Physics Forums

Physics Forums (http://www.physicsforums.com/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   IAEA: No Iranian nuclear arms plans (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=41488)

Adam Sep2-04 10:00 AM

IAEA: No Iranian nuclear arms plans
 
Quote:

The International Atomic Energy Agency has said its inspectors have not found any evidence to support US accusations that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons programme.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...4E8E21081D.htm
But will it matter? The IAEA said the same about Iraq prior to the USA invasion, and the USA attacked anyway. Will Iran be next on the list? And if so, which nation is next after them? And where/when will it stop?

humanino Sep2-04 11:04 AM

Do you think he will come to France one day :uhh: :surprised :yuck: :bugeye:

Seriously : what makes you think he would bother about Iran ? I mean : how could Iran have any use to him ?

Adam Sep2-04 11:11 AM

Remember that ridiculous "axis of evil" comedy routine he vomited out? And the warnings to Iran after the Iraq invasion?

russ_watters Sep2-04 11:37 AM

Amazing how different sources can interpret the same report in different ways: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...-01-iran_x.htm
Quote:

But a new report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), obtained Wednesday by USA TODAY, says that in an initial test this spring, Iran converted as much as 77 pounds of raw uranium "yellowcake" into uranium hexafluoride a gas that can be further refined into fuel for an electricity-producing nuclear reactor or the key ingredient in a nuclear bomb....

The 35-member IAEA board, which meets in Vienna on Sept. 13, has called on Iran not to produce uranium hexafluoride. Under an agreement reached last October with France, Germany and Britain, Iran agreed to suspend its plans to take the next step of converting the gas into enriched uranium. But it has threatened to resume that enrichment process next month.

Adam Sep2-04 11:43 AM

So what? Australia is a huge producer of uranium products. Does that mean we're building nukes?

Gokul43201 Sep2-04 11:55 AM

There's absolutely NO possibility of going to war against Iran - at least as far as the US is concerned. It's ridiculous to make caual predictions about future wars...with little knowledge of what it really takes, and more importantly, if it's really necessary.

Adam Sep2-04 12:00 PM

Yeah, we ex-military types don't know a thing about military stuff...

Bush went to war with no idea of what it really takes. That's why his troops were starving on the battlefield.

As for necessity... Irrelevent. The last one wasn't necessary, and Bush did it anyway.

I'm not the one predicting war between Iran and USA. Bush is. He's already said many things about Iran that he said about Iraq prior to that invasion.

tumor Sep2-04 01:16 PM

Quote:

Quote by Gokul43201
There's absolutely NO possibility of going to war against Iran - at least as far as the US is concerned. It's ridiculous to make caual predictions about future wars...with little knowledge of what it really takes, and more importantly, if it's really necessary.


I dissagree, look at latest news and comments by our media and administration, you would the same pattern as the one before gulf war2.
Iran by the way is not a threat to USA absolutelly in any way.Israel fears that Iran with nukes would have much more to say on internnational stage and will be respected more than right now.N.Korea has nukes and USA is powerless.So war with Iran one way or another is coming but only in the interest of Israel.

Adam Sep3-04 07:25 AM

A tad more: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996350

Gokul43201 Sep3-04 09:58 AM

Here's my reasons for the US not being able to go to war with Iran (this sounds so ridiculous that it's funny I have to justify it)

1. There's not enough troops to spare. The US military is greatly overextended. They're calling up 60 year-old (retired) reservists to go to Iraq.

2. There's no money left. You know about the current state of the National Deficit, and the word of caution (warning ?) from the World Bank.

3. The Congress would never approve this unless there's UN approval, and a mojority of the military strength provided by others. Politically, this is not viable, even if it is the right thing to do.

4. Iran is no Iraq. Iraq had no Air Force or Navy, and piddles worth of missile and artillery capability. Iran has a regular army, with over a 1000 medium-battle tanks, and over 300 attack helicopters. They have scuds, SAMs (US made Haws), anti-tank missiles (Israeli TOWs) . I'm not sure about their air and naval capabilities but I know that it's not anything to take lightly.

None of the above arguments were true before Iraq.

The only advantages in the case of Iran are the ability to base out of Afghanistan and (to some limited extent ) out of Iraq.

My complaint is that the war with Iraq has negated the possibility of threatening/projecting the use of force against Iran, were that to become necessary - at least not in the near future. And Iran knows this only too well.

Adam Sep3-04 10:30 AM

Quote:

Quote by Gokul43201
1. There's not enough troops to spare. The US military is greatly overextended. They're calling up 60 year-old (retired) reservists to go to Iraq.

The US military consists of around 1.3 million people. The reasons for sending reservists to Iraq have nothing to do with limited manpower.

Quote:

2. There's no money left. You know about the current state of the National Deficit, and the word of caution (warning ?) from the World Bank.
The USA has been the world's greatest debtor ever for quite some time. Lack of funds is not an issue. I have no doubt that if there was further profit in it, the current administration would send more troops to more places to secrure investments for certain companies, and leave the next administration with the bill.

Quote:

3. The Congress would never approve this unless there's UN approval, and a mojority of the military strength provided by others. Politically, this is not viable, even if it is the right thing to do.
The USA doesn't wait for UN approval, does not abide by international law. They'd go in again, just as with Iraq.

Quote:

4. Iran is no Iraq. Iraq had no Air Force or Navy, and piddles worth of missile and artillery capability. Iran has a regular army, with over a 1000 medium-battle tanks, and over 300 attack helicopters. They have scuds, SAMs (US made Haws), anti-tank missiles (Israeli TOWs) . I'm not sure about their air and naval capabilities but I know that it's not anything to take lightly.
I agree, Iran's military is in a much healthier condition than Iraq's was. Their tanks aren't so great though, particularly in a battlefield of mostly open terrain, when the USA will have air superiority.

GENIERE Sep3-04 11:38 AM

Amusing thread.

LURCH Sep4-04 07:04 PM

AFAIK, Iran has made no promise to destroy the United States. We generally do not defend ourselves against non-agressors.

Dissident Dan Sep4-04 07:18 PM

And you believe that Iraq had plans to destroy the United States?

studentx Sep4-04 07:37 PM

Invading Iran... I do hope when it becomes necessary that it will be done, but quite frankly, only a complete moron blinded by his hatred would be able to convince himself that America is about to invade Iran.

Hurkyl Sep4-04 08:03 PM

Quote:

Bush went to war with no idea of what it really takes. That's why his troops were starving on the battlefield.
Would you care to provide a reference for the latter sentence, and the bearing of the latter on the former?

tumor Sep5-04 03:00 AM

Quote:

Quote by Dissident Dan
And you believe that Iraq had plans to destroy the United States?


Hey Dissident Dan, how is the weather down there? hope you are OK. :smile:

pelastration Sep5-04 03:42 AM

1. Syria is called in NPAC's strategy (Feith, Wurmser, etc) the next target. Not Iran. Yes, that Douglas Feith for which presumed Israeli spy Lawrence Franklin works. Also Feith and Wurmser get in the past without authorization national secrets from Pentagon computers when they made up the Iraq case (with Ahmed Chalabi). Feith and Wurmser are interested in first place to rebuild the Biblic Israel (Actual Israel + Iraq, Syria and Libanon), supported by the US New Born Christians.

2. If US (or Israel) attacks Iran the whole of Iraq goes crazy. Al-Sistani (Iranian) just has to move his finger.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014 Physics Forums