News What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[kyleb]

Astronuc asked an identical question, and I answered it.

But you haven't explained how you got from the speculation in the article to your claim that it is "quite clear" Iran has nuclear missile program. Could you please quote whatever part of that article you think backs your claim?

 

[Astronuc]

But you haven't explained how you got from the speculation in the article to your claim that it is "quite clear" Iran has nuclear missile program. Could you please quote whatever part of that article you think backs your claim?

In all fairness to Yonoz, it is well known that Iran has a ballistic missile program, and that such missile could carry an appropriately sized nuclear warhead. Since Iran does not yet have such a warhead, they do not yet have a nuclear missile, but they very likely have the plans.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jdw/jdw041206_1_n.shtml
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/39332.pdf#search=""Iran","Ballistic Missile""
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/31/world/main1460846.shtml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-03-31-iranmissile_x.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190696,00.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/08/27/iran.missile.reut/

 

[kyleb]

I don't suppose I could get a bit of fairness for my question in the form of a direct answer. Do you see anything you can quote in the article Yonoz linked (or yours for that matter) that backs his claim?

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't suppose I could get a bit of fairness for my question in the form of a direct answer. Do you see anything you can quote in the article Yonoz linked (or yours for that matter) that backs his claim?

I thought his was the claim, and I quote:

Iran has purchased nuclear weapons-only technology from Pakistan.

But according to you:

But you haven't explained how you got from the speculation in the article to your claim that it is "quite clear" Iran has nuclear missile program.

I no longer have any idea what claim you are you are talking about.

If you are talking about the "claim" I quoted above, I believe AQ Khan's own admission is sufficient support for it. If you require that the evidence be found only in a particular article (which I haven't read yet), you are nitpicking for no good reason. Maybe the wrong article was linked - so what?

 

[ptabor]

I didn't read all the replies, so this may have been said before.

To me, it's a matter of simple logic: of COURSE they are trying to build a bomb. They would be complete and utter fools NOT to.

Come on, the commander in chief of the most powerful military on the planet calls your nation, alongside with Iraq (which has already been invaded) and North Korea, part of an axis of evil ... how would YOU react?

It's simple. We have the bomb, that means they must have it. It's the ultimate deterrent. Nobody in their right mind would invade a nation with the bomb, let alone one with a sociopathic leader.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm suggesting that people can be brainwashed...and I know it's true. People from extremely conservative backgrounds often choose what to you or me would sound ridiculous. Christianity, Hinduism, Islam (and probably a host of other religions) are overtly male-dominated, yet women willingly participate. Why do Mormon women accept an unfair deal - because they are told that it is the right way, and one that will lead to favor in the afterlife? Why do followers of Opus Dei practice self-mutilation? There are millions of people that subject themselves willingly to what we might consider unfair treatment, stupidity or masochism. There are millions still who are waiting for the day they will be freed of such shackles.


I never used the word 'everyone', so this argument must not be directed at me.

Ok, well, let's ask an expert, Lisa!. She is more qualified than anyone else here to tell us what women in Iran think about the situation. Chime in Lisa! :!)

 

[kyleb]

I thought his was the claim, and I quote:

It was, and then Astronuc and I took issue with and Yonoz responded with:

I stand corrected, but it is nevertheless quite clear from the article that the technology was transferred in a deal to allow all 3 nations: Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to benefit from each other's advances to produce a nuclear balistic missile program. Obviously some will disagree but I think they would not be so happy about having a nuclear-capable Islamic fundamentalist neighbour whose leaders repeatedly describe the destruction of their state as a noble goal.

That is the claim I am inquiring about.

If you are talking about the "claim" I quoted above, I believe AQ Khan's own admission is sufficient support for it.

Like Yonoz already acknowledged, centrifuge technology is not weapons-only.

If you require that the evidence be found only in a particular article (which I haven't read yet), you are nitpicking for no good reason.

I'm not requiring anythng here, I'm just looking for what Yonoz told me I could find where he told me I could find it.

Maybe the wrong article was linked - so what?

So, I would like to see the right article if that is the problem. Why do you take issue with me for that?

 

[Gokul43201]

So, I would like to see the right article then, why do you take issue with me for that?

I do not. It seemed like you were specifically insisting upon seeing the evidence in that particular article. Did I not post a couple of articles where it mentioned AQ Khan's admission that he was involved in "nuclear weapons" technology transfer to Iran, Libya and DPRK?

But I see that your objection may be to the words "weapons-only". I can't say I know enough about the technical aspects to make a judgement based on a knowledge of the details of what exactly was transferred - and I don't have this knowledge - but perhaps, if the original text of the televised AQ Khan admission were found, that might answer this question.

 

[kyleb]

I do not. It seemed like you were specifically insisting upon seeing the evidence in that particular article. Did I not post a couple of articles where it mentioned AQ Khan's admission that he was involved in "nuclear weapons" technology transfer to Iran, Libya and DPRK?

But I see that your objection may be to the words "weapons-only". I can't say I know enough about the technical aspects to make a judgement based on a knowledge of the details of what exactly was transferred - and I don't have this knowledge - but perhaps, if the original text of the televised AQ Khan admission were found, that might answer this question.

So then, do I underderstand correctly that you do not know of any evidence which demonstrates that Iran has been pursuing nuclear ballistic missile program or other weapons-only nuclear technology?

 

[Evo]

I think anyone that is so naive to believe that Iran has no plans for nuclear warheads needs to think again. Does anyone really think that once they have the capability, they won't use it?

"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html

 

[edward]

I think anyone that is so naive to believe that Iran has no plans for nuclear warheads needs to think again. Does anyone really think that once they have the capability, they won't use it?

"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html

The president of Iran does appear to be a bit crazy, at least to westerners. But that does not mean that he is crazy enough to bring about his own incineration.

I remember seeing Nikita Khrushchev banging his shoe on a table at the United Nations in 1960. Americans thought the man to be totally insane.
He even made the comment "we will bury you".

Mutually assured destruction worked then and for the next 25 years.
Invading another middle eastern country is not a good option at this time.

Developing weapons that will shoot down anything that they can pop up is a much better strategy. It will be cheaper than an invasion and won't anger China, our primary supplier of consumer goods.

It is time to play the smart game here, not the "bring em on" game.
It certainly didn't help our intel about Iran and nuclear materials when the Bush administration outed Valery Plame. She was a part of that vital CIA project.

 

[Mickey]

The president of Iran does appear to be a bit crazy, at least to westerners. But that does not mean that he is crazy enough to bring about his own incineration.

You didn't know? He believes that we're in the end times. More specifically, he believes that the 12th Imam of Shia Islam will return from hiding, signaling the last day of Earth, or the day of judgment. He has openly stated that Iran should model its economic, cultural, and political policies for the Imam's return. The more he welcomes the appearance of the 12th Imam, obviously, the more he welcomes the end of days. It most definitely means he is crazy enough to bring about his own incineration.

I wonder why the Iranians do not fight to change their lunatic regime that they do not like? I mean if the will of the people is strong against the regime, then the regime is going to have to change. But why are people so passive there? I do not understand.

I don't understand this either. When I look at the revolution in 1979, it just appears so random and chaotic. Why anyone would want an angry old man wearing a black-turban to be supreme leader of their country is beyond me. Not everyone did, of course. Everybody wanted different things. They had no Thomas Paine, no one to convince everybody that all forms of tyranny are wrong, even if it's the tyranny of a religious leader. Then again, maybe they could not be convinced.

I once heard an Iranian-American say that the most important thing about their culture is that they have to first make peace with their families, then make friends with their neighbors. This is very Asian and is not limited to Iran. The Chinese, for all their efforts, have not been able to overthrow their government. Japan probably has/had it to a greater extreme. The Japanese did not overthrow their dictators leading up to WWII. Iranians are apparently tribal enough that they will hate Americans more than their regime if we invade. Perhaps they're afraid of being ashamed and embarrassed at needing "outside" Western help, like the Iraqis are. Well, then their real problem is much bigger, and they should be even more ashamed and even more embarrassed.

I hope that after WWIII, when the UN is disbanded and we have a third chance to draft rules for a global governing body, it outlaws member nations from having theocracies and/or other totalitarian regimes. One of the main reasons the current UN does not function is because so many of its member governments are not legitimate.

 

[Yonoz]

This is more fantasy... Why not give Israeli power to Iran?

It's not any more of a fantasy than Iran developing a purely peaceful nuclear program.

REALLLYYYY? That's not what Tsipi Livini, Foreign Minister of Israel, seems to have said.

Funny, to me it seems that's exactly what she said:

You`re right. From a military perspective, this could have been an easy operation. But we were responsible in a way and we decided not do it. And since the first day of the operation, we asked by the international community not to undermine the Lebanese government and we accepted.

So the operation became very complicated because it is very difficult to target Hezbollah members which are hiding within, among the civilian population in the south part of Lebanon, targeting Israel and there`s a difference because we were looking for -- our forces were looking for the Hezbollah among the civilian populations and to target only the terrorists while they were targeting Israeli civilian population centers in order to kill civilians.

So it is two different battles from two different sides. And it became -- it is more complicated goal for an army to fight against guerillas or terrorists and not against a state.

So the goal is, you asked me at the beginning what is the goal? The goal is to end a state with the border hoping that Lebanon will be a functioning state and not a state with weak government, with a terrorist organization like militias and maybe this is not only the future but this is also the role of the international community to pressure, to put the pressure on Lebanon to change.

Just one thing for you to consider - Tsipi Livni is another politician with her sights on the Prime Minister's position.

Sorry, don't be fooled into thinking precision weapons are a godsend. They don't work that well. This is more nonsense. Most guided bombs dont hit their intended targets.

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

 

[Yonoz]

What, have we not explained to you enough times already that the US is willing not talking to Iran, Syria, or Palestine? I think it was explicit. You can read it for yourself online if you don't believe me. You have some bad information... Iran and the US has not had serious talks in 30 years. Is this your idea of "exhausted the diplomatic route!?" When Iran has openly stated it wants talks? Are you just posting whatever you feel like typing? (no disrespect Yonoz, but come on!)

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=9356":
Europe: Here Iran, we'll give you as much nuclear power as you need.
Iran: No, we have a right to enrich our own Uranium.
This is what I would call "exhausting the diplomatic route".
The GWB administration keeps its hands clean, Europe and Russia get jobs, and Iran gets nuclear power. I don't see a better solution for everyone.

 

[Yonoz]

kyleb, let's start over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#The_Israeli_stance":

Israel is concerned that Iran has developed missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads between the two countries. This concern was intensified when Iran publicly paraded some of the missiles under anti-Israeli banners, such as "Death to Israel" and "Israel should be wiped off the map".
...
Reasons for Israeli concern can be summed up in 5 points:

1. Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and other Iranian leaders deny Israel's right to exist.
2. Iran develops its nuclear energy technology in clandestine facilities.
3. The distance from Iran to Israel is within the range of missile systems possessed by both countries.
4. Iran is alleged to maintain a close relationship with the Hezbollah organisation, which has attacked Israel in the past and today.
5. Israel has very few options to deter an Iranian nuclear attack, should Iran acquire such weapons.
6. Iran has pledged to attack Israel if it is attacked, regardless of which country attacked it.

I hope you see my point.

 

[Anttech]

Although I *understand* your worries, this point is rather hypocritical

2. Iran develops its nuclear energy technology in clandestine facilities.

Since this is exactly what you did to obtain Nukes! :)

 

[Yonoz]

Although I *understand* your worries, this point is rather hypocritical

2. Iran develops its nuclear energy technology in clandestine facilities.

Since this is exactly what you did to obtain Nukes! :)

Geez I guess Israel is no saint. Doesn't change much though.
BTW try to look at what the ME looked like when France gave Israel the reactor.
That's right, France. There seems to be a misconception that the US has always supported Israel. The relations between the two countries only reached their current status after the Yom-Kippur war.

 

[Yonoz]

Regardless of one's views about Israel, this is an undeniable case of a dangerous regime gaining nuclear capabilities while engaged in an active conflict with a nation it intends to destroy.
Every right minded person on this planet should be worried.

 

[Anttech]

Geez I guess Israel is no saint. Doesn't change much though.
BTW try to look at what the ME looked like when France gave Israel the reactor.
That's right, France. There seems to be a misconception that the US has always supported Israel. The relations between the two countries only reached their current status after the Yom-Kippur war.

Yonzo, you better be careful or the Israel government will come a knocking on your door and lock you up. Since you didnt actually admit you had them I guess they will let you off :)

Anyway yes Iran with Nukes is perhaps not the best idea on the planet. But personally I am not worried, since I live far enough away for them to never be deployed here.

 

[Yonoz]

But personally I am not worried, since I live far enough away for them to never be deployed here.

It's good to know someone cares for us.

 

[Anttech]

It's good to know someone cares for us.

I wouldn't be worried either if I was you. Iran won't attack you, unless you attack them, or the USA attacks them. Its as simple as that, so why are you worried?

 

[ptabor]

I wouldn't be worried either if I was you. Iran won't attack you, unless you attack them, or the USA attacks them. Its as simple as that, so why are you worried?

HAH.

Let's think this through... Iran has been known to support Hezbollah, which is responsible for the deaths of quite a few Israeli civilians.

Given this, I see every reason for Israel to be worried. It's clear that once they have the bomb, it's a simple matter to give one to a state sponsored terrorist organization and have them set it off... thereby absolving Iran of any responsibility. They'll play stupid and continue to deny they have the bomb, or were ever pursuing the technology in the first place.

yes, be worried.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't suppose I could get a bit of fairness for my question in the form of a direct answer. Do you see anything you can quote in the article Yonoz linked (or yours for that matter) that backs his claim?

Evo saved me the trouble with her quote from the article I cited.

From the link provided by Yonoz, we know Iran has obtained enrichment technology with which to enrich uranium, which can be used to make nuclear fuel or fully-enriched U-235 for nuclear weapons. They also have a heavy water plant and apparently plans for a production reactor with which to make Pu-239, which is much better for making nuclear weapons. So the nuclear technology is not 'weapons-only' but it could be used to produce nuclear weapons.

We also know from the links I cited that Iran has a ballistic missile program, and Iran (particularly Ahmadinejad) has been bragging about their capabilities. Missiles are weapons-only.

Now putting the two together would give one a nuclear ballistic missile. Given the hostile rhetoric and Iran's support for militant groups, various nations are concerned about Iran's possession of nuclear weapons and nuclear ballistic missiles.

 

[Astronuc]

But personally I am not worried, since I live far enough away for them to never be deployed here.

Umm, not quite. Nuclear weapons do not require missiles to deliver them to far away targets. Any terrorist group could deploy nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. A major concern during the cold war was the 'suitcase' bomb, which is much less sophisticated than MIRV's, and which are roughly the size of artillery shells, which one individual could carry.

Unfortunately, this problem will be with us for a long time.

 

[Tzemach]

I think anyone that is so naive to believe that Iran has no plans for nuclear warheads needs to think again. Does anyone really think that once they have the capability, they won't use it?

"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html

Does anyone really think that the nations of the world are going to sit down and dismantle the thousands of nuclear devices that are currently in existence? We need to be realists about this these things will sit around until some maniac decides to start launching. The only thing that we can hope is that it will be delayed long enough that more than half of them will fail.

The window of opportunity to prevent this disaster has now unfortunately closed. The only way it could have been stopped was in 1945 the world's then only nuclear power (the USA) should have called for the unconditional surrender of every nation on Earth and established one World Govt. then taken control of every military organisation. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Anttech]

Umm, not quite. Nuclear weapons do not require missiles to deliver them to far away targets. Any terrorist group could deploy nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. A major concern during the cold war was the 'suitcase' bomb, which is much less sophisticated than MIRV's, and which are roughly the size of artillery shells, which one individual could carry.

Unfortunately, this problem will be with us for a long time.

So let me understand your stance here:

You believe that Iran will give its nuclear technology to terrorists groups so they can cart suitcases around Europe or other places and set them off? Is this *actually* what you think?

 

[Tzemach]

Umm, not quite. Nuclear weapons do not require missiles to deliver them to far away targets. Any terrorist group could deploy nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. A major concern during the cold war was the 'suitcase' bomb, which is much less sophisticated than MIRV's, and which are roughly the size of artillery shells, which one individual could carry.

Unfortunately, this problem will be with us for a long time.

Did anyone see the movie, "The Sum Of All Fears"? There the terrorists delivered nuclear weapons disguised as Coke machines, as long as it delivers Coke until it goes off nobody would take any notice.

 

[Anttech]

The window of opportunity to prevent this disaster has now unfortunately closed. The only way it could have been stopped was in 1945 the world's then only nuclear power (the USA) should have called for the unconditional surrender of every nation on Earth and established one World Govt. then taken control of every military organisation. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Funny... I somehow don't think the USA had that kinda of power back then, nor do I think they have that kind of power now... The worlds a big place...

 

[Astronuc]

You believe that Iran will give its nuclear technology to terrorists groups so they can cart suitcases around Europe or other places and set them off? Is this *actually* what you think?

No, nor did I indicate those thoughts. I simply stated that it is possible for nuclear weapons to be delievered anywhere in the world, without the use of a nuclear missile. I said nothing of the motivations or whom might do such a thing, but anyone with access to a pit and appropriate hardware could do it. That leaves the matter wide open for a spectrum of possibilities based on speculation and the wildest imagination possible.

Actually it is the job of some in the intelligence community to consider 'all' possibilities and to analyze certain patterns out there in the world for potential problems.

 

[Anttech]

No, nor did I indicate those thoughts.

Perhaps not directly, but if you look at your post within the context of this thread, you could conclude that this is what you thought Iran was going to do..

Anyway THAT is why I wanted to know your stance, so we could clear that up.

Iran could also deliver nukes using hot air balloons, or on the back of trained eagles (very small ones), or perhaps using a the regular post. All of which are possible, but unlikely!

So I can say I am safe, just as safe as before the hypothetical introduction of Iran as a nuclear power. As I said before Iran likes it soverinty, if that is attacked they will use whatever it takes to keep it, just like Israel or the US or France or the UK would do, and justifiably. They arent going to sit there and become targets because of a perception that they are the *real* evil people on this planet. If they get a bomb, they won't use it, unless they need to. Just like:

United States 5,735/9,960[2]
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000[3]
United Kingdom <200[4]
France 350[5]
People's Republic of China 130[6]
India 75-115[7]
Islamic Republic Of Pakistan 65-90[8]

We are a world of equal differences...

 

[Yonoz]

I wouldn't be worried either if I was you.

Oh but I believe you would.

 

[Anttech]

Why should I be, I am firm in my belief that Iran won't use them against you. Have they directly fired any missiles on Israel before?

The rhetoric that Iran uses against Zionism is just that: rhetoric. Its the same as the USA's Axis of Evil rhetoric.

Look I would prefer Iran not to have any, just like I would prefer nobody to use this technology in a murderous way

 

[Anttech]

1 question:

If Iran hates Jews, then why is the biggest Jewish community outside of Israel in the ME live in Iran (~25,000)? If you believe they want to commit genocide on Jews in Israel by wiping them out with a Nuc, why not start by killing all the Jews in Iran? The current Iranian Administration is opposed to Zionism, (not Judaism) and the perceived unfair treatment of Muslims living in Palistein. Need I remind you not so long ago, Iran and Israel had a great relationship up till 1979.

 

[kyleb]

kyleb, let's start over: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#The_Israeli_stance":I hope you see my point.

Before starting over, and in the interests of mutual understanding, I am still trying it figure out your point in posting that first article while making the claims you did:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/01/280f9a59-88b6-489b-bd03-f76267db36fa.html" .

I stand corrected, but it is nevertheless quite clear from the article that the technology was transferred in a deal to allow all 3 nations: Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to benefit from each other's advances to produce a nuclear balistic missile program. Obviously some will disagree but I think they would not be so happy about having a nuclear-capable Islamic fundamentalist neighbour whose leaders repeatedly describe the destruction of their state as a noble goal.

Could you please quoute from your link whatever you believe backs your claim?

 

[Yonoz]

Could you please quoute from your link whatever you believe backs your claim?

Certainly.

Importantly, Samore says, the types of centrifuges now turning up in Pakistan, Iran, Libya, and North Korea are all thought to be based on Urenco's designs from the time that Khan worked there. "I think it's well established that when Mr. Khan worked in the Netherlands for a company that was involved in a European consortium developing centrifuges to produce low-enriched uranium for nuclear power fuel, Mr. Khan obtained blueprints and technical information for three or four different types of centrifuge machines. And these machines were later reverse engineered and duplicated in Pakistan in order to support Pakistan's nuclear weapons program -- apparently, the same kind of machines have now turned up in Libya, Iran, and North Korea.

 

[Yonoz]

Why should I be, I am firm in my belief that Iran won't use them against you.

That's just a belief. Not something to wager our nation against. You believe it because it fits your world perspective. Had you really been I, you certainly would not be so "firm" in your belief. :)

 

[Gokul43201]

So then, do I underderstand correctly that you do not know of any evidence which demonstrates that Iran has been pursuing nuclear ballistic missile program or other weapons-only nuclear technology?

No, you do not. I was not addressing that question at all.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

Since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, Tehran redoubled its efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles. In addition to Iran's legitimate efforts to develop its nuclear power-generation industry, it is believed to be operating a parallel clandestine nuclear weapons program. Iran appears to be following a policy of complying with the NPT and building its nuclear power program in such a way that if the appropriate political decision is made, know-how gained in the peaceful sphere (specialists and equipment) could be used to create nuclear weapons (dual-use technologies have been sold to Iran by at least nine western companies during the early 1990's). Also, in this atmosphere of deception, unconfirmed reports have been made that Tehran purchased several nuclear warheads in the early 1990's.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2002.htm

The representative office of the National Council of Resistance of Iran in Washington, D.C., revealed on Wednesday, 14 August 2002, two top-secret nuclear sites in Iran and the clerical regime’s new nuclear, biological and chemical weapons projects at a press conference in Washington, DC. On the surface, the Iranian regime’s main nuclear activities are focused on Bushehr’s nuclear power plant, but in reality secret nuclear programs are at work without the knowledge of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). One of these top secret projects is Natanz’s nuclear facility. Natanz is about 100 miles north of Isfahan. The other one is Arak’s atomic facilities. Arak is a city in central Iran, 150 miles south of Tehran.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2003.htm

The IAEA announced that its secretary-general, Muhammad al-Baradei, would visit Iran on 25 February, Iranian state radio reported on 19 December 2002. According to previous reports, Tehran had postponed al-Baradei's visit several times despite a February 10 announcement that there would be no limit to the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) ability to conduct inspections in Iran, and he denied that Iran plans to use nuclear technology for military purposes, IRNA reported on 11 February.

The IAEA team led by ElBaradei which visited Iran in February 2003 detected that Iran had introduced some uranium hexafluoride into the gas centrifuges, which would be a clear breach of the NPT.

President Mohammad Khatami said on 09 February 2003 that the Islamic Republic of Iran had decided to utilize advanced technology including those in the nuclear industry for peaceful purposes. He said that the government has adopted plans to exploit the uranium mines 200 km off Yazd and set up plants in Isfahan and Kashan to extract uranium composites to provide fuel for generating electricity. President Khatami said that his government has decided to generate some 6,000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear energy adding that Bushehr power plant has been designed to generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity. President Khatami's admission of Iranian uranium mining came only two weeks before the 25 February 2003 visit to Iran of the International Atomic Energy Agency's Director General, Dr. ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency experts.

...

Iran's admission that it had been mining uranium, when Russia had agreed to provide all the uranium fuel for lifetime of the Bushehr reactor, raised serious questions about Iran's supposedly peaceful nuclear program. Some accounts of the Khatami remarks said he also asserted that Iran planned to reprocess spent fuel from Bushehr. If press reports suggesting that Iran will reprocess spent fuel were accurate, this would directly contradict Iran's agreement with Russia to return all of the spent fuel to Russia.

...

The IAEA found two different types of HEU in Iran. Iran has tried to explain away that finding with a belated admission that its senior officials erred in repeatedly telling the Agency, the Board and the world that the Iranian centrifuge enrichment program was wholly indigenous.

...

While Iran has denied having any program to develop nuclear weapons, the IAEA has collected evidence to the contrary. The most recent report was issued 10 November 2003.

Source for above report: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2003/iaea-iran_report-11nov2003.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke2004.htm

In January 2004 Tehran acknowledged that it was continuing to assemble additional centrifuges. This appeared to violated the the 31 October 2003 agreement -- brokered by France, Britain and Germany -- to suspend uranium enrichment activities.

On 12 February 2004 the International Atomic Energy Agency found designs for the advanced P2 centrifuge that should have been, but were not, mentioned in Iran's October 2003 declaration of its atomic program. Pakistan had supplied Libya with the same type of plans for a gas centrifuge but also with a weapon design. It was unclear whether or not the Pakistanis had also supplied Iran with a nuclear weapon warhead design.

...

On 09 March 2004 Alireza Jafarzadeh, who disclosed in August 2002 Iran's facilities at Natanz and Arak, said Iranian leaders decided at a recent meeting to seek an atom bomb "at all costs" and begin enriching uranium at secret plants. "They set a timetable to get a bomb by the end of 2005 at the latest," the former spokesman for the National Council of Resistance of Iran said. "They will heavily rely on smaller secret enrichment sites at Karaj, Esfahan and at other places."

And here's the most recent discosure by Jafarzadeh:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2006/31jan06_jafarzadeh.htm

The Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Involved in the Construction of a Secret Tunnel

According to my sources inside the Iranian regime, sources that have been proven accurate in the past, Iran is constructing a top-secret tunnel as part of its nuclear weapons program.

The secret tunnel carries the codename “Hormuz Tunnel.” It is intended to further the regime’s nuclear weapons research and development. The tunnel is located in the vicinity of the Mini-City (Shahrak-e Bazi), northeast Tehran.

The location of this tunnel is next to Tehran-Lashkarak Highway in the vicinity of Mini-City sited in the northeastern part of Tehran. This tunnel is to be found in the northern part of Mini-City, in the mountain slopes. It is situated so that it faces the mountain on one side, and from the other, it is positioned at the far end of a residential area. This location is close to a residential area so that it might blend in with a community. That is, it would not appear to be a suspect nuclear site in such a place. This location might deceive inspectors who would not imagine a sensitive nuclear site to be located near a neighborhood.

The design for this tunnel was completed in 2004. Its construction began in March 2005. The construction company in charge of building this tunnel is Hara Company. Hara is an engineering firm associated with Khatam Al Anbia, which is the main engineering headquarters for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).
...

All the UN, IAEA and other related reports can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/links.htm

 

[Anttech]

Lets not get into a semantical discussion. "If I were you" is a figure of speech, typically meaning if *I* (me, not you) were living in the same situation as you.

If *I* was living in Israel I wouldn't be worried about a nuclear attack by Iran, I would be worried about a whole lot of other things, but not that!

 

[Yonoz]

If Iran hates Jews, then why is the biggest Jewish community outside of Israel in the ME live in Iran (~25,000)? If you believe they want to commit genocide on Jews in Israel by wiping them out with a Nuc, why not start by killing all the Jews in Iran? The current Iranian Administration is opposed to Zionism, (not Judaism) and the perceived unfair treatment of Muslims living in Palistein. Need I remind you not so long ago, Iran and Israel had a great relationship up till 1979.

The Iranian leadership does not hate Jews as long as they live under Muslim rule.
Let us drop the absurd pretence Iran is developing nuclear weapons to support the Palestinians. As I previously stated, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre" .

 

[Yonoz]

Lets not get into a semantical discussion. "If I were you" is a figure of speech, typically meaning if *I* (me, not you) were living in the same situation as you.

If *I* was living in Israel I wouldn't be worried about a nuclear attack by Iran, I would be worried about a whole lot of other things, but not that!

I am firm in my belief that if you were living in the same situation as I, you would be very worried about Iran developing nuclear weapons.

 

[Anttech]

The Iranian leadership does not hate Jews as long as they live under Muslim rule.
Let us drop the absurd pretence Iran is developing nuclear weapons to support the Palestinians. As I previously stated, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre" .

I never stated that Iran wants Nuc's to help Palestinians. It wants nucs so it can sit at the 'big boys table' in global politics. It wants them for self-preservation, and self-growth.

Iran is against Zionism because it agrees with UN Resolution 3379, it is not against Judaism.

 

[Yonoz]

I never stated that Iran wants Nuc's to help Palestinians. It wants nucs so it can sit at the 'big boys table' in global politics. It wants them for self-preservation, and self-growth.

Even so, is this a power you would trust with a nuclear weapon? Will your belief remain so firm for the next 5, 10, 20 years? Is this a way to make it to the 'big boys table'? Should this behaviour be rewarded? Is this the kind of nation you wish sat at the 'big boys table', backed by a nuclear arsenal?

Iran is against Zionism because it agrees with UN Resolution 3379, it is not against Judaism.

You mean the one that was revoked by resolution 4686?
Whadaya know, the UN is an everything-but-impartial tool
EDIT: Since you mentioned it anyway, allow me to quote the glorious response by a man I admire, Haim Herzog:

In his address to the United Nations General Assembly the same day, 10. November 1975, Israeli Ambassador Chaim Herzog stated:

"I can point with pride to the Arab ministers who have served in my government; to the Arab deputy speaker of my Parliament; to Arab officers and men serving of their own volition in our border and police defense forces, frequently commanding Jewish troops; to the hundreds of thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East crowding the cities of Israel every year; to the thousands of Arabs from all over the Middle East coming for medical treatment to Israel; to the peaceful coexistence which has developed; to the fact that Arabic is an official language in Israel on a par with Hebrew; to the fact that it is as natural for an Arab to serve in public office in Israel as it is incongruous to think of a Jew serving in any public office in an Arab country, indeed being admitted to many of them. Is that racism? It is not! That... is Zionism."

In his response he also said that the resolution was:

"another manifestation of the bitter anti-Semitic, anti-Jewish hatred which animates Arab society. Who would have believed that in this year, 1975, the malicious falsehoods of the 'Elders of Zion' would be distributed officially by Arab governments? Who would have believed that we would today contemplate an Arab society which teaches the vilest anti-Jewish hate in the kindergartens?... We are being attacked by a society which is motivated by the most extreme form of racism known in the world today... expressed so succinctly in the words of the leader of the PLO, Yassir Arafat, in his opening address at a symposium in Tripoli, Libya: "There will be no presence in the region other than the Arab presence..."

Herzog ended his statement with the words:

"For us, the Jewish people, this resolution based on hatred, falsehood and arrogance, is devoid of any moral or legal value. For us, the Jewish people, this is no more than a piece of paper and we shall treat it as such."

As he concluded his speech, Herzog tore the document in half.

Here's the video: http://www.herzog.org.il/video/un_speeches.wmv". Note the other bits of the speech:

You yourselves bear the responsibility for your stand before history, for as such will you be viewed in our history. We, the Jewish people, will not forget.
...
For us, the Jewish people, this is but a passing episode in a rich and event-filled history. We put our trust in our Providence, in our faith and beliefs, in our time-hallowed tradition, in our striving for social advance and human values, and in our people wherever they may be.

You see, the UN is only really good at kicking an opponent while they're already down.

 

[kyleb]

Certainly.

Ahh, so you did make the leap from 'centrifuges which can be used in the production of weapons' to 'those centrifuges prove Iran is developing nuclear missiles' without any evidence to do so. Thank you for clearing that up.

No, you do not. I was not addressing that question at all.

I'm still getting the impression that you don't know of any evidence of Iran pursuing any weapons-only nuclear technology though. At least that is what I gather from all of what you sited, the first being highly speculative with qualifications like "is believed to be" along with "Iran appears" and such. Skimming the rest the only hard evidence I found in your quotes was use of uranium hexafluoride, which is claimed as "a clear breach of the NPT" but after reading that report it seems the lack of disclosure was the only breach there, and that is under corrective action. Besides, use of uranium hexafluoride isn't nesscarily evidence of nuclear weapons development either.

 

[Anttech]

Even so, is this a power you would trust with a nuclear weapon? Will your belief remain so firm for the next 5, 10, 20 years? Is this a way to make it to the 'big boys table'? Should this behaviour be rewarded? Is this the kind of nation you wish sat at the 'big boys table', backed by a nuclear arsenal?

Its the only way, let's face it. You either yield to the almighty power of the security council who is controlled more or less by the US, or you do your own thing. Just like India and pakistain. Its not a matter of rewarding (Anyway stop being so hypocritical!) its a matter of having the cards to play global politics..

 

[Lisa!]

OMG! It seems to me that you people are talking about people from another planet. God bless me since I guess it takes so long time for me to comment on posts of thread.





Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way. Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against. See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it. But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war. So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries. don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!

You just keep quiet when your goverments pass laws for using nuclear weapons against un-nuclear states. So what you're afarid of is tasting alittle of what you force others to taste.
I'm sure that no crazy person in the world is going to use nuks against a country with nuks!
Note that I don't want Iran to get nuks but sometimes it seems to me that western countries are going to force Iran to have them.

"Iran already is equipped with the Shahab-3 missile, which means "shooting star" in Farsi, and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. An upgraded version of the ballistic missile has a range of more than 1,200 miles and can reach Israel and U.S. forces in the Middle East."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4144563.html

Hmmm.. as far as I know enemies are always try to underestimate their hostile, but US is always overrate Iran's capabilities. Doesn't that tell you anything?

 

[Anttech]

Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way. Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against. See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it. But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war. So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries. don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!

That is one great post, and you have articulated what I was trying to get other people here to articulate. The sheer hypocracy of it all! Historically and actualised facts would point an 'alien' who came to this planet who was completely non-biased to have a rather different view on who he/she thought were the big bad bullys on the block and who werent.

 

[Astronuc]

Perhaps not directly, but if you look at your post within the context of this thread, you could conclude that this is what you thought Iran was going to do..

Anyway THAT is why I wanted to know your stance, so we could clear that up.

If one looks at post #75 and #80, I do not even mention Iran. I did not conclude that I thought Iran was planning to do this.

Iran could also deliver nukes using hot air balloons, or on the back of trained eagles (very small ones), or perhaps using a the regular post. All of which are possible, but unlikely!

Hot air balloons and regular mail are possible, but as one mentioned highly improbable or unlikely. An eagle cannot lift a nuclear device as the smallest possible one (one that could be detonated) is too heavy, so that option is impossible.

I appreciate Lisa!'s input. It must be difficult to read this material, where so many are talking about one's country and the 'speculation' of war.

For the record, I do care very much about about the people of Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, US and everywhere else in the world. I don't think anyone should make war. Unfortunately, not everyone shares that belief.

Certainly the Iranian government woulf probably feel compelled to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, even if for purposes of deterrence, because of the hostile rhetoric and threats from the Bush administration, and the fact that the US invaded a neighboring country.

Make Peace, not War!

 

[Astronuc]

We could lock GW Bush and Ahmadinejad in the same room and through away the key.

 

[Yonoz]

Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war? Well sure you do want to think that way.

If they feel they have something to gain by it, such as in the case their rule will end, yeah I'm pretty sure they will use nuclear weapons. But they don't have to. They can indeed supply a terrorist group with a small nuclear device. They could use a nuclear arsenal as leverage to support their exported terrorism. Suppose Iran had nuclear weapons during this latest conflict and threatened to use them if Israel keeps what it calls self defence. I'm sorry, but that's not the middle east I think you and I should live in.

Sorry but The majotiry of posts in this thread reminds me of people who're howling in fear and just are going to use any irrational excuse to accuse the imaginary enemy they're frightened of in order to take the actions against.

Noone's taken any new action against Iran so far, and I hope it will not amount to that.

See people your comments seem so inconsistent. Your governments use any kind of weapons against other countries who don't have that sort of capability and it seems to me that you're fine with it.

So do other Arab governments but Iran never seemed to have a problem with that. Let's talk about chemical weapons use. Let's talk about suicide bombings. Let's talk about "wiping Israel off the map", as Ahmedinejad put it.

But now you talk about Iran as a threat to world peace since they might get weapons 1 day and start a war.

No, Iran has quite an impressive military as it is, it comes standard since Iran's such a big oil producer (with a penchant for Uranium enrichment). My problem is with nuclear weapons - which, when used, create a tragedy for generations. Suppose the tensions are high between the two countries and both militaries are at high alert. This increases the chances of mistakes happening. Now, considering the middle east's nature of being such a tense spot, do you think, as an ordinary person, that it is wise for Iran to pursue nuclear capability?

So the main problem you have here is that you do not want your life to be threatenedbut you do not care about other humans living in other countries.

That is not true. Honestly, I care for my life more than I care for other people's lives, and to different degrees I also care for every member of our race. I feel for the Chechens, I feel for the Tibetans, I feel for the Africans in Darfur, I even feel for the Palestinians. That has nothing to do with my view of which is innocent or responsible in different degrees for the suffering. Tragedies are tragedies are tragedies and we must always work to end them.
Nations need to respect other nations. The Arab world has not respected Israel, and the Iranian leadership is continuing the facade of Arab struggle against the "Zionist threat" impersonated by the 151st largest nation in the world - that's right, 4 places higher than Fiji (Iran's 18th)! Whose worst crimes are miniscule in comparison with those perpetrated even today by Muslims and/or upon Muslims - see Darfur, see el-Hama, see the Kurds and the Ethiopians and the Palestinians themselves, back in Black September and Sabra and Shatila - that's right, the murderers are still living among the Lebanese today. The Iranian justice system regularly carries out punishments that few in Israel would even dream of inflicting upon any living thing. I care for those victims too.

don't try hard to make us believe that you're worried about the future of the world and humanity. iN FACT YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWNLIFE AND AMAZING THING IS THAT YOU DO NOT EVEN APPRECIATE THE SAME CONCERN THAT MIGHT PEOPLE FROM OTHERCOUNTRIES MIGHT HAVE!

Oh I appreciate. I even understand it. I don't think any less of you for thinking what you do because I'm aware that we have differences. I only ask that this will become a mutual respect. Iran needs to recognise Israel's right to exist. Iran has the right to its own foreign policy, energy initiatives and even weapons programs - no one is arguing against any of those. But it must realize that the world cannot allow it to possesses nuclear weapons technology because of its own interests. Respect us and we'll respect you. Everyone is playing this game - the Russians, the Chinese, the Americans, the French - everyone is a dirty player - even Iran, and guess what - Israel too. If Iran wants in on the big stakes it needs to bridge some gaps with the west, developing nuclear weapons is not the way to go. Look at Egypt. Look at Lybia. Look at Turkey and Jordan. They're all prosperous nations. Turkey's a good example of a secular Muslim state (and they too have a dark history). Were you alive before the revolt? My dad lived in Tehran when he was growing up. He loved every minute of it, he told what a great people the Persians are. I hope the Persian people make Iran the modern wonder it once was.

You just keep quiet when your goverments pass laws for using nuclear weapons against un-nuclear states. So what you're afarid of is tasting alittle of what you force others to taste.

Israel never fired a nuclear weapon. I'm just as afraid it will fire one by accident as I am afraid of Iran firing one on purpose.

I'm sure that no crazy person in the world is going to use nuks against a country with nuks!
Note that I don't want Iran to get nuks but sometimes it seems to me that western countries are going to force Iran to have them.

Why does it seem that way to you?

 

[Hurkyl]

Historically and actualised facts would point an 'alien' who came to this planet

Funny how the alien always agrees with the person who decides to bring it up.

Do you think they're crazy enough to start aa nuclear war?

I don't know. Are you absolutely, positively convinced that they won't? If so, then please share; it would be nice to have a good reason not to consider it.

For the record, I don't have much faith in sanity being an adequate preventative measure. Nor am I arrogant enough to think that any sane person must share my values. More explicitly: it's certainly possible that a sane person with a different belief system would find starting nuclear war a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Keep in mind the philosophy that "mutually assured destruction" is the main thing preventing nuclear war -- but do you think that the West will actually destroy Iran if it launches a nuke? More importantly, do you think Iran thinks the West will destroy it if it launches a nuke?


Anyways the point is, wishful thinking should not be the primary motivating force behind our policies. As much as is feasible, all possible courses of action should be considered, and the cost and likelyhood of all possible outcomes should be evaluated.

Alas, that probably won't happen, what with the tendancies of people on all sides of the issue to try and reduce it to an emotional appeal. But I'm still naïve enough to think it's something to be strived for.