Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Iran nuke program stopped in 2003

  1. Dec 3, 2007 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.bangkokpost.com/breaking_news/breakingnews.php?id=124200

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24677-2005Jan20.html

    Luckily, even Sen. Webb said that were Bush to bomb Iran, he would likely be impeached. Hopefully the fear mongering will end.

    Why anyone still believes these guys is beyond me.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 3, 2007 #2

    mjsd

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    hopefully this will defuse the situation a bit. no one in the "right mind" would want to see yet another war!
     
  4. Dec 3, 2007 #3

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hold on. The stopped nuclear weapons work information has just been released, realized in the last few months; Hadley briefed the press on it today. The quote from the US VP is from 2005, and posting it to imply they must have known otherwise is misleading. I trust thats not intentional.

    If that is in reference to the interview this past Sunday, then it is a gross distortion of what he said.
    And goes on mention impeachment only as last resort possibility. Sen Webb is no impeachment cowboy.

    uh, yeah.
     
  5. Dec 3, 2007 #4

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The new NIE says that in all likelihood there is no serious nuke program. This doesn't mean that the previous state of the intelligence was that there was a program, as Cheney said. More likely, as has repeatedly been the case, the intelligence agencies were mostly unsure and had no strong evidence (and we now know they couldn't have had any), but Cheney decided to make the slam-dunk assertion, nevertheless.
     
  6. Dec 3, 2007 #5

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Eh? VP said in '05 about Iran that there was a "...fairly robust nuclear program", period. Its public knowledge that there was. Then Pres. Khatamiand invited in the IAEA to see the enrichment facility! Now we know, gasp, that there still is one. The recent NIE now clarifies that the extent of that program is mostly fuel enrichment vs weapons directed. I assume that means reactor grade vs highly enriched.
     
  7. Dec 3, 2007 #6

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Of course Cheney was talking about a civilian program! Their "new", 50-year-old program.
     
  8. Dec 3, 2007 #7

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, regardless of Ivan's implications about who-knew-what-when, I guess we can ring up another score for Bush's foreign policy (cowboy diplomacy), right? :biggrin:
     
  9. Dec 3, 2007 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That is covered in the article:
     
  10. Dec 3, 2007 #9

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    First, 50 yrs is misleading. Yes the Shaw built it up ~50 yrs ago but Iraq repeatedly destroyed the facilities in the Iran/Iraq war. Second, you're implying a sharp line between a 'civilian' program and weapons knowledge when with a physics background you must know there is no such line. Further, its again public knowledge that the IAEA found in '04 (A.2. Implications) that
    That report goes on to detail many unreported U acquisitions and enrichment facilities. Now really, how could one rationally object to an '05 statement that Iran's nuclear ambitions were worrisome and had a "...fairly robust nuclear program". Just what would you have a western leader say on the subject. (in '05)?
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  11. Dec 4, 2007 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'd have no problems with statements that Iran's nuclear ambitions are personally worrisome. I've felt the same way myself (and have been saying so, in this forum, for over 3 years now). But time and again, we've heard assertions, even if carefully worded, of Iran's developing/seeking nuclear weapons. In the above example, as in many (but not all) recent speeches of this nature, care is taken to not specify "weapons". But clearly, the intent of these remarks is not lost and point of making such statements is to raise fear.
     
  12. Dec 4, 2007 #11

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Didn't see that before. In that case, I don't have an argument, as that was the same impression I'd gotten from reading FAS and Globalsecurity.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  13. Dec 4, 2007 #12
    This report will help put the "crazies" back into the box.
     
  14. Dec 4, 2007 #13

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  15. Dec 4, 2007 #14

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/04/bush.iran/index.html

    I think we already know that he ranks as one of if not the most incompetent president in history.
     
  16. Dec 4, 2007 #15

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't listen to crooks or idiots. No matter the reason, he is not to be believed.

    Please quit inferring things and stating it as my opinion, or as implications made by me. You usually have no idea where I'm coming from.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2007
  17. Dec 4, 2007 #16
    The very idea that Iran would launch a nuke at anyone is utterly ridiculous. Ahmedinijad is not a very nice guy, but he's not stupid, he knows that as soon as a nuke left Iran his entire country, and all of his beloved people, would be annexed back to the stoneage by Isral and the US. Iran would benefit NOTHING from having a nuke. And their not even making one! the official body which investigates nuclear issues, the IAEA, has never found any evidence of nukes. You really are left with the question againl who made this one up? its beggining to look like another non existant WMD situation.

    I always knew that Iran was not making nukes, if there was any evidence i can assure you it would be all over the press as there are a lot of people who have an interst in portarying Iran in this way.
     
  18. Dec 4, 2007 #17

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yeah. Maybe this guy made it up:
    The statement was video'd, its around somewhere. By the way, he's right in a sense, 'Isral' is only 10mi wide at its center, just N. of Tel Aviv.

    You always knew? You can assure' me? Cool dude! The West can dump the IAEA and its expensive intelligence agencies and give you the job as the Man in Iran.
    Oh wait. Turns out the IAEA reported many times on the Iranian violations of the NPT in U acquisition and enrichment, and the earlier NIE from 2005 clearly says Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons. Sorry dude, no job for you. Bummer.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2007
  19. Dec 4, 2007 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This makes me wonder...what exactly was the source of pressure in 2003? I don't recall the US putting any kind of diplomatic pressure on Iran at that time. What am I missing?
     
  20. Dec 5, 2007 #19

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not convinced of any cause and effect (or wisdom), but how about these:
    - 'Axis of Evil' state of the union in Jan '02.
    - Iraq war build up and UN security council actions in '02 which, at least at the security council level, amounted to 'give up your WMD or else'. Bathist's fall in 6 weeks; if you're a government thats what threatens you and not the 3-4 years of insurrection.
    - Libya gave up its nuke program and in return had had two decades of US sanctions end. Thats late '03 / '04 so maybe late.

    The theory being that any aspiring nuke power would see all this say fogetaboutit.

    Of course if you strictly meant polite diplomatic conversation then, and this is even more off the cuff on my part, but I believe that given the history of strained US - Iranian relations (Shaw support and the '79 hostages), the US policy was this: its more effective to have the Europeans take the lead. Paris Agreement (France, Germany, UK) was '03 - Iran reaffirms commitment to honor NPT.
     
  21. Dec 5, 2007 #20
    Here is something I had posted earlier on the thread "What to do about Iraq".

    now were are being led to belive that a nuclear Iran will be a threat to world peace, which is as big a load of bull as the WMD story.

    Why dosen't the American government have an issue with nuclear arms in Pakistan or India or Israel, these are some of the most volitile areas on the planet.

    It would be naive to belive that these operation in the Gulf are for anything else other than oil. It is about installing puppet governments in the entire Middle East just as in Saudi and Kuwait and gain control over this oil producing region. Imagine what could be done if any one particular country had complete control on the majority of the worlds oil supply..... the possibilities are endless.....


    What we really need to worry about is a nuclear America.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Iran nuke program stopped in 2003
Loading...