Iran's Nuclear Program

Frederico

DaveMcG wrote:

Yeah this post echoes my sentiments!

Why do so many people write about something they know nothing about. Civil rights? Zimbabwe and North Korea are much worse than Iran, you could even count China in there with recent events.

Huge oil and gas reserves? Iran IMPORTS 60% of its oil. So much so, that if the Americans can stop this import Iran will run out of oil within 24 days.

India and Pakistan are "friends" of the West. Simple formula, if you are with the West you can have nuclear, if you aren't then you can't unless you get it yourself. Do you see much sabre rattling with N Korea now?

I can't believe people are actually buying the propaganda here, Iran is suddenly the scariest country on earth, while 2 years ago it was perfectly safe.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

nobody wants Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Are you saying there are only two choices? Let them have Nukes, or invade Iran?
That's called a False Dylemma.

Is it going to be like that? You're either with us, or you're a raving islamicist terrorist?

Frederico

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

What exactly do you mean by "take out" the North Koreans in the early nineties? how?

Do you think if the Iranians allow the Russians to enrich their Uranium that the US will leave them alone?

A Dub in Glasgo

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

You believe in getting your strike in first? Does that mean you find it acceptable for other countries to get their strike in first? Like Iran against the US? Like South Korea against the US?

If not, why not?

LostinBlanch

Akrasia wrote:

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.

Nice to see it, but International Relations at the moment are more like Hobbes Leviathan with all countries in what he termed a "State of Nature" i.e. a world ruled by fear, everybody thinking in the short term, the weak fearing the strong, the strong fearing the slightly less strong, and even the weak (they might just gang together you know). Not a nice thought. Actually come to think of it they have been like that for a while, but becoming a lot more blatant with GW and his neocon buddies.

Apres WW2 it looked like there was a change towards a form of Rousseau's Social Contract Model seen in the setting up of the UN. A more enlightened view of how things should work. Far from perfect but much more preferable to the way things are at the moment.

Still I'd like to see it happen

philologos

for all the world know Iran could be creating uranium just for creating nuclear energy but no we all just say that they are gonna make nuclear bombs. and if they do whats the big deal america have a bucket load of them, and I would trust Iranians more than Americans to be honest. And as Amenijad has said America are the bullies of the world basically.

anonymous_joe

I really really really don't want to see the Iranians with nukes... But why should America be entitled to WMDs and no-one else?

the_syco

Akrasia wrote:

The only peaceful way to solve this problem, is for America to lead a global Nuclear disarmament.

So you believe that, without nukes, the USA will be able to say to Iran, North Korea, etc, to get rid of their nukes? Jeebus. North Korea would just be able to say "Bush, f*ck off or I'll nuke you, and as you've no nukes, you won't be able to do diddly".

Akrasia wrote:

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.

If Iran nukes someone, and you impose sanctions, what stops Iran from saying "gimme your food, or we'll nuke you"? Oh, and whats to stop them nuking someone else?
Because the USA has nukes, Iran knows that if Iran nukes someone, the USA will most likely nuke Iran.

Akrasia wrote:

There would have to be a systematic U.N. inspections system to verify that the treaty is being abided by.

Like the one's that were kicked out?

=-=

Not all bunker-busters are nukes.

=-=

Small bit of nuclear material + C4 = large devestation.
Large bit of C4 = small devestation.

Dave!

TOO MANY NUKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



It's dead scary... If one country drops a nuke it'll lead to others doing the same, and the world will be fooked

growler

Frederico wrote:

Huge oil and gas reserves? Iran IMPORTS 60% of its oil. So much so, that if the Americans can stop this import Iran will run out of oil within 24 days.



I can't believe people are actually buying the propaganda here, Iran is suddenly the scariest country on earth, while 2 years ago it was perfectly safe.

Iran exports over 2 million barrels per day, why you think they import their own oil I don't know.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.html


2 years ago it looked like Iran might manage to get out from under the yolk of the religious elite, it didn't, sadly for your average iranian.

pete

growler wrote:

Iran exports over 2 million barrels per day, why you think they import their own oil I don't know.

crude or refined?

growler

crude.

I think they can refine something like 1 million bpd. iirc

pete

Iran’s oil industry has not even entirely recovered from the damage wrought during the Iran-Iraq war to oil installations, electric power plants, bridges, manufacturing plants, and other elements of its infrastructure. Moreover, to realize its full potential revenues from its oil reserves, Iran needs to carry through its stated plans of diversifying through investing in petrochemical and profitable crude oil derivatives. Again, this requires outside investment.

In fact, Iran is a net importer of refined oil products, including gasoline! According to the latest Iranian estimates, gasoline imports are expected to cost the country US$4.5 billion in the current Iranian year (1384), which ends in late March 2006. In the previous year, the figure was US$3 billion. These imports are expected to continue, and consumption of oil products is set to grow by at least five percent per annum.

Iran's total gasoline refining capacity is 40 million liters a day; its gasoline consumption is estimated to exceed 64.5 million liters a day. Thus, sanctions that bar Iran from importing refined oil products might lead the Iranian economy to a halt. This situation will have the potential to undermine the political standing of President Ahmadinejad.

http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives.html

BigWilly

I have a horrible feeling that GW Bush could be remembered as one of the greatest US Presidents ever thanks to what he does to deal with Iran...

growler

pete wrote:

http://www.biu.ac.il/Besa/perspectives.html

interesting, anotheroverrview from BBC here


but to a certain extent , with circa $40 bn in oil revenues annually they still cannot sort out investment in domestic refining capacity to meet their own needs, kinda shows what a dysfunctional state they are.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

patzer117

Ok, i'm horrified by this thread. And i want to post some really angry stuff, but i won't.

First off on North Korea - No Can Do.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oplan-5027.htm

New priorities also focused on countering sudden chemical and biological attacks against Seoul. The South Korean military reportedly estimates that 50 missiles carrying nerve gas could kill up to 38 percent of Seoul's 12 million inhabitants.

That's 4.56 million people dead, by US-ROK estimates. And that's straight off without a war, just first strike retaliation. So yes, there is a deterrent against invading North Korea that existed a long time ago. That document should explain why it hasn't happened.

Now for Iran. President Ahmadinejad has said he wants nuclear power for peaceful means only. Yeah. Who believes him? The UN? The IAEA? Europe? America? Now, do his people believe him? I think nobody does, only foolish raving anti-Americans. Why would he not have accepted the offers from Russia for nuclear power grade uranium? Why is he not allowing inspectors in? Why would he want to increase his nuclear centerfuge capacity to 50,000 when that would provide more electricity than his country can consume? why did he want to make weapons grade uranium? And why take scientists from India who made the bomb there and not nuclear power scientists?

As for those people saying he's just bluffing - what's in it for him? A swift surgical strike on all his bases that's what.

Ok, lets see why he shouldn't have nuclear - oh yeah, cause he says he wants to wipe israel off the map, and believes Europe and America are 'the great satan'. He, you may remember, coordinated the competition for the most offensive holocause cartoon anyone could draw. Of the myth of course. Seriously, this guy is nuts. I'd link you to the economist article but one must pay for it. I ask any of you to stand up and say 'i think Iran should have nuclear weapons'. Not 'America are worse' or 'nobody should have them' but 'iran should have nukes'. Slagging america isn't an arguement either. The whole world is against them - UN, Russia, Australia, China, Europe, US. come up with reasons why they should have them - others will decide what to do once the decision is made whether or not they should have them.

Personally I'm completely in favour of a surgical strike, by America or Israel if necessary, but preferrably by a coalition under the UN. And i want it right now. Refer it to the Security Council, if and when it says no, then bomb, before we reach the stage where bombing is a potential nuclear hazard. Any later than this year and you'll have a chernobly on your hands if you bomb so you effectively have your hands tied.

Basically Iran with nuclear weapons would make the world a much, much less safe place. Bomb them, and get it over with.

joebhoy1916

Dont no about the rest of ye, but if anyone looks it up Iran has the right to do what they are doing, nobody can say there building nuclear cause you just dont no that. If India, Pakistan, Isreal, Britain, America and all the rest of the countrys have nuclear weapons sure what difference will it make if Iran has them. After all when America started to build them they said they were making them so they could defend there countrys. If ya ask me everyone should have them then no countrys would be attacking each other.

Manic Moran

That was, grammatically and with spelling, one of the worst posts I've ever read here.

On other issues the whole 'America is the only country to use nukes' argument is a bit of a straw man. Yes, it's true, they are. But this isn't because of any particular defect in sensibilities, it's simply because they got theirs to work first. There was more than one country working on the issue, and in the middle of a total war, does anyone really think that outside of the US it was simply done for the purposes of academic research? They've kept them holstered ever since.

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.

1) Do you really think that any responsible government that has a choice will leave the deterrent against the greatest single weapon threat to their own citizens in the hands of an organisation such as the UN? Half the time, the UN can't seem to agree what day it is.

2) If everyone except the Transgessing Nation has honestly gotten rid of its nukes, what sort of military or economic actions can they take? They try it, they could get nuked. Sounds like a pretty good deal to me for a lawbreaker.

Because the USA has nukes, Iran knows that if Iran nukes someone, the USA will most likely nuke Iran.

Probably won't need to. Target #1 is likely Israel. If Tel-Aviv got nuked, I think it's fair to say that Tehran would be a glass lake courtesy of Israeli Strategic Forces long before the US could tell one of their carriers to load up a strike.

Overall, might as well start stocking up on food, water and ammunition now lads...

Personally, I think the Americans will make a lot of noise, line up troops, ships and airplanes to invade, and attract Iranian attention East and South, but really the attack will come from the Russians... They're not extended anywhere right now, their military standing could do with a bit of a boost (Not done anything since Kosovo), and I'm sure various different countries could find financial or other forms of assistance/debt relief in return...

(Yes, I'm cynical)

NTM

Hagar

I'm getting a bit browned off with the good ole USA telling the world what it can and can't do.
Hand wringing about the threat of nuclear weapons from the only nation to have ever used them, not only once but twice, is hypocritical in the extreme.

I am not happy about people with nuclear weapons who think they are going to Heaven if they die fighting for their god and justice.

Did you assume the last sentence referred just to Muslims?
Isn't that what Christians think too?

Jimboo_Jones

I doubt very much that Russia would invade Iran, for a start they are still many troops in Kosova and they are still worried that the entire Balkans could flare up big time. I doubt that their army would see it as a chance to gain a boost as well, if the US, Britian et al struggle with Iraq, then Iran, a larger, much better armed country, would be harder going for them.

I personally think that they will be a strike on their nuke sites by the US (but not for another year or so) this though could push Iraq into civil war, so I guess it depends on which goal the US thinks is the most important. A stable democratic Iraq, or a nukes free Iran... tough call.

Also I doubt that Iran would attack Isreal as it would know that a large percentage of their country would be turned into glass in reply, but that said, I really wouldn't like to see Iran with nukes.

What should we (the west) do with arab countries that tries to develop nuke tech though?... sooner or later their oil is going to decrease and they will want to develop their own fuel.

meditraitor

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.?

Why,

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 my opinion, no need for the abuse!

jady88 wrote:

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.?

The Isreali/American media are far from sympathetic to anyone elses cause but there own.
And of course the european media are sympathetic, they are less inclined to alignment with Corperate interests that feed the american media, therefore limiting their veiwpoint>

jady88 wrote:

You stink of racist undertones dressed up as concern for palestinain problems etc.?

Never once mentioned Palestine, and how dare you call me a racist!

jady88 wrote:

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.?

They are far from the most tyrannical regime on the planet,, you need to get out more
EG
Zimbabwe
Equatorial Guinne
Sierre Leone
USA(The extent of insitiutional racism over the past 200years shows this clearly, guantanimo Bay)
China

jady88 wrote:

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. ?

They have issue's but they are gradually changing, this is the way of things, only time will tell. A nuclear attack will not help this
Can you tell me the last time they invaded another country?

jady88 wrote:

The president regularly calls for the anhilation of the democratic state of Isreal. ?

You should spend more time learning about states like Iran and less time calling people racists. The president does not hold the balance of power in Iran the supreme leader does
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran

jady88 wrote:

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. ?

Again you show your ignorance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Woman

The early 1990s witnessed a marked increase of employment for women. This increase was much more than the rate prior to the revolution. Such dramatic change in the pattern of labor force participation might not have been possible if Khomeini had not broken the barriers to women entering into the public sphere. Educational attainment for women, also a product of free education and the literacy campaign, contributed to this increase. In fact, today there are more women in higher education than there are men. The Islamic Republic had adopted certain policies to expand educational levels for women in order to ensure that sexual segregation paid off. These policies were to encourage women to become skilled workers in domains exclusive to women. For example, the government set quotas for female pediatricians and gynecologists and set up barriers against women wanting to become civil engineers.

In May 1997, a large number of women participated in presidential elections and overwhelmingly voted for Hojatolislam Mohammad Khatami, a reformist cleric who had promised reduction of repression and toleration of civil society institutions. His election opened a period when women could voice their ideas once again, with many becoming increasingly bolder in their demands and in their criticisms. The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Shirin Ebadi, an Iranian human rights and feminist activist, further emboldened Iranian feminists inside Iran and cemented their relationships with Iranian feminist activists abroad.

The Sixth Parliament saw the emergence of some of Iran's strongest advocates of women's rights. Almost all of the 11 female lawmakers of The 190-seat Majles took on the challenge of trying to change some of Iran's more conservative laws amidst a male dominated culture. However, during the elections for the Seventh Majles, all of those representatives were banned to run for office by the all male Council of Guardians, only allowing conservative females to run for election. The new representatives, as expected, upon their arrival into office began reversing many of the laws passed by the reformist 6th Majles

jady88 wrote:

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

Such a nation only exists in your head,

fly_agaric

Environmentalists should be cheering on Iran's drive for nuclear energy (shhh! and weapons) anyway.
It brings us a step closer to the day when a big nuclear war kills 100's of millions and decimates our civilisation which is raping the planet!
The Iranian revolutionary council are just acting as good stewards for Allah's creation really. Fair dues to em.:p

mediatraitor wrote:

They are far from the most tyrannical regime on the planet,, you need to get out more EG
Zimbabwe
Equatorial Guinne
Sierre Leone
USA(The extent of insitiutional racism over the past 200years shows this clearly, guantanimo Bay)
China

Have you lived in Iran or something??
Comparing Iran to the US in terms of how it treats its citizens is a joke that only someone who doesn't get out enough could make. When are you getting your "J1" to work in Iran Mediatraitor?;)

bonkey

patzer117 wrote:

Why would he not have accepted the offers from Russia for nuclear power grade uranium?

There are two answers I can immediately think of to that question.

1) Why should he accept it?

As far as I am aware, Iran is party to no treaty which forbids the enrichment of uranium. Why, therefore, should Iran accept anything less than what they have agreed to by international treaty?

2) Bush has made a big deal over how America needs to make itself less dependant on external nations for its energy-needs, as this dependancy gives such nations undesireable influence over the US. Why should Iran be any different?

Iran has uranium mines...so why should it become dependant on external nations for its nuclear sources?

Iran is, at the moment, a net importer of refined oil products. Thus, it is already aware of the bind it can be placed in whereby despite being a net exporter of oil, it is still dependant on other nations to meet its oil refining needs. Were someone to suggest that Iran could not build more refining capability and must remain dependant on external nations, I'm pretty sure you'd get teh same two fingers that Iran is showing the world for telling (initially) that mining its own uranium was worrying, and that (now) refining its own, mined uranium isn't just worrying, but unacceptable.

Why is he not allowing inspectors in?

I believe they've already offered perfectly good explanation for that. They were willing to uphold their side of agreements signed, if all other parties were as well. An insistence that Iran could not enrich is not a part of any such treaty....so Iran's response was that if the others no longer wanted to play ball with respect to the treaties actually signed, why should they.

Why would he want to increase his nuclear centerfuge capacity to 50,000 when that would provide more electricity than his country can consume?

Funnily, the first sites that I quickly googled said the opposite - that 50,000 centrifuges would be overkill for a wapons program, but that they would be sufficient for a power-generation program. Here's one set:

Estimated SWU/Iranian-designed centrifuge requirements to maintain the fueling of a two one-gigawatt Light Water Reactor (i.e., Iran's projected enrichement requirements)

Approximate annual fuel reload requirement for a 1-gigawatt LWR = 20,000 kgs of 3.5 % low enrichment uranium

Approximate SWUs needed to meet this requirement = 80,000 SWUs

SWUs needed to meet this annual requirement for two one-gigawatt LWRs = 160,000 SWUs

Approximate number of Iranian-type centrifuges needed to meet this
requirement = ~ 50,000

Two one-gigawatt reactors....if that matches or surpasses the total power in Iran at the moment, then I'd suggest that Iran is sorely lacking in generation capacity and its clear why it needs so much more.

why did he want to make weapons grade uranium?

Did he? Other than a Western insistence that this is so.....what evidence is there? The traces that have since been accounted for? Or is there something more?

And why take scientists from India who made the bomb there and not nuclear power scientists?

Good question...but I wasn't aware that the two were entirely seperate fields.

Ok, lets see why he shouldn't have nuclear - oh yeah, cause he says he wants to wipe israel off the map, and believes Europe and America are 'the great satan'.

Ah yes...the good ol' "they want to destroy someone" excuse. Lets ignore that there's no evidence that he (or Iran in general) are suicidal and that there's no shortage of evidence that the US and Israel (and probably the EU) would have few qualms about retaliation.

Seriously, this guy is nuts.

Thats my "not suicidal" line of reasoning thoroughly discredite then. If you say seriously that he's nuts, then its obviously the case, and obviously he can't even be trusted with metal cutlery when having dinner with foreign diplomats.

I ask any of you to stand up and say 'i think Iran should have nuclear weapons'.

OK.

I think Iran should have nuclear weapons. I'm not entirely convinced that the enrichment thing is a weapons-program, but lets leave that aside.

come up with reasons why they should have them

Because its a reality that we're sooner-or-later going to have to deal with.
Because nations which are friendly today may be ruled by lunatics and nutcases tomorrow, but we don't haev a problem with leaving them with the bomb.
Because nations which are friendly today were alleged to have been run by lunatuics and nutcases in the past and had the bomb.
Because "friendly" is ultmiately a label of convenience, and its as damning for my future if its a friendly nation who starts throwing nukes around as it is if its a non-friendly.

Personally I'm completely in favour of a surgical strike, by America or Israel if necessary, but preferrably by a coalition under the UN. And i want it right now. Refer it to the Security Council, if and when it says no, then bomb, before we reach the stage where bombing is a potential nuclear hazard. Any later than this year and you'll have a chernobly on your hands if you bomb so you effectively have your hands tied.

Basically Iran with nuclear weapons would make the world a much, much less safe place. Bomb them, and get it over with.

The reprecussions for the region which powers the world (when it comes to oil) are not what I'd exactly call rosy.....but if you're willing to utterly disregard such things, then sure...I guess another war will seem as good an idea as the last one entered without considering the follow-on.

In short, bombing Iran will also make the world a much, much less safe place....but apparently you've no issue with that. This suggests that the safety-level in the world isn't the basis for your reasoning.

jc

Akrasia

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

They are the two options on the table, because the people who get to make the decisions can only think in terms of war and have absolutely no vision.
The only reason for having nuclear weapons is if we intend to use them in some circumstances, and if we are ever prepared to use Nuclear weapons in any circumstances, then we might as well kiss our planet goodbye.

And what do you think will happen if there is a bombing campaign in Iran? The U.S. have identified about 400 targets that they'd need to hit in order to shut down their weapons facilities. Do you think Iran will just sit there and take that kind of punishment? An attack on Iran will escalate into an invasion.

Akrasia

the_syco wrote:

So you believe that, without nukes, the USA will be able to say to Iran, North Korea, etc, to get rid of their nukes? Jeebus. North Korea would just be able to say "Bush, f*ck off or I'll nuke you, and as you've no nukes, you won't be able to do diddly".

No, I believe that america should lead negotiations for mutual disarmament, not that they should throw away all their weapons and then say 'you're next'. Obviously there would have to be verifiable disarmament by all sides.

If Iran nukes someone, and you impose sanctions, what stops Iran from saying "gimme your food, or we'll nuke you"? Oh, and whats to stop them nuking someone else?
Because the USA has nukes, Iran knows that if Iran nukes someone, the USA will most likely nuke Iran.

If Iran nukes someone, then it would be an immediate act of war as understood by the entire rest of the world. The same response would apply, immediate retaliation, just not using nuclear weapons. Iran would know for certain, that any use of nuclear weapons would lead to the destruction of Iran.

Like the one's that were kicked out?

The weapons inspectors were doing their jobs until they were kicked out. They were kicked out because Iran Wants everyone to know that they're pursuing nuclear weapons. There's no point of a deterrent if nobody knows about it. This indicates that Iran do not want Nukes for offensive purposes, secret nuclear weapons are far more useful as an offensive weapon, than Nukes that everybody knows about.
In a Non nuclear world, any country that demonstrates a desire to develop Nuclear weapons would be met with immediate and harsh political, economic and/or military sanctions.

=-=

Not all bunker-busters are nukes.

I know, but there are strong indications that Bush favours using nuclear bunker busting technology.
=-=

Small bit of nuclear material + C4 = large devestation.
Large bit of C4 = small devestation.

You think Iran are desperate to go around attacking people, but they only want to cause huge devestation? No matter how huge the devestation, it's not going to stop a complete and comprehensive retaliation. With or without nuclear weapons. the deterrent is the same. If Iran attacked anyone with a Nuke, Iran would be turned into a smouldering crater

Akrasia

LostinBlanch wrote:

Nice to see it, but International Relations at the moment are more like Hobbes Leviathan with all countries in what he termed a "State of Nature" i.e. a world ruled by fear, everybody thinking in the short term, the weak fearing the strong, the strong fearing the slightly less strong, and even the weak (they might just gang together you know). Not a nice thought. Actually come to think of it they have been like that for a while, but becoming a lot more blatant with GW and his neocon buddies.

Apres WW2 it looked like there was a change towards a form of Rousseau's Social Contract Model seen in the setting up of the UN. A more enlightened view of how things should work. Far from perfect but much more preferable to the way things are at the moment.

Still I'd like to see it happen

i genuinely think that there is a will for international co-operation amongst the big players. Unfortunately there is a Veto in operation where one or two big players refuse to compromise. If you look at the U.N. records, you can see time and time again, resolutions supported by 160 countries but vetoed by the U.S. because it might affect their grip on the world.
here are a list of US vetos in the U.N. http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html
We're not quite in a state of nature, it's more like a club with an intransigent president who refuses to recognise input from his 'subordinate' members.

bonkey

Akrasia wrote:

I know, but there are strong indications that Bush favours using nuclear bunker busting technology.

I didn't know American had nuclear BBs. I thought they had withdrawn from the ABM Treaty because this was one of the things they wanted to start developing....only they never (officially) started.

You think Iran are desperate to go around attacking people, but they only want to cause huge devestation?
...
If Iran attacked anyone with a Nuke, Iran would be turned into a smouldering crater

To be fair, the greater worry is that Iran - being the new global centre for terrorism, no doubt - would supply terrorists with nukes.

Then again, the Iranians are believed to have significant chemical weapons, but amazingly these haven't become the toy du jour of these terrorists they are apparently arming and sending against whoever-it-is-this-week.

jc