Iran's Nuclear Program

HelterSkelter

Just wondering what you all think of Iran's announcement yesterday that it has produced low-grade enriched uranium suitable for power stations. Do you think they should be allowed to do this? Other countries are arguing that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons.

I think every country should be allowed product nuclear energy. I can't decide though if Iran are really a threat or if it is just scaremongering by the US/UK.

meditraitor

Its not that they pose a threat, its the fact they can protect themselves that is so annoying the bully's (USA and Isreal)

growler

I think Iran is a basket-case of a nation, if they do get nukes they will be a threat to Israel certainly. If they have it for long enough they might get around to buying the expertise for ICBMs and I doubt anyone wants that, whats to stop the theocracy deciding that they want to enter paradise in a mushroom cloud of glory and take the rest of us with them ?

Besides, they don't actually need nuclear power for energy purposes, they have vast oil and gas resources.

Also, a point made in the Observer ( I think) was that Iran has an appalling record on safety in general, tens of thousands die on their roads each year, hundreds in plane crashes, if they develop nuclear power there is an excellent chance they'll botch it.

mike65

Do some googling before sounding off eh?

Its not just a 'west/Jewish state' concern all of Irans neighbours are slightly freaked by this programme being pursued.

Second something will be done its just a question of what and when as growler notes the rulers are a bunch of religious head cases, God only knows the impact if thay had such power in missile form in 1979, Isreal would have proberly struck first of course but if it did'nt it would still be glowing.

Mike.

Akrasia

Iran shouldn't be allowed to have Nukes, But neither should America. Of all countries in the world, America should not be allowed have them. America are the only country to use Nuclear weapons in a war, Bush pretty much has announced that he wants to Use his nukes in a strike on Iran. It is America who are preventing global nuclear disarmament and who are developing new nuclear technology that is designed to lower the nuclear threshold. it is america who are threatening all these dangerous countries with 'regime change' which is forcing them to seek out a deterrent to attack. America are the biggest threat to world peace by a ****in long shot. And the current republican government is certifiably psychopathic.

meditraitor

What has googling got to do with it, your one of these guys brainwashed by western media/zionist propoganda that hates the fact that a muslim country within the middle east will have a nuclear program therefore balancing and negating the threat Isreal/America are in said reason,

I heard all this propoganda before, mmmm let me think, pakistan(Muslim) for instance,,,, I dont see them blowing up anyone!

When was the last time Iran invaded a country or showed aggression!

mike65

Isreal don't pose a threat to Iran so I dont follow your logic there. Iran on the other hand has frequently said Isreal should even be allowed to exist.

Mike.

silverharp

I don't think Iran would use Nuclear weapons, but look how the US deals with North Korea V Iraq ...do the math. Now that the US has taken out Iraq, Iran now sees itself as the regional power, what better way to copper fasten this goal

Should they be "let"? I think the question is can they be stopped? I don't think so, all Iran have to do is drop it's exports from 2.5 to 1mbd, double the price of oil, they still get the money and the west economies go down the pan, and that is without being provocotive and attacking shipping in the Gulf.

mike65

Well our collective reliance on black gold does hold us all hostage in the end.

Mike.

toiletduck

Akrasia wrote:

Bush pretty much has announced that he wants to Use his nukes in a strike on Iran.

no he hasn't. israel will never let iran develop a nuclear capability

meditraitor

mike65 wrote:

Isreal don't pose a threat to Iran so I dont follow your logic there. Iran on the other hand has frequently said Isreal should even be allowed to exist.

Mike.

All the current strife in the middle east can be attributed to either Isreal or USA, so you can understand why a proud and progressive(their radicalism was loosing steam until Zionist/american interests decided to pick on them) nation would want a way to protect itself, the only way it seems against these tyrants

Pazaz 21

mike65 wrote:

Isreal don't pose a threat to Iran so I dont follow your logic there. Iran on the other hand has frequently said Isreal should even be allowed to exist.

Mike.

I don't think Iran sees it that way. Israel have been known to strike first, Sinai Campaign, Six Day War, the attak on the nuclear reactor in iraq in early eighties, etc, and i'm sure if they felt under threat that they would have no problem in striking first in this situation, with either Nuclear or Conventional weapons.

I agree that Iran is the agressor in this situation as it has on many occasions called for Isreal to be wiped off the man. That plus we are not sure what the Iranians will do if/when they aquire a Nuclear Weapon, will they use it or will they just use it as a deterent to any further invasion the US may be considering.

It's kinda ironic that the thing the Iranians are doing to deter an invasion may just give America the reason it needs to justify invading Iran.

meditraitor

Pazaz 21 wrote:

It's kinda ironic that the thing the Iranians are doing to deter an invasion may just give America the reason it needs to justify invading Iran.

America never needed proper justification for invading other countries before, why would they now?

mike65

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

Pazaz 21

meditraitor wrote:

America never needed proper justification for invading other countries before, why would they now?

Sorry that should say "EXCUSE" not reason, or perhaps "JUSTIFICATION" would work just as well. I know America dosen't need one but it tends to try to find something to hide behind, WMD, Freeing the Iraqi people, etc.

Pazaz 21

mike65 wrote:

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

That's never stopped them before, now has it?

They didn't have much support for Iraq, but that went ahead anyway.

They didn't have much support for Vietnam, but that went ahead anyway, as well !!

meditraitor

mike65 wrote:

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

Exactly, USA Inc will not invade Iran, its not economically viable at the moment and the amount of casualties that would result from such an action might force a change in the boardroom, and bush(and his puppetmasters) likes the power of the MD seat...

Akrasia

toiletduck wrote:

no he hasn't. israel will never let iran develop a nuclear capability

well, he hasn't announced it, it has been announced for him. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

And just like in Iraq, the 'WMD' thing is just a precept for the war, Bush really wants 'regime change' in Iran.

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.” ........................

............ Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.

Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added:

I don’t think a U.S. military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We’d want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The U.S. will have to use Special Operations units.

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

HelterSkelter

silverharp wrote:

I don't think Iran would use Nuclear weapons, but look how the US deals with North Korea V Iraq ...do the math. Now that the US has taken out Iraq, Iran now sees itself as the regional power, what better way to copper fasten this goal

Maybe they have just decided to protect themselves in case US/UK decide they are next in the war on terror/we're gonna steal your oil.

HelterSkelter

mike65 wrote:

Pffft! Forget invasion they hav'nt got the manpower/tanks/guns/money or support from within the US to do that.

Mike.

There is talk of them pulling out of Iraq by the end of the year. As all their manpower/tanks/guns is already in the region they might very well just move it over the border into Iran.

HelterSkelter

Akrasia wrote:

well, he hasn't announced it, it has been announced for him. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

And just like in Iraq, the 'WMD' thing is just a precept for the war, Bush really wants 'regime change' in Iran.

Ha ha ha, the name of that editorial is "fact"!!

Hobbes

I get IEEE magazine monthly. Latest one there is a huge article on how Brazil of all places started producing weapons grade nuclear material earlier this year. Funny how they don't get slapped for it.

growler

Hobbes wrote:

I get IEEE magazine monthly. Latest one there is a huge article on how Brazil of all places started producing weapons grade nuclear material earlier this year. Funny how they don't get slapped for it.

I suppose no one is too worried about Brazil becoming an Islamic theocracy, Brazil may well need nuclear power given the paucity of its fossil fuel reserves and a growing economy, the Brazilian government isn't renowned for its sabre rattling militarism or hatred of the US / UK and the chances are it (guessing here) its buying its knowledge from the West not Russia.

the_syco

meditraitor wrote:

I heard all this propoganda before, mmmm let me think, pakistan(Muslim) for instance,,,, I dont see them blowing up anyone!

Both India and Pakistan are nuclear powers, both have fought against each other... and if one launchs a nuke on the other, there'll be a nuke coming back.

jady88

To be brutally honest I find some of the postings in this thread to be so outrageous its actually hard to believe someone would ever think along such lines.

Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems. You stink of racist undertones dressed up as concern for palestinain problems etc.

Secondly the reality, and I mean reality not zionist/american propaganda is that Iran is the most tyrannic regieme on the face of the planet. It is ruled by an exclusive club of religious elite who use their own twisted vision of Islam to oppress their people. They regularly execute homosexuals, religious deviants, women who seek freedom or anyone else they just don't like. Recently two boys aged 16 and 17 were excecuted for homosexual practises. And a teacher was killed for admitting to her pupils that contraception exsisted. The president regularly calls for the anhilation of the democratic state of Isreal. Women have no rights, not even the right to regect a sexual advance, if she is raped she is to marry her rapist or face excecution.

Now tell me do honestly believe the rulers of such a nation can be trusted with the power to butcher further millions?

HelterSkelter

jady88 wrote:

Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems.

That's probably why he's talking about an Zionist/American media plot, not a European media plot. Do you think the US Media are sympathetic to middle eastern problems?

Akrasia

jady88 wrote:

To be brutally honest I find some of the postings in this thread to be so outrageous its actually hard to believe someone would ever think along such lines.

Firstly to meditraitor what kind of insane freak are you spouting out nonsense about some form of zionist/american media plot? This is frightening, what parallel version of reality do you live in? The huge majority of media in this and most european countries are extremely sympathetic to middle eastern problems. You stink of racist undertones dressed up as concern for palestinain problems etc.

Secondly the reality, and I mean reality not zionist/american propaganda is that Iran is the most tyrannic regieme on the face of the planet. It is ruled by an exclusive club of religious elite who use their own twisted vision of Islam to oppress their people. They regularly execute homosexuals, religious deviants, women who seek freedom or anyone else they just don't like. Recently two boys aged 16 and 17 were excecuted for homosexual practises. And a teacher was killed for admitting to her pupils that contraception exsisted. The president regularly calls for the anhilation of the democratic state of Isreal. Women have no rights, not even the right to regect a sexual advance, if she is raped she is to marry her rapist or face excecution.

Now tell me do honestly believe the rulers of such a nation can be trusted with the power to butcher further millions?

do you believe anyone should have the power to butcher those millions?

If you support an american invasion of Iran to prevent them from getting Nuclear weapons than you're a hypocrite. If you support America Bombing Iran to stop them from developing nuclear weapons then you are a hypocrite.

The only peaceful way to solve this problem, is for America to lead a global Nuclear disarmament. Nobody else can do it, because whenever they have tried, America has refused to take part. If america is not part of a global disarmament, then it will never ever happen.

What america is doing now, is backing Iran into a corner, and if you believe they are doing it for purely altruistic reasons, then you have been living under a rock for the last 6 years.

America have one clear way to act like the good guys. Everything else is just bullying, posturing and is going to end in nothing short of disaster.

Who here thinks they'll even try the peaceful option? show of hands?

Nobody? ok then.

KerranJast

Akrasia wrote:

The only peaceful way to solve this problem, is for America to lead a global Nuclear disarmament. Nobody else can do it, because whenever they have tried, America has refused to take part. If america is not part of a global disarmament, then it will never ever happen.

You are seriously naive if you think that if the US tries to go down that path that Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc would follow.

America have one clear way to act like the good guys. Everything else is just bullying, posturing and is going to end in nothing short of disaster.

Who here thinks they'll even try the peaceful option? show of hands?

They don't have the money or troops to invade Iran so they will try the diplomatic path until there is no other option (Israel will probably intervene militarily anyway before that). There is no support for Iran from the other big nations. Russia and China would probably abstain if there was a UN vote for sanctions or air strikes. Russia has already offered to enrich Uranium for Iran if they really do need Nuclear Power but were refused.

The Iranian govt. are crazy anyway if they think they could ever overtly use nuclear weapons. The US has a second strike policy whereby if they or one of their allies is attacked with Nuclear weapons (or if they detect the launch of said weapons) they will eliminate the aggressor. Until then there would never be enough public support in the US or internationally to use Nuclear Weapons in combat. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extreme circumstances and thankfully there has been no need to repeat those tragedies.

The US aren't worried about Iran developing Nuclear weapons for use in combat. They are extremely worried (and rightly so) about Iran passing dirty bombs or full-blown nukes to terrorist groups which could be smuggled into the US or another allied nation.

Personally i would say north korea is the worst regime in the world.

Akrasia

KerranJast wrote:

You are seriously naive if you think that if the US tries to go down that path that Russia, China, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc would follow.

Why? Everyone knows that they are already outgunned by America, the only reason russia has Nukes at all, is to maintain it's Mutually Assured Destruction deterrent.

Nuclear weapons have become unusable (by pretty much everyone except america and isreal), the only reason to have them now, is to make sure they're not used against you by someone else. Mutual disarmament would be the perfect solution for everybody.
The nuclear deterrent could be replaced by a Global treaty which states that any nation who uses, or allows to be used, a nuclear weapon against any target, military or civilian, anywhere in the world, will be subject to immediate political, economic and/or military sanctions, collectively, by everybody else in the world.
There would have to be a systematic U.N. inspections system to verify that the treaty is being abided by.

They don't have the money or troops to invade Iran so they will try the diplomatic path until there is no other option (Israel will probably intervene militarily anyway before that). There is no support for Iran from the other big nations. Russia and China would probably abstain if there was a UN vote for sanctions or air strikes. Russia has already offered to enrich Uranium for Iran if they really do need Nuclear Power but were refused.

You are assuming that america will act reasonably, and you are also forgetting that Iran, not only do they want nuclear weapons, they want everyone to believe that they can get them as soon as possible. This is because they know that they need a deterrent to prevent attack. The Iranians are not stupid, and they have a really good reason to be paranoid about being attacked. (america keeps threatening them)

The Iranian govt. are crazy anyway if they think they could ever overtly use nuclear weapons. The US has a second strike policy whereby if they or one of their allies is attacked with Nuclear weapons (or if they detect the launch of said weapons) they will eliminate the aggressor.

Yeah they would be, and they're not crazy, they might be assholes, but they're not crazy. They want the Nukes for protection, and if necessary, for retaliation. The way to remove their need for Nukes, is to stop threatening to bomb them with nukes and invade them.

Until then there would never be enough public support in the US or internationally to use Nuclear Weapons in combat. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extreme circumstances and thankfully there has been no need to repeat those tragedies.

There is already a media build up to prepare the population for the prospect of a nuclear attack. distinctions are being made between Hiroshema and Nagasaki as 'real nuclear weapons' and so called 'bunker busters' as 'completely different'. There is also the usual 'it's either them or us' trick that they always use,
I do not underestimate the ability for the U.S. population to be tricked by such a slight of hand, but even if there wasn't public support, the U.S. goverment doesn;t give a **** about what the public think.

The US aren't worried about Iran developing Nuclear weapons for use in combat. They are extremely worried (and rightly so) about Iran passing dirty bombs or full-blown nukes to terrorist groups which could be smuggled into the US or another allied nation.

look, if Iran wanted to plot terrorist attacks against America, why are they waiting until they get a nuclear weapon? Why aren't they shipping tonnes of semtex to america right now?
Iran know if anything happens, the world will make sure that iran becomes a smouldering crater.

Dave!

growler wrote:

I think Iran is a basket-case of a nation, if they do get nukes they will be a threat to Israel certainly. If they have it for long enough they might get around to buying the expertise for ICBMs and I doubt anyone wants that, whats to stop the theocracy deciding that they want to enter paradise in a mushroom cloud of glory and take the rest of us with them ?

Besides, they don't actually need nuclear power for energy purposes, they have vast oil and gas resources.

Also, a point made in the Observer ( I think) was that Iran has an appalling record on safety in general, tens of thousands die on their roads each year, hundreds in plane crashes, if they develop nuclear power there is an excellent chance they'll botch it.

Yeah this post echoes my sentiments!