuclear deal. There will be a lot more of that the coming weeks.
Nope, they're starting with the Bahais.
source
Well, you start by not meddling in their politics and overthrowing their leaders, as the US did to Iran.
http://www.history.com/this-da...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Horse shit.
Iran was a pro-Western, pro-American country until we sent the CIA to overthrow their government in 1953 and installed the Shah. If you're going to quote an Israeli PJMedia/Fox News propagandist, you might want to find one with more credibility than Barry Rubin.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You're forgetting that everyone in the region hates Iran... except syria... and syria is falling apart.
Iran economy is in shambles, they have no friends that are standing, and their activities are agitating the saudis, egyptians, Jordians, etc...
Iran is fucked. Be Kasparov for second. War game this out 10 moves in advance.
You'll see it is already checkmate on Iran.
If they continue with their nuke program... best case... the rest of the middle east which mostly hates them will get nukes about five minutes later... at which point what has Iran accomplished?
The US is not going to nuke Iran... but the saudis might... the egyptians might. The jordanians might.
The Iranians have overdosed on their "great satan" propaganda. They've destroyed themselves. For nothing.
Imagine a different world. A world where Iran wasn't going out of its way to be a dick head. Think of how wealthy they would be? They're a generally well educated and hard working country for the region. They could be an industrial power in the middle east. The Germany or Japan of the region. And look at what they are instead? A minor oil exporter and pistachio nut exporter... which the US is undercutting in both cases by producing lots of oil and lots of pistachios.
And what did they get in return for sacrificing all of that? Nothing. Power? None. Respect? None. Leverage? None. Diplomatic support? None.
They sacrificed everything for nothing.
Go through the world and show me how many countries have prospered in dicking with the US?
Is that Zero?... so... why do it? Besides fetal lead poisoning leading to chemically induced retardation... I'm at a loss as to what they think they're doing.
Yes yes... history... colonialism... so what? What relevance does that have on 2015? Oh that's right... none. The US was at war with the British Empire for about fifty years. Then the British stopped trying to reconquer us and we became buddies.
The Iranians should be trying to make friends with the US. It would mean an end to sanctions. It would mean military security. It would mean trade opportunities. Technology sharing...
They'd very rapidly become a great power.
But they've got such a raging hate boner that they can't see they're destroying themselves. FOR NOTHING.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually the problem with Iran has nothing to do with the US.
Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Iran was getting its shit together and we took a gigantic shit on it on purpose, to prevent that from happening.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
You're assuming they're thinking rationally. They're not. It's not a well-calculated strategy, it's all about Islam.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
If you think Iran's nuclear program has been costly for Iran, wait until you see what it costs the U.S.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The coup was a counter-coup. The Iranian PM was the one that overthrew the government, faked an election, dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and caused the Shah to flee.
Bollocks. The Iranian PM (and democratically elected government) were going to nationalise the oil industry, and thus pissed off the British and Americans who organised the coup to place the Shah in charge.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
What would the cost have been without foreign sanctions? Without restrictions on suppliers? Iran has long said they wish to build many nuclear plants yet in the sanctions regime that is near impossible. Absent those issues the cost would be much lower, yet might still be considered high by 1st world standards.
Why does the US waste $1 trillion on the F-35 program? Are there not other cheaper alternatives?
Clearly both countries have made decisions based on their own internal metrics and view those costs as acceptable.
The hard-line Islamic movement was already well underway.
It was petering out in both Iran and Iraq before we fueled Saddam to deal with the Shah, and then went into Iraq and deliberately separated peacefully coexisting Sunnis and Shiites into segregated neighborhoods. The USA is behind the success of the hard-line Islamic movement, which probably would be limping and gasping now if not for our deliberate actions to support it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Yes,
"In 1951, Mohammad Mossaddegh was appointed Prime Minister and committed to nationalizing the Iranian petroleum industry controlled by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (AIOC). Under the leadership of Mossaddegh's democratically elected nationalist movement, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry – thus shutting out the immensely profitable AIOC, which was a pillar of Britain's economy and provided it political clout in the region ... Shortly prior to the 1952 presidential election in the United States, the British government invited CIA officer Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., to London to propose collaboration on a secret plan to force Mossaddegh from office. This would be the first of three "regime change" operations led by Allen Dulles (the other two being the successful CIA-instigated 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of Cuba)."
First of all, Iran COULD NOT USE the bomb if it had one.
Why?
1. They can't bomb Jerusalem, which is as holy to them as to jews and Christians. Their own
people would slaughter them. AND they'd kill most of the Palestinians in the Occupied
Territories of the West Bank.
2. Israel is smaller than the US state of New Jersey. At one point, I believe it's a total
of ->17mi- wide. What this means is using the bomb *anywhere* in Israel means
fallout on Jerusalem.
3. Following 2, it *also* means fallout on the Palestinians.
4. Oh, yes - the winds would mean that fallout would COME BACK TO IRAN.
Therefore, the ONE and ONLY purpose that Iran would want the bomb is MAD with Israel (who has a bunch of bombs, and would cheerfully use it on Iran, if they didn't think there'd be no Israel left afterwards.
Oh, yes, and with all the climate-change deniers here, *no* *one* could imagine that maybe Iran's worried about when their oil fields are played out, and planning to do things with the money while they have it to prepare for the future, no, no, that's *way* more than next quarter....
mark
"it's all about Islam."
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner. You wins the internet. I wish the rest of the world would fucking get it. You can't rationalize radical religious convictions.
Well, until you realize that those religious lines are conveniently following ethnic lines that have existed much longer than islam. The main driver in the middle east is sunni-shia politics which equates to arab-persian politics. The west is just an issue to be dealt with after the shia issue has been dealt with ti the IS.
depends on how many powers are involved and whether they're being sneaky about it and how the bomb is made and who made it.
The question gets technical very quickly.
The simple answer is that who does it should be somewhat obvious from the geopolitics because you can look at who would benefit. Beyond that, you can examine the bomb residue to try and figure out who made it.
There is a big difference between US atomic bombs, Russian atomic bombs, etc.
Everything from how complete the detonation was to the ratios of isotopes you get after it goes off. Signatures.
If terrorists do it they'll claim responsibility because that's what terrorists do. And we know who their sponsors are.
Some detective work might be required if people are being cagey about it. But if it were as simple as sneaking a suitcase nuke into a city and then saying "wasn't me"... then it would have been tried during the cold war.
The Russians knew better than to do that. Just because we don't get a radar trace on a launch doesn't mean we can't figure out where it came from.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The world trade centre attack was done by Saudi terrorists, and the US attacked Iraq in retaliation. If an Iranian hydrogen bomb takes out New York or Washington I expect that what's left of the US government and military will attack whoever they really want to attack, regardless of the evidence.
Its more complicated than that. And really citing what happened way back when is not infinitely relevant. The US was at war with the British Empire for a time. They burned our white house to the ground in the war of 1812 for example...
Wise nations reassess every so often. We were once enemies of the Chinese. During the Korean war we slaughtered chinese soldiers like ants. I forget the name of the battle but we retreated into some mountains dragging our artillery up the mountain with us... and the chinese swarmed across the valley below... We made the valley BOIL with our artillery shells. Think of a pot of boiling water... BOIL.
Now we get along just fine. There is some tension over this south china sea thing. But we generally do quite well.
And as contrast look at the Russians. This property the Chinese have gone through could have been the Russians. Imagine the USSR if rather than declaring itself an enemy of the west and saying it was going to spread communism across the world by FORCE... if they had simply been our buddies. We probably would have given them Marshal plan money. They wouldn't have been able to keep their western conquests of course but they weren't able to keep them in the end anyway.
Stalin retarded the economic development of his country by decades... lowered the standard of living of his people... narrowed the horizons of hundreds of millions of people. For what? Nothing.
Look at the Japanese and Germans. Are they still mad at the US? We f'ing nuked the Japanese and we flattened the German cities with constant carpet bombing. We get along just fine.
All I'm saying... is reassess at intervals. The US does this all the time. We make peace with people we had problems with all the time. And we don't need to crush them to do it.
If Iran turned around tomorrow and said "never mind about all that death to America stuff... lets be buddies"... if we believed them... forgive us for being cautious... but if we believed them, then we'd be thrilled to accept.
There are certain cultures however that can't let anything go. The Russians can't let anything go. The Iranians can't let anything go. And so you can't make peace with them. Because they're still holding grudges and they're just going to bide their time until they can stab you in the back.
F' that. If that's how they're going to be then I'm not going to be the credulous American that drinks from the poisoned cup.
Be my friend and I'll be your friend. Be my enemy and don't be surprised when fuck you up. I refuse to apologize or feel bad about that. If these countries ACTUALLY want peace with the US... nothing would make us happier. Our only price for any of that is to not be raging assholes. Russia shouldn't be invading an annexing eastern european countries and Iran shouldn't be making state sponsored children's programs where they talk about how the US drinks baby blood, they work on a nuclear program with the express purpose starting a nuclear pissing contest in the WORST part of the world to do that, and of course the whole sponsoring terrorists thing which has escaped no one's notice in the region ever.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Vietnam we left because internal political problems not because we lost any battles... same thing in Afghanistan.
And regardless... who said anything about fighting the Russians head to head?
No no... we're going to bleed them. We're just going to sit there and do a million little things that cripple them a little more every day.
The life of Russia will be one of disappointment and hardship. The Russians should love it.
We can keep that up indefinitely. And all these countries they're dicking with... easy when they've got nothing to fight back with... right? What happens when we give their neighbors enough anti tank mines to make tank pushes suicidal... what happens when we give the locals man portable anti tank rockets?
And my personal favorite... what happens when we give them night vision goggles. You want to be a Russian tank battalion in Ukraine territory under a black new moon when the Ukrainians are out there and can see by starlight?
Have fun with that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You don't understand there is a strategy.
Quite clearly the US administration doesn't either.
You're so fixated on the details that you don't see the wider picture.
I see that the terrorists are winning. Or is that all part of the masterplan when Iraq was invaded 12 years and a trillion dollars ago?
First... shut up... just for the sake of argument.
That's a good strategy. Let me know how that works out,
Second, actually back out from the situation and see it in the context of the proceeding 30 years... yes that exceeds the duration of the cold war to that point but understanding why the US got into the cold war is related to the build up to WW2.
I have, and it's still the most massive, poorly thought-out blunder in US military history, even bigger than Vietnam.
Third, grasp that the US whatever you might think of the US... the US saw itself at that point in time as "arsenal of freedom"... as the guardian and champion of the west.
No it didn't. The administration previous to Idiot & co dealt with the exact same problem yet had a whole lot more success.
Fourth, every war that isn't just reacting to an attack like Afghanistan happens according to a grander strategy.
And some of those are bad strategies
And even in those cases we come up with strategies very quickly. The whole concept of fighting terrorism by removing all their safe harbors in the world was a quick improvised strategy that the US came up with literally within weeks of being hit in 9/11.
Iraq was never a safe harbour for terrorists. Saddam had a reputation of executing extremists, and was recognised as a " a source for moderation in the region" - US Secretary of State James Kelly.
The idea of dismantling Saddam with no end-game was the worst excuse for a strategy I have ever heard of.
Even Republicans agree with this now.
And that encourages the US to put pressure on any state sponsors to either stop sponsoring terrorism or do something so they can't or otherwise stop doing it.
So they did something that made it a lot worse? That is your idea of strategy so awesome the rest of the world can't possibly understand it?
Vietnam specifically was encouraged by domino theory with the worry being that if vietnam fell the whole region would fall.
Once you understand that the US thinks in terms of these strategies, our actions become more comprehensible.
Yes we all know what they thought back in the 60's, but a lot of us learnt from that mistake. Well most of us except a few idiots running the show in 2001. They did the impossible and created an even bigger fuck-up than Vietnam
You might not agree with it still and it could well be stupid. BUT you at least understand what the US was thinking at the time. Very few commentators on US foreign policy especially as regards our wars are aware of how we actually think. And as such their analysis is not actually worth anything.
Which is why you continue to embarass yourselves with such ridiculous excuses for 'strategy'. Pro tip: learn from your mistakes, and you might win once in a while.