Bet on the day Iran sites will get bombed.

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

And I think I kinda raised the question of who, these days, is considered "responsible". I also brought up the fact that the US (along with other nations) has pledged, under binding international agreement, to get rid of it's nuclear weapons.

Link to this agreement for complete disarmament of nuclear weapons of which the US is a signatory?

sovtek wrote:

OH and I forgot to mention that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program.

You don't know that. The IAEA doesn't know that. Infact, the IAEA suspects the opposite could very well be true. Hence the agreement to bring the issue to the security council, which isn't done lightly.

I don't know one way or another whether Iran has an active nuclear weapons program. I do know that the offer of Russia enriching the uranium for Iran in Russian reactors has been repeatedly turned down (which would guarentee it wasn't a facade for a weapons program). I know that Iran is an incredibly oil-rich nation.. and yet it's claiming that nuclear power is necessary for it's development (since it's obviously so scarce of other energy resources..). I also know that Iran is a very geologically active region, and I seriously doubt nuclear reactors of any sort agree too well with being split open from powerful earthquakes.

But granted, that's just me basing my opinions on what I've seen and heard as a complete outsider. I may very well have completely the wrong picture. The thing is, the people who do have the best idea of what's actually going on in Iran are seriously concerned. That makes me concerned too.

Cantab.

I say bomb the hell out of Iran.

The country has gone mad. It's a country where 14 year old girls are stoned to death for being raped.

I believe the Iranian situation could very well fall under just war doctrine:

- there's a just cause (risk of the world being blown up by nukes)
- competent authority (USA/Europe alliance)
- comparative justice (citizens of Iran released from tyranny, nuclear threat removed, nice oil supply to rebuild the country, creation of a stable western region in middle east)
- last resort (assuming Iran ignore UN threats)
- probability of success (high!)
- proportionality (I believe any mad nation who threatens the world with nukes deserves invasion and disarmment)

Jimboo_Jones

The above statement makes no sense, they killed a 14 year old kid so we will blow up 1000's of kids o_0

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

Link to this agreement for complete disarmament of nuclear weapons of which the US is a signatory?

http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/

Hobbes

Cantab. wrote:

- there's a just cause (risk of the world being blown up by nukes)

I think you have more chances of the US using nukes on you then a country that doesn't have nukes.

competent authority (USA/Europe alliance)

Which means what exactly? EU want sanctions if anything. Your also forgetting China+Russia who don't want any kind of invasion.

- comparative justice (citizens of Iran released from tyranny, nuclear threat removed, nice oil supply to rebuild the country, creation of a stable western region in middle east)

Have you even read up on the county? It is pretty stable now. There are basically three parts to Iran, a large chunk of it are on par with Western countries.

Bombing people, causing possible nuclear fallout as a means to free people? It would only put those on the fence into the fanatics in the country.

- last resort (assuming Iran ignore UN threats)

So sanctions would be out then?

- probability of success (high!)

What nigglet of information do you base this one on?

- proportionality (I believe any mad nation who threatens the world with nukes deserves invasion and disarmment)

As mentioned the US is the only country in the world to have used Nukes on another country. It is the only modern day country to actually authorise (or at least try to last I looked) the use of Nukes during conventional battles.

sovtek

Moriarty wrote:

Link to this agreement for complete disarmament of nuclear weapons of which the US is a signatory?

You don't know that. The IAEA doesn't know that. Infact, the IAEA suspects the opposite could very well be true. Hence the agreement to bring the issue to the security council, which isn't done lightly.

Ok fair enough...I don't know that...I should have said there is no evidence...and it didn't seem a concern until bushies started bitching (and we know that they had planes for Iran long before). That very fact is more than likely what brought about iran's defiant actions that are giving El Beradia some concerns. Still he says that there is no evidence but would like more cooperation from them...which he had until very recently.

I know that Iran is an incredibly oil-rich nation.. and yet it's claiming that nuclear power is necessary for it's development (since it's obviously so scarce of other energy resources..).

And they probably know...like everyone else that the oil will run out. Would it not make sense to develop for the future so as to have the technology for just such an event.
What other sources of power are the EU and US exploring at the moment for alternatives? Are they also not trying to get nuclear back on the table?

I also know that Iran is a very geologically active region, and I seriously doubt nuclear reactors of any sort agree too well with being split open from powerful earthquakes.

/me wonders how many nuclear reactors are in Japan...

The thing is, the people who do have the best idea of what's actually going on in Iran are seriously concerned. That makes me concerned too.

Like Hans Blix concern over Iraq trumped up by Bush? Is this not a familiar pattern?
Would you not also be concerned about Bush having access to the button for the largest stockpile of nukes in the world?
Can you not agree this is nuclear hypocracy of the highest order?

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

It is the only modern day country to actually authorise (or at least try to last I looked) the use of Nukes during conventional battles.

That makes absolutely no sense. Once nukes are involved, by definition it is no longer a conventional battle.

NTM

Captain Trips

Cantab. wrote:

I say bomb the hell out of Iran.

The country has gone mad. It's a country where 14 year old girls are stoned to death for being raped.

I believe the Iranian situation could very well fall under just war doctrine:

- there's a just cause (risk of the world being blown up by nukes)
- competent authority (USA/Europe alliance)
- comparative justice (citizens of Iran released from tyranny, nuclear threat removed, nice oil supply to rebuild the country, creation of a stable western region in middle east)
- last resort (assuming Iran ignore UN threats)
- probability of success (high!)
- proportionality (I believe any mad nation who threatens the world with nukes deserves invasion and disarmment)

Is that you Paul Bremer?

Moriarty

sovtek wrote:

Ok fair enough...I don't know that...I should have said there is no evidence...and it didn't seem a concern until bushies started bitching (and we know that they had planes for Iran long before).

You're using false causality. Things changed for a number of reasons, including the election of a seriously conservative and seemingly authoritarian president replacing a fairly moderate reformist and the on-going problems in Iraq. Circumstances have significantly changed in the region in general and Iran in particular in the past year or so.

sovtek wrote:

That very fact is more than likely what brought about iran's defiant actions that are giving El Beradia some concerns. Still he says that there is no evidence but would like more cooperation from them...which he had until very recently.

You don't think it had anything to do with the reasons I've mentioned above?

sovtek wrote:

And they probably know...like everyone else that the oil will run out. Would it not make sense to develop for the future so as to have the technology for just such an event.
What other sources of power are the EU and US exploring at the moment for alternatives? Are they also not trying to get nuclear back on the table?

Perhaps that is all that Iran is intrested in. I'm open to that possibility. Then again, they've repeatedly failed to show to the IAEA that their nuclear program is entirely innocent. Iran are continuing to jocky for positions which would allow it to covertly develop a nuclear weapons program (if it was so inclined) aswell, instead of opting for solutions which would show that they were entirely intrested in only civilian nuclear power generation.

sovtek wrote:

Like Hans Blix concern over Iraq trumped up by Bush? Is this not a familiar pattern?

Have you not being paying attention to what the IAEA itself has been saying on the matter, instead of assuming it's only the evil US of A that is in any way intrested?

sovtek wrote:

Would you not also be concerned about Bush having access to the button for the largest stockpile of nukes in the world?
Can you not agree this is nuclear hypocracy of the highest order?

I'm not in the least bit concerned for a whole raft of reasons - reasons which are glaringly absent when you transpose the same question onto Iran.

Manic Moran

Don't the Russians have the largest stockpile of nukes in the world?

My info might be outdated, I admit, but I'm fairly sure they were allocated more in the last round of cutbacks.

NTM

Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote:

Don't the Russians have the largest stockpile of nukes in the world?

My info might be outdated, I admit, but I'm fairly sure they were allocated more in the last round of cutbacks.

NTM

Apparently so.

Russia has 5,833 operational and 16,000 stockpiled (21,833) warheads, compared to the US's 5,735 operational and 9,962 stockpiled (15,697) warheads.

All pretty academic granted, but intresting to know

Hobbes

Manic Moran wrote:

That makes absolutely no sense. Once nukes are involved, by definition it is no longer a conventional battle.

NTM

Yes I would agree with you. US administration appears to think otherwise though and agreed the option of using nukes on the conventional battlefield.

Victor

Hobbes wrote:

Remember the initial Iraq war a large number of Middle East countries agreed that they would not get involved on the condition that Israel did not help the US.

Which initial Iraq war?

Iraq - Iran
The Tanker War (Iraq & Iran - The World)
Iraq - Kuwait
Iraq - The World
Iraq - US/UK (and don't forget Poland! )
The Insurgency

I'm sure thare are likely to be a few more.

homah_7ft

Some of the previous posts seem to be suggesting that the intentions of the Iranian Nuclear program is purely for energy generation. I would argue that they are threatening to build a bomb for political ends. Perhaps they don't intend to complete it but their program by it's very nature is threatening it.

If it is for pure energy generation then why are they building a production facility for Uranium Oxide at Isfahan?

Victor

Earthman wrote:

They are probably afraid [again] as to who might get their hands on the weaponry-theres quite a few guys across the border who might be able to sweet talk themselves into possession of it.

Across which border? Pakistan has nukes, Iran hate the Taliban, Turkey has de-nuked voluntarily and the Shia have control of Iraq. That leaves Amernia and Azerbijan.

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I dont know - I think most arab countries would be looking at the third muslim country to be attacked by Bush and wondering just how long it would be before their country was next....

Interesting the way you use "arab countries .... third muslim country"

Why risk troops when a few cruse missles would do the job.

By "few" you mean 1,000+. I wonder what current cruise missile stocks are like.

sovtek wrote:

"Our fathers had reached the frontiers recognized in the partition plan; the Six-Day War generation has managed to reach Suez, Jordan, and the Golan Heights. This is not the end. After the present cease-fire lines, there will be new ones. They will extend beyond Jordan ... to Lebanon and ... to central Syria as well." -- Moshe Dayan to Zionist youth at a meeting in the Golan Heights July, 1968

The Israeli concept of Defensive Depth was created in the era of tank warfare. This was rendered obolete by ballistic missiles. Their new concept of defensive depth is centred on defeating these.

Manic Moran wrote:

Whilst I'm sure the US would have a preference for a JDAM or Tomahawk strike, the possibility remains that some of the facilities may simply be so far underground that the only way to be sure is by the use of boots on the ground.

...or you could nuke them :eek:

Manic Moran

Hobbes wrote:

Yes I would agree with you. US administration appears to think otherwise though and agreed the option of using nukes on the conventional battlefield.

Apart from that one report a few months ago that stated that the US was drawing up plans to invade Iran with the use of nukes, which is somewhat suspect, where else has such a policy ever been advocated? (With the exception of retaliation against chem/bio warfare: As the US has withdrawn its Chem/Bio stocks from service, the only deterrant available is nuclear warheads; and the WWIII situation of the Red Hordes, which would probably have gone nuclear by all participants very quickly)

NTM

Freelancer

Moriarty wrote:

Apparently so.

Russia has 5,833 operational and 16,000 stockpiled (21,833) warheads, compared to the US's 5,735 operational and 9,962 stockpiled (15,697) warheads.

All pretty academic granted, but intresting to know

Interesting, I notice the figures don't mention former soviet countries, what's it's definition of Russia? What countries does it include in its umbrella?

I had a map from one of those piece works, on my bedroom wall in the 80s detailing troop and missile strength of Nato and Warsaw pact countries. (look, once a nerd, etc....) Russia's strength in troops and nuclear power was never in doubt. I'm just curious to know how much of that arsenal is under the direct control of Putin.

Manic Moran

Freelancer wrote:

I'm just curious to know how much of that arsenal is under the direct control of Putin.

In terms of nukes, all of it. Supposedly, at any rate. (Rumours of one or two former Soviet warheads ending up in Iran are given moderate credence)

When the breakup occurred, by and large whatever was in your country at the time the USSR broke up was yours to keep. Hence the fight over the Black Sea Fleet, which technically would have come under Ukrainian control, but the Russians didn't want to part with such a massive capability.

Within a few years, there was a bit of horse-trading, (We'll give you back a dozen Tu-160 Blackjack bombers in exchange for writing off some of our energy debts sort of thing) with the result that the vast majority of strategic forces, to include all the nuclear weapons, were returned to Russia.

NTM

Manic Moran

I note on the BBC Website tha Chirac has said that France is willing to use nukes in order to retaliate against any terrorist attack. Since the main two state sponsors of terrorism seem to be Iran and Syria, I wonder...

NTM

Jimboo_Jones

Victor wrote:

Interesting the way you use "arab countries .... third muslim country"

yeah, half way through writing the sentence I began to wonder if Afghanistan is an Arab country, so I changed it to Muslim.

Victor wrote:

By "few" you mean 1,000+. I wonder what current cruise missile stocks are like.

I would have thought it would have been around the 100 or so mark. I certainly dont remember Isreal having to throw 100's bombs to blow up Iraq's nuclear site.

Victor

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

I would have thought it would have been around the 100 or so mark. I certainly dont remember Isreal having to throw 100's bombs to blow up Iraq's nuclear site.

Iraq 1981 - not prepared
Iran 2006 - forewarned and prepared

Iraq 1981 - one critical site
Iran 2006 - multiple critical sites

Iraq 1981 - overground facility built to normal standards
Iran 2006 - multiple hardened underground facilities

Pa ElGrande

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse
http://www.countercurrents.org/us-petrov200106.htm