Iran's Nuclear Program

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

Which country gave Iran chemical weapons to use on Iraq? America as well? The US is not, contrary to opinion, the root of all evil.

Iran didn't use chemical weapons against Iraq. They didnt have any.

All the chemical weapons used in the Iran Iraq war were provided by America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War#Weapons_of_Mass_Destruction

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

So you would ignore one evil to focus on another?

Well, that's what you're doing. Saudi Arabia have a much more tyranical regime than Iran. their treatment of women is much worse than in Iran and they have actually been involved in an attack against America in the last 5 years.

Akrasia

Manic Moran wrote:

I don't believe that point A is under dispute. Point B is the tricky one, as not many countries seem to be lining up to support the concept of Iran as it currently stands being a nuclear power.

NTM

it's only a concept at the moment. Iran aren't a nuclear power and they're a long way from becoming one. What do you suggest we do to stop them from getting nuclear weapons? Should we bomb the facilities that aren't even built yet? how long would that slow them down for? should we bomb them every year for the rest of eternity? Should we 'spread democracy' to Iran?
(iran already have 'democracy', a democracy that is equally democratic as the 'democracy' America so kindly gave to Iraq)

Gurgle

Manic Moran wrote:

Point B is the tricky one, as not many countries seem to be lining up to support the concept of Iran as it currently stands being a nuclear power.

But then not many countries are lining up to support the existance of an Islamic theocracy in Iran at all. Bottom line is that if they want to continue to exist they need a nuclear deterrent. I'm not saying thats good but thats the message broadcast over the last 5 years.

growler

Gurgle wrote:

Actually, now that you mention it, have a look at english history since it became a democracy, you might be surprised at the times when a monarch has taken more direct influence than you might think.

btw it can't be a constitutional monarchy, they don't have a constitution.
linky

like when exactly ?

and it is still described as a constitutional monarchy here

Joebhoy, we're not talking about the US or Bush having nukes, I was asking you whether you felt that the present day rulers of Iran should and could be trusted with the ability to destroy themselves, their neighbours or any of their perceived enemies ( pretty much everyone) ?

growler

Gurgle wrote:

But then not many countries are lining up to support the existance of an Islamic theocracy in Iran at all. Bottom line is that if they want to continue to exist they need a nuclear deterrent. I'm not saying thats good but thats the message broadcast over the last 5 years.

who's going to stop them existing ? Who broadcast this message ?

Sponge Bob

Well Iran is surrounded by somewhat hostile Sunni regimes to the West East an South and thats before you factor in Israel and the The Bushamites . The lot to the east have nukes.

Iran lost vast numbers of soldiers during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, a war they did not start although their use of human wave tactics (the Basij) was idiocy of the highest order so they brought many of the casualties upon themselves with over a million dead and wounded, many horribly maimed by equipment supplied by the US or with the blessing and connivance of the US , listings here in National Security archive.

Therefore the Iranians are fairly entitled to be paranoid and to arrange their defensive posture accordingly . They are the ones who have been invaded in 1974 (Iraq) and 1980 (twice by both Iraq and the US) and who took the brunt of the casualties as well. They have also had the horrors of Afghanistan on their doorstep. Their civilian planes have been shot down in International Airspace by the Americans who loaded then on the database as hostiles..

If anything the US should offer them something that recognises these horrors such as a mutual defensive pact .

Akrasia

Sponge Bob wrote:

Iran lost vast numbers of soldiers during the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, a war they did not start although their use of human wave tactics (the Basij) was idiocy of the highest order so they brought many of the casualties upon themselves with over a million dead and wounded,

Human wave attacks were used by the British Germans and Russians in WW1 and WWII, in the american civil war, and they were the main tactic of Infantry warfare before Skirmisher tactics were developed in the napoleonic wars so to condemn them as evil or idiotic should also lead one to condemn the allies as evil and idiotic. Human wave attacks are sometimes the only alternative to surrender for unskilled Generals without adequate artilery or air support and when their armies are undisiplined and poorly trained.

There are allegations that the Iranians used children as human mine sweepers and of course, this is absolutley appalling, if it's true. The thing is, there are hardly any credible reports that back up this claim and to me, it stinks of the same propaganda that said the Iraqis smashed babies incubators in Kuwait during the gulf war.

Sponge Bob

Akrasia wrote:

...so to condemn them as evil or idiotic should also lead one to condemn the allies as evil and idiotic. Human wave attacks are sometimes the only alternative to surrender for unskilled Generals without adequate artilery or air support and when their armies are undisiplined and poorly trained.

They were simply idiotic tactics , designed by moronic ayatollahs in Qom , and resulted in the death of 100's of 1000's of Iranians , perhaps as many as 1 million were dead or incapacitated in that war. .

However every family in Iran was touched by this folly as was western europe after world war one when they lost millions in 'over the top' attacks . This carnage in the 1980's cannot be decoupled from the Iranian world view nowadays whereas we have forgotten world war one .

By 1984 it was reported that some 300,000 Iranian soldiers and 250,000 Iraqi troops had been killed, or wounded. Most foreign military analysts felt that neither Iraq nor Iran used its modern equipment efficiently. Frequently, sophisticated materiel was left unused, when a massive modern assault could have won the battle for either side. Tanks and armored vehicles were dug in and used as artillery pieces, instead of being maneuvered to lead or to support an assault.

Stupidity, as explained clearly by an Iranian website . The war lasted another 4 years after that.

There are allegations that the Iranians used children as human mine sweepers

Hmm, thats completely irrelevant too . Some Basij/Pasdaran members were probably under age as were some western soldiers in world war one .

Standards tend to drop when you are losing manpower at a ferocious rate like Iran did in the 1980's or Britain in 1914-1918 where 250,000 under age boys were allowed to join, half of whom died or were wounded.

Neverthless the losses were appaling and will cloud the Iranian world view.

The Iranians deserve our sympathy for that carnage some 20 years later and deserve reasonable guarantees of security more than threats of airstrikes in my opinion.

Manic Moran

Akrasia wrote:

Iran didn't use chemical weapons against Iraq. They didnt have any.

That is true for the start of the war. That was not true by the end of the war, however. In this case, Wiki is wrong.

http://cns.miis.edu/research/wmdme/iran.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/cw.htm

Indeed, in 1987, Iran exported chemical agents to Libya.

NTM

Logos

Does anyone think that a limited nuclear response would be appropriate given the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

mcgarnicle

Logos wrote:

Does anyone think that a limited nuclear response would be appropriate given the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

No

joebhoy1916

Logos wrote:

Does anyone think that a limited nuclear response would be appropriate given the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

WTF :eek:

Akrasia

Logos wrote:

Does anyone think that a limited nuclear response would be appropriate given the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

Are you trying to play devils advocate or something?

What exactly is a 'limited nuclear response'? Any nuclear response by any side will ultimately be 'limited' by the destruction of all intelligent life on this planet.

A nuclear attack against Iran would start World War 3. And this time, America would not be the good guys.

Logos

Logos wrote:

Does anyone think that a limited nuclear response would be appropriate given the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

I'd prefer to hear a plausable reason why, they want Nuclear energy given that they must have what 10% of the worlds oil stocks.
There can be a humming and a hawing and all the pc chamberlainesque defending of Irans position that we like 'till the cows come home but thats not going to cloud what I think is plain to see is going on... ie lets get nuclear weapons Baby yeah.

(But as someone said to me recently, at least one good thing might come out of the resulting rise in oil prices and thats an increase in investment in the development of alternative energy sources-Something for which the incentive is much lower the lazier/lower the oil price...but I digress)

joebhoy1916

And this time, America would not be the good guys.[/QUOTE]


And since when have they been
the good guys?

joebhoy1916

joebhoy1916 wrote:

And since when have they been
the good guys?

loaded question that, and I'm not sure what it has to do with this topic.

Hagar

This is why Iran should not have nuclear capability.
It is also why no one else should either.

Most of the UK gets wiped off the map in under 4 minutes. This intense scene is taken from the BBC movie "Threads" (1984). On release it led to millions of people joining CND. The political influence of the film is so strong it is still proscribed in many nuclear armed countries.

It's a big clip and it's not for the faint-hearted.

http://www.dumpalink.com/media/1145346052/Britain_Loses_Nuclear_War

Sponge Bob

Akrasia wrote:

A nuclear attack against Iran would start World War 3.

It wouldn't, simply because at this time the Iranians and the defensive alliance to which they belong do not have a retaliatory nuclear capability.

Nor would anyone else feel strongly enough about it to use one on Irans behalf.

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

I'd prefer to hear a plausable reason why, they want Nuclear energy given that they must have what 10% of the worlds oil stocks.

Rare to see someone supporting the burning of hydrocarbons as the preferable way of generating power

Considering that they have their own uranium sources, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense - economically if nothing else - to burn oil to generate power and/or pay someone else's profit margin to process your uranium, when you can mine and process your own uranium, leaving more of your oil to sell.

thats not going to cloud what I think is plain to see is going on... ie lets get nuclear weapons Baby yeah.

Ultimately, I have no doubts that Iran will attempt to gain nuclear-weapon capability.

I do not believe this invalidates their want to also have a nuclear energy program, nor that it would nor should invalidate their wish to refine their own uranium.

(But as someone said to me recently, at least one good thing might come out of the resulting rise in oil prices and thats an increase in investment in the development of alternative energy sources-Something for which the incentive is much lower the lazier/lower the oil price...but I digress)

Nuclear power is the one most likely to make serious gains as a result.

Interesting coincidence that the (attempt at) prevention of Iranian progress in the nuclear industry may just fuel other nations to make such progress of their own

But, as you say....we digress.

jc

Logos

Akrasia wrote:

Are you trying to play devils advocate or something?

No actually I'm not. I agree that a military attack on Iran would not lead to WWIII directly as they are a 'pariah' state.

However there is the distinct chance that nuclear weapons in the hands of a revolutionary Iranian regime would lead to WWIII. I do not oppose Iranian attempts to gain nuclear power for peaceful means as is their legal right to do so. Not only does Iran posess large oil reserves it also has uranium ore deposits so the point over whether they can develop nuclear capability is somewhat moot.

But to do nothing at this stage would validate their drive to become a regional nuclear power holding nuclear weapons. Iran has a stated policy of aggression against other states in the region and this is why they cannot be 'trusted'. The options range from doing nothing to a pre-emptive strike and no doubt the answer will lie (hopefully) in the middle. But force is an option unless the Iranians themselves face up to their responsibilities with regards to the rest of the world.

mcgarnicle

Logos wrote:

Akrasia wrote:

Are you trying to play devils advocate or something?

No actually I'm not. I agree that a military attack on Iran would not lead to WWIII directly as they are a 'pariah' state.

However there is the distinct chance that nuclear weapons in the hands of a revolutionary Iranian regime would lead to WWIII. I do not oppose Iranian attempts to gain nuclear power for peaceful means as is their legal right to do so. Not only does Iran posess large oil reserves it also has uranium ore deposits so the point over whether they can develop nuclear capability is somewhat moot.

But to do nothing at this stage would validate their drive to become a regional nuclear power holding nuclear weapons. Iran has a stated policy of aggression against other states in the region and this is why they cannot be 'trusted'. The options range from doing nothing to a pre-emptive strike and no doubt the answer will lie (hopefully) in the middle. But force is an option unless the Iranians themselves face up to their responsibilities with regards to the rest of the world.

Responsibility? I don't think that Iran should get nuclear weapons, but to imply they have some sort of international responsibility and should look beyond selfish reasons is a bit ridiculous considering the situation in the part of the world they are in. Everyone knows how the US reacted when one of its neighbours tried to get nuclear weapons, why should Iran be any different to the long established Israeli nuclear presence, not to mention the presence of the US across the border.

samb

Logos wrote:

Does anyone think that a limited nuclear response would be appropriate given the potential for Iran to develop nuclear weapons?

I heard on the radio that it would probably be the most appropriate response (if a military response is needed, the big question) because the enrichment etc is carried out underground and they could use small (well smallish) nuclear bombs to get at them. Otherwise a proper invasion would be necessary which would cause much more bloodshed on both sides. If these underground facilities are in lowly populated areas then the casualties would be minimal enough. They could even warn them for evacuation purposes.

Mucco

Earthman wrote:

I'd prefer to hear a plausable reason why, they want Nuclear energy given that they must have what 10% of the worlds oil stocks.

I think it's mostly gas that Iran have, but that's beside your point. I agree with you that their reasoning that it's for energy is obviously a ruse.
My opinion is that Iran has seen what's happened to it's oil-rich neighbour, and decided to take action to prevent it happening to them.
BTW, I don't think there's that much to get excited about, they've enriched U-235 to ~3%, its a long way from the ~95%? required for bombs.

M

Manic Moran

samb wrote:

I heard on the radio that it would probably be the most appropriate response (if a military response is needed, the big question) because the enrichment etc is carried out underground and they could use small (well smallish) nuclear bombs to get at them. Otherwise a proper invasion would be necessary which would cause much more bloodshed on both sides. If these underground facilities are in lowly populated areas then the casualties would be minimal enough. They could even warn them for evacuation purposes.

The practical realities which you outline will be nothing compared to the political fallout which would result. Anything from claims of the US violating its own 'No first use' policy (Admittedly, it's just a policy, not a law) through to the hassle of people saying "The US is the only country to use nukes when it wasn't necessary, let alone in the middle of a war."

What you say makes sense from the purely technical and human standpoint. But political reality has a wonderful way of getting involved. The US would be totally ostracised.

NTM

Dirk Gently

Greetings,
Just read some of the first few posts and some of the last few in this thread. Feel free to tell me to **** off and read the whole discussion before posting my childish comments if you like but I got bored reading after the first couple of pages and decided to skip to the end. Hopefully I didn’t miss any amazingly brilliant analysis in the middle group of posts.

“Clown bag ****off and read the whole thread”

For your convenience, Just to make it easy for you to copy and paste into your witty reply. Save your little fingers.

Thread title: Iran’s nuclear programme
Under no circumstances would I want to see Iran get their hands on nuclear weapons. Basically because the rulers of that country are mental and the rhetoric it spews out about wiping Israel off the map is unhelpful to say the least (Even though Israel has nukes and are no pacifists themselves).Having said that I think that the current problem is a result of U.S. actions in the region and in general the U.S. history of war. I think this is the defensive action of a nation backed into a corner.
Lets remember in all the many wars the U.S. has being involved in, how many of those countries had nukes? Remember the cold war, as opposed to hot wars. Why was the cold war a cold war and not a hot war? Maybe because the soviets and the Chinese had nukes and this acted as a deterrent against U.S. military action. If a country that the U.S. targets for regime change does not have a nuclear deterrent then in all likelihood the U.S. will change that regime. We many argue that regime change in Iran is a good idea, but to forcibly impose change from the outside doesn’t really work and can lead to a rise in nationalism, uniting the people against the foreign army and ending up a bigger mess than the one originally before regime change (Iraq been an example) . From a defensive point of view, it can be argued that Iran is following a logical and proven defensive policy.
This is all of course assuming that they are indeed looking to build a nuke which we are all leaded to believe.

So do I think a dangerous, warlike nation with extreme nationalism and religious control over its people and a history of aiding terrorists and undermining democracy should be allowed have nukes? The answer is no the U.S. should not be allowed have nukes. Also for the same reasons Iran should not be allowed have nukes either.

Some mentions were given to India and Pakistan and also Hiroshima and Nagasaki. First of all I don’t think Hiroshima and Nagasaki were extreme cases as one of the early posters said. It is often argued that the war was all but over and the Japanese were on the verge of surrender before the bombs were dropped. It is argued that the bombs were dropped to prove to the rest of the world (with an eye on Russia) that America possessed nuclear technology and were prepared to use it. Naturally this scared the **** out of everyone and there was a nuclear arms race, with the countries acquiring nukes having a degree of safety from attack, so there is logic behind the paradox of nuclear weapons, once one country has the ability to strike. Obviously the best answer is to get rid of all the nukes in the world but the Americans won’t sign up to this as they would lose not a deterrent, but a strategic advantage in dealing with non nuclear countries. As for India / Pakistan being deemed allowed to have nuke technology because they are American allies and safe countries…wtf.
They are only American allies through necessity, having literally got a gun put to their head in the form of a threat to blow up their nuclear reactors and have sanctions imposed on them at the time when America needed their territory and logistical help when invading Afghanistan. Both these countries have engaged in wars with each other and still have disputed territory and mistrust of each other.
To do nuclear deals with what you have to describe as politically unstable countries with a history of violence against each other while denying Iran nuclear technology on the grounds that they pose a threat of actually using nuclear missiles is hypocritical in my book and will take some convincing to change my view on that. By the way I am open to alternative views and if the reasons are logical I will change my view accordingly. Just can’t see how that’s justified at all though.

Any way for those of you managed to read my rant this far you’ll be glad to know it’s nearly over. I do find it hard to keep political posts short but at least it’s not a load of links to propaganda from one side or the other.

To conclude I think a more constructive approach would be for massive, and I mean massive pressure to be put on ALL nuclear countries to disarm, and not just the mad evil devil worshipping hell bent on destroying America countries. :rolleyes:

Sorry about this, just one last thing. America always claims to be acting against a threat to its national security and a “clear and present danger”
Let’s just translate that.
It’s not a physical threat to the country of America or its citizens, what they really mean is a clear and present danger to the security of American corporation’s ability to make loads of money. It is a clear and present danger to profit margins.
Rant officially over
__________________

Manic Moran

Some decent comments, though the bit about all countries disarming is wishful optomism to say the least, and the bit about corporations is.. well, I'm not sure if it's just cynical, or reminiscent about the Sean Penn bit in Team America when he's talking about how all the corporations are all corporationy, see..

NTM

Dirk Gently

I agree it is wishful thinking but because it is not likely to happen does not mean it’s not the right answer. A dramatic shift away from fossil fuels and oil dependency is needed to combat global warming. It’s not likely to happen and could be seen as wishful thinking but it is still right.

Never actually seen team America, remember wanting to see it before it came out but then got so many people telling me it was **** I didn’t bother seeing it in the end.

I stand by my comment though, I'm still of the opinion that American Foreign policy and military actions have more to do with safe guarding capital than safe guarding lives.

Jimboo_Jones

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4929450.stm

humm, looks like russia wants some proof before they get nasty

RedPlanet

Logos wrote:

Akrasia wrote:

.... Iran has a stated policy of aggression against other states in the region and this is why they cannot be 'trusted'.

What stated policy is this?
What aggression has Iran done toward other states?
I can't think of anytime Iran invaded another country, unlike some of our so-called "allies".