News Is the US Prepared to Militarily Engage Iran?

[zoobyshoe]

In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, did not the official line in the sand come directly from Bush? I think the ambassidor is just being used as a stick for Obama to wave; to ratchet up the rhetoric without ratcheting up the rhetoric. I do not think there is any circumstance short of Iran using a nuclear weapon under which Obama would attack Iran.

You'll probably never hear me say this again: I hope your take on it is much more accurate than mine.

Iraq War #1 and Afghanistan were precipitated by sudden big events and the spear shaking that preceded the attacks came straight from the president. Iraq war #2 simmered over a very long time before coming to a boil and I recall the rhetoric starting at lower levels, then working up to the president.

 

[mheslep]

... I do not think there is any circumstance short of Iran using a nuclear weapon under which Obama would attack Iran.

That's a dangerous situation if Iran believes the same thing.

 

[russ_watters]

Iraq war #2 simmered over a very long time before coming to a boil and I recall the rhetoric starting at lower levels, then working up to the president.

Not sure - I thought it was all Bush, but even still I see no reason to believe that mid-level rhetoric will necessarily be part of such a progression.

 

[russ_watters]

That's a dangerous situation if Iran believes the same thing.

Just for clarification, the scope of my remark was limited to the context of this thread. I don't mean to imply that if Iran mines the Gulf, for example, that we wouldn't attack its navy.

 

[Bobbywhy]

It’s no wonder that Israel’s leaders are threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. It’s also no surprise Israel is clamoring for Western nations to attack or assist them with preemptive strikes against Iran.

Israel claims Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and must be attacked because this is exactly in keeping with its policy called “Project Daniel”. Project Daniel is “a 2003 Israeli project, commissioned to assess the threat to the nation of Israel from other states in the Middle East, drawing particular attention to Iran, with Iran's nuclear program in mind.”

One of the recommendations of the project is “that Israel should do anything possible to prevent an anti-Israeli coalition from being formed, and from that coalition gaining control of WMDs. It suggested Israel should retain the option of carrying out preemptive strikes, describing them as 'anticipatory self-defense'.

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

 

[chiro]

It’s no wonder that Israel’s leaders are threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear installations. It’s also no surprise Israel is clamoring for Western nations to attack or assist them with preemptive strikes against Iran.

Israel claims Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon and must be attacked because this is exactly in keeping with its policy called “Project Daniel”. Project Daniel is “a 2003 Israeli project, commissioned to assess the threat to the nation of Israel from other states in the Middle East, drawing particular attention to Iran, with Iran's nuclear program in mind.”

One of the recommendations of the project is “that Israel should do anything possible to prevent an anti-Israeli coalition from being formed, and from that coalition gaining control of WMDs. It suggested Israel should retain the option of carrying out preemptive strikes, describing them as 'anticipatory self-defense'.

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

Those guys are absolutely nuts. This whole pre-emptive idea is completely based on potentiality and not actuality and when this becomes a precedent for war activities of any kind, then it is really really dangerous.

The reason ultimately it is dangerous is because potentiality is almost unlimited and there is no real justification for these kinds of circumstances because again it's completely 'pre-emptive'.

We don't just go out and arrest people because we 'think' they will murder someone tomorrow: we arrest people after they have done the crime. Could you imagine walking down the street and then be chucked into a van and thrown into jail all because someone else 'thought' or 'was convinced' that you were going to kill? Now think about this in conjunction with what a whole country would think if another country used that on them.

Using this whole potential thing should be a top concern for everyone, and everyone should speak out against it for the very reason that is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

 

[mheslep]

Those guys are absolutely nuts. This whole pre-emptive idea is completely based on potentiality and not actuality and when this becomes a precedent for war activities of any kind, then it is really really dangerous.

The reason ultimately it is dangerous is because potentiality is almost unlimited and there is no real justification for these kinds of circumstances because again it's completely 'pre-emptive'.

We don't just go out and arrest people because we 'think' they will murder someone tomorrow: we arrest people after they have done the crime. Could you imagine walking down the street and then be chucked into a van and thrown into jail all because someone else 'thought' or 'was convinced' that you were going to kill? Now think about this in conjunction with what a whole country would think if another country used that on them.

Using this whole potential thing should be a top concern for everyone, and everyone should speak out against it for the very reason that is an extremely dangerous precedent to set.

Is a nuclear attack on a city in anyway the same thing as your arrest on the street scenario?

 

[chiro]

Is a nuclear attack on a city in anyway the same thing as your arrest on the street scenario?

It is: in the nuclear attack scenario, the cop is Israel and the guy on the street are the people getting nuked and who are affected by this nuke.

Trying to control and pre-empt everything is absolutely ridiculous and it's an extremely dangerous precedent to set for the sole reason that human beings are in control.

If we had people that were sane, responsible, of high integrity, were not easy to fold over to any kind of extortion, bribery, and treated every situation the same way in this manner, then pre-emptive behaviour combined with other kinds of considerations would make sense.

But we don't. People are not like this: they look only after their self-interests and not that of the entire interests of entire groups. The self-interest might be only themselves, their corporations, their countries, their social group, and so on. This ultimately translates into things not working uniformly for all circumstances and it results in rules that otherwise may be good to be only followed 'when it suits'.

Like I said, the important thing about this is the precedent it sets. Precedent is extremely important because precedent sets the stage for not only future precedents, but also for new norms.

You may think that the cop arresting some guy and the nuclear attack are different simply by the scope, emotion, and nature of the two scenarios but the precedent for the cop scenario 'sets the scene' for larger things to happen including large enough things like 'a pre-emptive nuclear strike'. That's all it takes.

Again you seem to have a bigger emotional attachment to the idea of a nuclear holocaust to 'prevent other people from doing what we thought they were going to do' in comparison to some unknown guy that got thrown in jail because the cop or state tried to prevent the guy from 'doing something they thought the guy was going to do'.

This whole idea of 'sacrificing for the greater good' is propaganda. The greater good does not reflect everyone but rather a subset much, much more selective. The minute you decide that even one person is inferior and needs to go 'for the greater good', is the minute that you will have a situation where people rationalize nuclear strikes, stalinist and hitlerian dictatorships, and any kind of completely un-necessary authoritarian madness that will strip the rights of every human being away.

Is this what you really want?

 

[Bobbywhy]

Nuclear attack on a city? What nuclear attack? There is no credible evidence that Iran even HAS a nuclear weapon development program, much less a deliverable weapon.

Threats against Israel have been against the Zionist regime, and not the Israeli country or its people. Amidinejad has clearly said: The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, doesn't mean all Russians are dead. And the hated Apartheid regime of South Africa doesn't exist anymore. Doesn't mean all South Africans are dead. The Iranian complaint is about the policies of the current regime in Israel towards the Palestinians.

It is Israel that has the nucear Weapons of Mass Destruction now, and has threatened any other nation in the Middle East against having even an enrichment process. Israel is insisting on being the only nuclear power in the region.

 

[zoobyshoe]

We don't just go out and arrest people because we 'think' they will murder someone tomorrow...

Here in the U.S. we do, though. I think the exact charge is "conspiracy to commit murder". This comes up when people are caught trying to hire someone to kill a spouse, etc.

Many years ago I lived in an apartment building downtown here, and one day two special agents of the FBI knocked on my door asking if I knew where a certain other tenant was at that moment. I said I hadn't seen him and asked what the problem might be. Surprisingly, they told me: he had sent a letter to the White House criticizing the President and had threatened to kill either the President or himself if the thing he was upset about wasn't corrected.

If anyone makes a statement (that can be construed as serious) to the effect they intend to kill anyone they are, in fact, hauled in by law enforcement.

 

[mheslep]

There is no credible evidence that Iran even HAS a nuclear weapon development program, much less a deliverable weapon. ...

...Iran first began feeding low enriched UF6 into Cascade 1 on 9 February 2010, for the stated purpose of producing UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235 for use in the manufacture of fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR)

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/IAEA_Iran_Report_24February2012.pdf
Not proof, but that is certainly evidence.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

It is: in the nuclear attack scenario, the cop is Israel and the guy on the street are the people getting nuked and who are affected by this nuke.

Trying to control and pre-empt everything is absolutely ridiculous and it's an extremely dangerous precedent to set for the sole reason that human beings are in control.

If we had people that were sane, responsible, of high integrity, were not easy to fold over to any kind of extortion, bribery, and treated every situation the same way in this manner, then pre-emptive behaviour combined with other kinds of considerations would make sense.

But we don't. People are not like this: they look only after their self-interests and not that of the entire interests of entire groups. The self-interest might be only themselves, their corporations, their countries, their social group, and so on. This ultimately translates into things not working uniformly for all circumstances and it results in rules that otherwise may be good to be only followed 'when it suits'.

Like I said, the important thing about this is the precedent it sets. Precedent is extremely important because precedent sets the stage for not only future precedents, but also for new norms.

You may think that the cop arresting some guy and the nuclear attack are different simply by the scope, emotion, and nature of the two scenarios but the precedent for the cop scenario 'sets the scene' for larger things to happen including large enough things like 'a pre-emptive nuclear strike'. That's all it takes.

Again you seem to have a bigger emotional attachment to the idea of a nuclear holocaust to 'prevent other people from doing what we thought they were going to do' in comparison to some unknown guy that got thrown in jail because the cop or state tried to prevent the guy from 'doing something they thought the guy was going to do'.

This whole idea of 'sacrificing for the greater good' is propaganda. The greater good does not reflect everyone but rather a subset much, much more selective. The minute you decide that even one person is inferior and needs to go 'for the greater good', is the minute that you will have a situation where people rationalize nuclear strikes, stalinist and hitlerian dictatorships, and any kind of completely un-necessary authoritarian madness that will strip the rights of every human being away.

Is this what you really want?

will I get banned for saying "godwin's law" in this forum? Oops too late.

Also, where did you get "pre-emptive nuclear strikes" from? I don't think anyone has suggested that insane idea. I don't understand what precedent you're talking about, either. Do you mean the precedent of one powerful country attacking other countries because it wants to? That's been a precedent for a very long time.

 

[chiro]

will I get banned for saying "godwin's law" in this forum? Oops too late.

Also, where did you get "pre-emptive nuclear strikes" from? I don't think anyone has suggested that insane idea. I don't understand what precedent you're talking about, either. Do you mean the precedent of one powerful country attacking other countries because it wants to? That's been a precedent for a very long time.

Have you been reading this thread? Have you read comments by posters above about Israel? You do know that Israel has hundreds of warheads don't you?

The whole point of the Iran controversy is that some governments think that Iran will build a nuclear weapon that will ultimately be used. If you are using a nuclear weapon in a pre-emptive attack then that's what it is.
[off topic crackpottery deleted]

Also just because it's been done in the past doesn't make it ok.

The difference now is that the weapons we have are orders of magnitude more advanced and dangerous and because of this fact alone, it is really vital that people realize that this is not just about some crazy idiots with swords and muskets charging at one another: this is the age of computer-guided bombs, chemical warfare and nuclear weapons.

You think that nuclear pre-emptive strikes are insane and I agree with you (kind of the point of my post), but the friggin world is insane!

If the world was sane, my worries would be calm but the world is not sane, it's completely nuts and this is why I worry because even in the technological wonder-age that we are in, people are just the same as they were in the empires of greece, byzantine, rome and egypt.

The difference now is that the rules are a little different, but the game and how it has and is being played hasn't changed enough.

 

[Bobbywhy]

http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/IAEA_Iran_Report_24February2012.pdf
Not proof, but that is certainly evidence.

Thank you for posting the information concerning Iran’s activity in February, 2010 “of producing UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235…” It may be interesting to note that Iran has continued this enrichment during the two years elapsed since then. From the same IAEA report dated 8 March 2012:

34. Uranium Conversion Facility: On 17 December 2011, Iran started converting UF6 enriched up to 20% U-235 into U3O8. As of 19 February 2012, the Agency had verified that 8 kg of uranium in the form of U3O8 had been produced and that 7.3 kg of uranium in the form of U3O8 had been subsequently transferred to FMP.

Furthermore, paragraph 50. makes it clear Iran continues to not cooperate:

50. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

And in Paragraph 51. :

51. The Agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, as explained in GOV/2011/65. Iran did not provide access to Parchin, as requested by the Agency during its two recent visits to Tehran, and no agreement was reached with Iran on a structured approach to resolving all outstanding issues in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/iaea_reports.shtml

Enrichment is not proof of a military weapons program, nor is it evidence of one. 20% U-235 is used at the Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP) at Esfahan.

The IAEA itself says clearly it “continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme”. It would be beneficial to try to view this impasse from the Iranian viewpoint while considering their cultural attitudes, values, and beliefs. All the outside world has now are serious concerns, accusations, and suspicions. These are not equivalent to evidence or proof of a military weapons development program.

 

[Hurkyl]

We don't just go out and arrest people because we 'think' they will murder someone tomorrow: we arrest people after they have done the crime.

This isn't an issue of potential or actual, this is an issue of stating the rules up front.

When the potential to do something is serious enough, we make the indicators of that potential illegal. Making threats, for example.

 

[chiro]

This isn't an issue of potential or actual, this is an issue of stating the rules up front.

When the potential to do something is serious enough, we make the indicators of that potential illegal. Making threats, for example.

That's a nice utopian viewpoint, but not everyone follows 'rules' even the people that make them and sign them. Rules are nice, but only when everyone follows them uniformly without exception, and quite frankly I'm not holding my breath for this to change overnight.

Also there is a really fine line between what is 'potentially' a cause for concern vs something that is based on unfounded paranoia.

As posters like BobbyWhy have shown, there is not sufficient evidence to say that Iran is engaging in a military related program with their enrichment.

As you have pointed out, because of the dangers of nuclear power, the IAEA and other associated entities was formed to enforce some of the basic guidelines with regard to using nuclear energy and enrichment guidelines amongst other things. They've followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors.

Again because of the nature of what 'potential' is, people are going to define potential in the way that suits their purposes and this is why it can be a dangerous thing to use this kind of language.

 

[zoobyshoe]

While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

The inspectors aren't able to determine that all their nuclear material is in peaceful activities. Why not?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Those guys are absolutely nuts. This whole pre-emptive idea is completely based on potentiality and not actuality and when this becomes a precedent for war activities of any kind, then it is really really dangerous.

You realize that Israel has already carried out a pre-emptive strike in the region, and it didn't cause WWIII, right?

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

 

[chiro]

You realize that Israel has already carried out a pre-emptive strike in the region, and it didn't cause WWIII, right?

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

I'm not talking about the end of the world, world war 3, mayan prophecy type thing: I'm just talking about the danger of the precedent that it sets.

You can have situations where pre-emptive strikes happen and things don't go crazy. You also can have things do that go crazy and really screw up more than anyone can handle.

Either way it's not a good idea to be setting this kind of precedent period.

The way a lot of things start is that one person somewhere decides that one exception is OK. Maybe they fudge something, maybe they lie, maybe they just do something very subtle to fix their problems.

The first time they do it, everything works out OK. Then if everything does work out, they move on to something bigger. Everything is a success. Then why not, they're in the mood to just do whatever the hell they want because they can, and because they've been allowed to.

Now if you really want to see how that kind of thinking has taken place, look at the financial crisis. After the depression, Glass-Steagal was put in place to separate commercial bread-and-butter banks from merging with insurance companies and similar type institutions.

Come 1999, this is completely removed and note that a lot of what took place in terms of the derivatives and speculation would not have happened if this kind of thing didn't happen. But this kind of thing wasn't isolated and banks have become more powerful and slowly maneuvred themselves into the position where they can do this. I have mentioned one piece of legislation, but the point is that there was a precedent somewhere down the line that led to what is just 'normal behaviour' today.

This isn't just limited to banks either: it's limited to every single person on the planet.

The point is that if you give people an inch they will want a mile: always has been the case and always will unless you have someone really disciplined with a lot of integrity and that is a far and far between ask.

Once people are not only able to do things like this but are also encouraged in ways whether that be from re-inforcement with getting away with what they did, or whether it's something that involves social acceptance and other characteristics, then if they get this message, they can and often will take it to another level.

Also you should check out the Milgram experiment to see just how far people can really go.

 

[Bobbywhy]

The inspectors aren't able to determine that all their nuclear material is in peaceful activities. Why not?

Iran does not cooperate with IAEA, that's why. Don't you get it? Do you not see the obvious...the non-spoken fact that Israel always refuses to admit to their possession of nuclear weapons through complete obfuscation. While Israel maintains a stock of hundreds of nuclear weapons the Western world winks and nods. Now, what's OK for Israel is not OK for Iran?

Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Jewish state’s official non-declaration.
Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Iranian state's official non-declaration.

 

[russ_watters]

Also there is a really fine line between what is 'potentially' a cause for concern vs something that is based on unfounded paranoia.

As posters like BobbyWhy have shown, there is not sufficient evidence to say that Iran is engaging in a military related program with their enrichment.

You're missing the point/have it backwards. The NPT includes with it an affirmative burden of proof: Iran must openly prove they are not using their nuclear research to develop nuclear weapons. Failure to do so is itself a violation of the NPT. So the fact that we don't have a clear idea either way is indicative of a violation: we don't have a clear idea because Iran is violating the NPT by not being open.

As you have pointed out, because of the dangers of nuclear power, the IAEA and other associated entities was formed to enforce some of the basic guidelines with regard to using nuclear energy and enrichment guidelines amongst other things. They've followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors.

You're contradicting yourself. If Iran followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors, there'd be no question that Iran was using the technology for peaceful purposes (assuming they are).

That's a nice utopian viewpoint, but not everyone follows 'rules' even the people that make them and sign them.

Um...ok, so is that your way of conceding that Iran is violating the rules [the NPT]?

 

[russ_watters]

Iran does not cooperate with IAEA, that's why. Don't you get it? Do you not see the obvious...the non-spoken fact that Israel always refuses to admit to their possession of nuclear weapons through complete obfuscation. While Israel maintains a stock of hundreds of nuclear weapons the Western world winks and nods. Now, what's OK for Israel is not OK for Iran?

Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Jewish state’s official non-declaration.
Nuclear opacity and nuclear ambiguity is the Iranian state's official non-declaration.

Israel did not sign the NPT, so does not have the same obligations Iran has.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now, what's OK for Israel is not OK for Iran?

Correct. If there were any possible way to do it I think we would remove everyone's nuclear capability but our own. Clamping down on the spread is about the only realistic option at this point.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not talking about the end of the world, world war 3, mayan prophecy type thing: I'm just talking about the danger of the precedent that it sets.

The precedent has already been set in Syria, so that bridge is crossed. You're right that a repeat may not go the same way because each situation has its own idiosyncratic risks. The best solution would be diplomatic. I hope the US is studying up on how to allow the current Iranian leader to save face while giving up nuclear weapons, because this seems to be the problem: he can't look like he's backing down without losing his status there.

 

[chiro]

You're missing the point/have it backwards. The NPT includes with it an affirmative burden of proof: Iran must openly prove they are not using their nuclear research to develop nuclear weapons. Failure to do so is itself a violation of the NPT. So the fact that we don't have a clear idea either way is indicative of a violation: we don't have a clear idea because Iran is violating the NPT by not being open. You're contradicting yourself. If Iran followed the guidelines and abided by the requests of inspectors, there'd be no question that Iran was using the technology for peaceful purposes (assuming they are). Um...ok, so is that your way of conceding that Iran is violating the rules [the NPT]?

Iran has let them in the inspectors. What more do you want them to do? You want to play daddy for the entire world? Want to play superman and save us all?

Let me ask you a direct question: Why is it ok for Pakistan, France, Israel, Russia, the US, the UK, India and China to have nuclear weapons but not anybody else?

You show me in any IAEA report specifically where they have identified any kind of dangerous process or characteristic as a part of their inspections, including for the military bases.

With all the sanctions that the US and other so called allies have placed under Iran with trade sanctions, they've basically done a highly offensive move against Iran. Crippling trade and economic activity to a country is basically an act of war in a financial and economic sense.

So let me get this straight: the IAEA has inspected the plants dozens of times, but you guys still want to save the world by finding the bad guys with their supposed weapons of which you have thousands. So not only do you do this specifically for Iran and forget situations like ohh say North Korea, you impose trade sanctions that cripple their economy knowingly and then you want Iran to 'co-operate'.

The least you guys can do is if you really want to enforce this kind of checking, then enforce it across the board and treat everyone equally. When you do it with the Iranians, then you should let the Iranians go to your nuclear sites and wherever else they might wish to check. Would that be OK with you? Is that a breach of 'national security'? What about letting Iranian inspectors within Israel to do some checking of their own?

The double standard is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[mheslep]

Enrichment is not proof of a military weapons program, nor is it evidence of one. 20% U-235 is used at the Fuel Manufacturing Plant (FMP) at Esfahan.
...

Uranium enrichment to 20% is evidence. To deny this is to be immune to evidence, and to instead embrace some kind of apologist dogma.

 

[daveb]

Uranium enrichment to 20% is evidence. To deny this is to be immune to evidence, and to instead embrace some kind of apologist dogma.

20% enrichment is not weapons grade, and is considered low enriched uranium (LEU), albeit at the top end of the spectrum for LEU. 20% enriched can be made into a crude weapon, but 20% is also the top for LWR use. Even Little Boy was around 80% (IIRC). So how exactly is 20% enrichment proof of a weapons program.

 

[thorium1010]

20% enrichment is not weapons grade, and is considered low enriched uranium (LEU), albeit at the top end of the spectrum for LEU. 20% enriched can be made into a crude weapon, but 20% is also the top for LWR use. Even Little Boy was around 80% (IIRC). So how exactly is 20% enrichment proof of a weapons program.

It would indicate intention for further enrichment. However, I am quite sure another war in the middle east is a recipe for disaster not only for U.S. also for the world. War or any strike on Iran is a provocative act and i suspect this time around russia and china will get involved.

 

[ThomasT]

... you guys still want to save the world by finding the bad guys with their supposed weapons of which you have thousands.

I don't think it's about that. Iran's location and expressed animosity toward Israel are important factors, imo. I currently agree with Zooby that all parties involved would like to get to some sort of agreement that would avoid Israeli air strikes (and the unforeseeable consequences that that might entail), with everybody benefitting in some way. The problem is that it's impossible to ascertain with any reasonable certainty that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons ... and Iranian nuclear capability has obvious benefits for Iran, while presenting a real and present threat to Israel, and perhaps to US interests in the region (I'm guessing).

The double standard is absolutely ridiculous.

Double standards aren't ridiculous ... insofar as they benefit those with the power to impose and enforce them.

The situation for Israel (and, by association, the US) is a difficult one. But the situation is even more difficult for Iran. I certainly hope that the administrations of the countries involved find a way to work this out, but I'm not overly optimistic because of what I read about the Israeli administration's apprehensions.

 

[mheslep]

20% enrichment is not weapons grade, and is considered low enriched uranium (LEU), albeit at the top end of the spectrum for LEU. 20% enriched can be made into a crude weapon, but 20% is also the top for LWR use. Even Little Boy was around 80% (IIRC). So how exactly is 20% enrichment proof of a weapons program.

1. I did not say U 20% was weapons grade.
2. Obviously, U 20% enriched could be further enriched using much the same equipment to be made into a highly effective weapon.
3. I said U 20% enriched was *not* proof, but evidence of a weapons program. This is because the possible valid reasons for going beyond 7% for reactor grade are very thin.

You are arguing against a straw man.

 

[Hurkyl]

That's a nice utopian viewpoint, but not everyone follows 'rules' even the people that make them and sign them. Rules are nice, but only when everyone follows them uniformly without exception, and quite frankly I'm not holding my breath for this to change overnight.

I think you completely missed the point. In the U.S. legal system, the rules are set out so that when the police arrest you, it is because they can point to a law you violated, rather than making one up on the spot because they felt you deserved it.

e.g. it has been made a crime to threaten people, because e.g. it shows that you have enough 'potential' to follow through that it warrants legal action.

Another aspect is that police don't arrest people because they commit crimes. Police arrest people because they have sufficient probable cause to suggest that you may have committed / be about to commit a crime.

Also there is a really fine line between what is 'potentially' a cause for concern vs something that is based on unfounded paranoia.

Regardless of whether that's true or not, the point is that we don't (and should not!) draw the line between "has already happened" and "hasn't already happened" like you were trying to assert. Nor is the line between "we are absolutely certain" and "we are not certain".

It's far too naïve to think that one should always wait until you see a smoking gun before you take any action. You are making a fallacy of the excluded middle -- you are trying to justify your naïve viewpoint by pretending the only alternative is its polar opposite, and neglecting the fact that the actual reasonable positions exist somewhere in the middle.

 

[ThomasT]

@ chiro,
I think I share your sense of justice, and therefore understand your outrage at what might be considered unjust demands by the US regarding Iran's development of nuclear weapons. But international relations, just as human interpersonal relations, at least in the extreme, aren't a matter of justice or fairness. It's a matter of power. It would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have the power to actually bargain, imo. Therefore, it would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, imho.

 

[mheslep]

AKA False Dilemma fallacy.

 

[ThomasT]

AKA False Dilemma fallacy.

What, in this thread, does this refer to?

 

[mheslep]

What, in this thread, does this refer to?

Sorry you slipped in ahead of my post. Referring to 81, excluded middle fallacy reference.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3925351&postcount=81

 

[ThomasT]

Sorry you slipped in ahead of my post. Referring to 81, excluded middle fallacy reference.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3925351&postcount=81

Ok, I was just hoping it wasn't me, as I have only an intuitive grasp of logical ... stuff.

 

[daveb]

1. I did not say U 20% was weapons grade.
2. Obviously, U 20% enriched could be further enriched using much the same equipment to be made into a highly effective weapon.
3. I said U 20% enriched was *not* proof, but evidence of a weapons program. This is because the possible valid reasons for going beyond 7% for reactor grade are very thin.

You are arguing against a straw man.

Point taken about the evidence vs proof, but I do not see it as evidence.

LWR uses LEU which is enriched up to 20% (source), but is usually around 3%-5% (source1, http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf28.html). Research reactors need around 20% (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf28.html). Research reactors are those needed as a neutron source (i.e., for making radioisotopes). Thus, (imo) your claim that it is evidence is weak, since Iran has specifically stated they intend to manufacture radioisotopes.

 

[Andre]

Just for the record, I agree with chiro and daveb and I think that the tendency to believe that Iran is working on WMD's is explained here.

Diplomacy! Just get the guys over for a talk and buy them a beer at the bar.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Diplomacy! Just get the guys over for a talk and buy them a beer at the bar.

Don't know if you read this article I linked to earlier, but the situation in Iran is WAY complicated. The "Supreme Leader" is being undercut by lower level people who have publicly asked that the sanctions be lifted. They were supposed to act as if the sanctions were making no difference, that Iran could care less about them. Revealing that they are causing distress put Iran in a bad negotiating positing vis a vis the US/Israel.

It states that by insistently asking for the removal of Western sanctions, they have indeed revealed that pressures have worked on the government and that the country has become vulnerable to the sanctions.

Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is in a separate political struggle against President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. I don't know what those two titles mean, but infer from the article that the Supreme Leader is the official top man, the President a lesser, but formidable power. The President is riding the Supreme Leader, criticizing every perceived faux pas or questionable action.

The US may be miscalculating, the authors posit, that the whole Iranian government is about to cave to sanctions. The Supreme Leader is the one we're negotiating with, not the President or the lower downs who are asking the sanctions be lifted.

The danger of a US miscalculation becomes apparent if it is noted that for the first time, Jalili, Iran's top negotiator, is representing not just Iran but the Supreme Leader as well. Indeed his new appointment letter as Iran's negotiator also identifies him as the "personal representative of the Supreme Leader". In this context, any demand that would be considered humiliating and disrespectful of Iran's national pride would have no chance of success. Khamenei has relentlessly linked the nuclear issue to ezzat-e melli (national dignity).

For example, in a speech to nuclear scientists he said: "They [that is, the 'arrogant powers'] tried to discourage our nation on many occasions. They tried to convince our people that they were incompetent ... You cannot make progress ... [Yet] every scientific advance is a testimony to the competence of our nation ... Your work ... instilled a sense of national dignity into this nation and this country."

Disregarding Iran's sense of dignity and pride, Western policymakers and analysts alike believe that Khamenei is now in a tough position and will accept the full suspension of uranium enrichment. They do not realize that accepting such a defeat would be the beginning of the end of his authority and stature among his followers, not to speak of the general public, as a symbol of resistance against the "global arrogance".

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NE16Ak02.html

Wanting nuclear weapons is not about wanting to use them, it's about "National Dignity". Everyone wants to prove they're technologically advanced, and also powerful and important enough to be counted among the Major Powers, the big, dangerous powers who have to be listened to when they speak, because they have nuclear weapons. It's about face.

 

[Tosh5457]

@ chiro,
I think I share your sense of justice, and therefore understand your outrage at what might be considered unjust demands by the US regarding Iran's development of nuclear weapons. But international relations, just as human interpersonal relations, at least in the extreme, aren't a matter of justice or fairness. It's a matter of power.

International relations being a matter of power doesn't exclude fairness. Even if a country is powerful, it can still choose to be fair in international relations.

It would be foolish for the US to allow Iran to have the power to actually bargain, imo.

Why? I think you're assuming Iran having a nuclear weapon is bad for US, but why is that?

Wanting nuclear weapons is not about wanting to use them, it's about "National Dignity". Everyone wants to prove they're technologically advanced, and also powerful and important enough to be counted among the Major Powers, the big, dangerous powers who have to be listened to when they speak, because they have nuclear weapons. It's about face.

I agree, but I think the core reason for wanting nuclear weapons (especially for a country in the Middle East) is that it gives a big boost in defense, because it'll make other countries hesitant to attack them.

 

[ThomasT]

International relations being a matter of power doesn't exclude fairness.

If it's a matter of power, then that necessarily obviates considerations of fairness. Which is not to say that the more powerful party might not try to appear to be acting out of fairness (it might even want to be fair in some sort of best case scenario, and hold the ideals of fairness and justice in high esteem). Just that, if push comes to shove, then all the fairness and justice considerations are secondary to the fact that one party is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful party can, and often does, impose its will on the less powerful party. If it's a matter of power, that is ... and I think it mostly is.

Even if a country is powerful, it can still choose to be fair in international relations.

It could. But, imho, fairness and justice are secondary to maintaining a dominant position. The international stage isn't the nice middle class American situation that many of us grew up in and still enjoy. There's no doubt in my mind that if Iran or any other Islamic Middle East country could destroy Israel and get away with it, then it would. The US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there. Israel is an integral part of that. Just my current opinion.

 

[Andre]

..., but the situation in Iran is WAY complicated.

Absolutely, and that's not my point, the point is to break through the mutual enemy creation process. Talking about attacking is only going to confirm their enemy image to the population. "The west is indeed that bad". And you may win the battle like in Irak and Afghanistan but not the war, since the population regards you as confirmed enemy.

Moreover, how firm is the support of the citizens, after the many casualties in the name of non existing weapons of mass destruction as Turbo pointed out earlier in this thread.

So if the problem is Iran's successful terror merchants and moral entrepeneurs, stopping them should be the aim and that's a matter of the Iranian population, who can use our support. The last they need is an enemy from the west.

more people should read this.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[Astronuc]

For consideration: Iran navy saves US freighter from pirates: report
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-navy-saves-us-freighter-pirates-report-110142224.html

Iran's navy said Thursday it saved an American-flagged cargo ship that was being attacked by pirates in the Gulf of Oman.

Of course, this needs verification.


Regarding enriched UO₂. The smaller the reactor the higher the enrichment requirement for a given power density/flux and burnup capability.

There are special high-flux reactors, one of which I have seen in person, which have cores about the size of a typical household washing machine, and which use 93%-enriched UO₂. That is a legitimate research tool. On the other hand, that raises the issue of nuclear weapons capability. There are alternatives so such types of reactors. Since the 1980s, fuel for TRIGA reactors (pool type systems used at universities) has been replaced with fuel of much lower (~20%) enrichments.

 

[Tosh5457]

If it's a matter of power, then that necessarily obviates considerations of fairness. Which is not to say that the more powerful party might not try to appear to be acting out of fairness (it might even want to be fair in some sort of best case scenario, and hold the ideals of fairness and justice in high esteem). Just that, if push comes to shove, then all the fairness and justice considerations are secondary to the fact that one party is more powerful than the other, and the more powerful party can, and often does, impose its will on the less powerful party. If it's a matter of power, that is ... and I think it mostly is.

It could. But, imho, fairness and justice are secondary to maintaining a dominant position. The international stage isn't the nice middle class American situation that many of us grew up in and still enjoy. There's no doubt in my mind that if Iran or any other Islamic Middle East country could destroy Israel and get away with it, then it would. The US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there. Israel is an integral part of that. Just my current opinion.

The main point is why should US use its power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon? It's not a threat to USA, it's only a threat to Israel's power in the region. So the question is whether it's worth defending Israel's interests or not:
You argue that US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there, and that Israel is an integral part of that. I'd like to understand this, so could you be more specific? What exactly does US want from there? They never took oil from the Middle East, and they never will, unless they destroy a country or 2 there.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Iran is not a friend to the USA. It is a friend to some terrorist groups. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then it could possibly give those weapons to terrorists. Right?

The USA is a global power, and the entire world affects it and vice versa. Oil is a big part of the world economy, and a lot of oil comes from the Middle East. Therefore, anyone who has influence in that area, has influence in the rest of the world. Nothing big and grandiose, just influence.

 

[Tosh5457]

Iran is not a friend to the USA. It is a friend to some terrorist groups. If Iran has nuclear weapons, then it could possibly give those weapons to terrorists. Right?

How is Iran friend to terrorists? I know that's a daily discourse in US media, but that doesn't make it true. I've seen a lot of accusations that Iran is associated with terrorists made by USA and Israel (only accusations, and they should be taken with a grain of salt for obvious reasons) but I've never seen anything concrete.
The truth is that US actions on the Middle East and its aid to Israel built the hatred against US, and that should be taken into account when thinking of continuing the same policies of the past in regards to the Middle East.

The USA is a global power, and the entire world affects it and vice versa. Oil is a big part of the world economy, and a lot of oil comes from the Middle East. Therefore, anyone who has influence in that area, has influence in the rest of the world. Nothing big and grandiose, just influence.

That's a very vague argument. I don't know what influence US has in the Middle East right now, if you could be more specific... And what is that influence you speak about supposed to do? Control oil prices? And if that influence you speak about is so important, then why aren't other countries doing the same?

 

[ThomasT]

The main point is why should US use its power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon?

I don't know, or have any solid opinion on it. I was just presenting some possible ways of approaching the question in the form of opinions.

It's not a threat to USA, it's only a threat to Israel's power in the region.

It's not a threat to the US in terms of physical violence. But maybe to certain US interests.

So the question is whether it's worth defending Israel's interests or not:

Maybe the US defending Israel isn't so much a matter of defending Israel's interests as defending US interests.

You argue that US has a vested interest in Middle East affairs, mostly because of the vast oil reserves there, and that Israel is an integral part of that. I'd like to understand this, so could you be more specific? What exactly does US want from there? They never took oil from the Middle East, and they never will, unless they destroy a country or 2 there.

I'm just speculating. I'm wondering, with others, why Iran having nuclear weapons is so important to the US. Exactly what sort of threat does it pose? How might a nuclear-armed Iran change the game (for that matter, what is the game)? Why is the security of Israel so important to the US (not that Iran would actually attack Israel with nuclear weapons, which seems quite unlikely, even ridiculous)? Why is the US in effect drawing a line in the sand and trumpeting that it is ready and willing to back an Israeli air strike on Iranian nuclear-related targets? Why did the US invade Iraq?

The continuation of US dominance (not just the US government, but US corporate and financial interests)? What does the oil trade have to do with US dominance? If it has nothing to do with oil, then why is the US bothering with the Middle East?

Any discussion of these and associated questions is beyond the scope of this thread, and, I think, beyond the allowable scope of discussions at PF.

I assume that the truth, or at least certain evidence of it, is out there on the internet, but I can't say that I think I've found it yet.

Wrt the OP, I think the consensus opinion is that the US is prepared to attack Iran in a combined effort with Israel to prevent Iran from developing any sort of substantial nuclear weapons capability, but would prefer not to do that. That is, striking Iranian targets isn't inevitable. Exactly why the US wants to prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons remains an open question, for me.

 

[Curious3141]

How is Iran friend to terrorists?

Iran supports Hezbollah. This is unarguable. Hezbollah is a terrorist group. It's not simply a matter of political affiliation to consider Hezbollah terrorists - members of this group have even hijacked a civilian airliner (TWA 847) and tortured/killed one of the passengers onboard.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Iran has the right to a peaceful nuclear program as a signatory to the NPT. But Iran has not fulfilled the requirements of the treaty by restricting access and other suspicious activities. The international community has the right to demand transparency from Iran so as to verify their nuclear program is peaceful. This must include total cooperation with inspectors and complete transparency so there can be no doubt that Iran is not building weapons of mass destruction.

The U.S. Congress has attempted to interfere in this process through legislation demanding political and other internal changes before the sanctions can be removed. But U.S. politicians mixing controls on the Iranian nuclear program with demands over human rights issues, for example, guarantee Iran will not accept any deal at all. These issues should be kept separate.

Meanwhile, instead of military attacks on Iranian facilities that some are demanding, the United Nations has approved sanctions in an attempt to change Iranian behavior without resorting to violent military force. Attempting to resolve this conflict based on the strategy of both sides winning is the prudent choice.

 

[Bobbywhy]

Excerpts from the Camp David Declaration, March 18 & 19, 2012

“We call on Iran to comply with all of its obligations under relevant UNSC resolutions.” One of the resolutions referred to is United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, adopted on 9 June 2010.

“…after recalling resolutions 1696 (2006), 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008), 1835 (2008) and 1887 (2009) concerning the topics of Iran and non-proliferation, the Council noted that Iran had failed to comply with previous Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program and imposed further sanctions on the country.[1]

In the preamble of the resolution, the Council reaffirmed its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, its provisions therein and obligations on parties to the Treaty. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors had adopted a resolution stating that a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction.”

What causes me to wonder is this last statement… “a solution to the Iranian nuclear issue would contribute to global non-proliferation efforts and the Middle East region free of weapons of mass destruction.”

How is the Middle East region free of WMDs when Israel maintains hundreds of nuclear weapons in its arsenal and has the means to deliver them? And thanks to one of our members who, here in this thread, reminded us that Israel does not need to conform to the NPT because it has not signed it.