Iran locked and loaded

Victor

Jimboo_Jones wrote:

pretty sure I read somewhere that India brought a couple of nuke capable sub from the russians a few years back - dont know if they are in services yet though.

Nuclear powered, capable of firing anti-ship missiles, but not ballistic missile submarines.

Tea drinker

wes wrote:

... if America wants to stop Nuclear weapons getting into terrorist hands, they should look to old Soviet Republics and decommission weapons and material there. There still the most likely source. Wasn't there a sting involving someone who use to be high up in the Russian military who was found to be selling weapons and was willing to sell them to terrorists.

Hi, is this what you mean?
http://www.bellona.org/news/georgiasmuggling
I think this is a new incident though (2006 previously unreported), going by the dates.
On face value it seems to support the view that "Islamist extremists" have a special need for WMD.

As a contrast, this is a (sometimes) funny read:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/20a63baa-c5c4-11db-9fae-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=be75219e-940a-11da-82ea-0000779e2340.html

Tea drinker

Padraig Mor wrote:

There is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. None. There is not even a hint of evidence. All evidence suggests that the Iranians are doing exactly what they've said - developing cilian power projects. The IAEA are in there with unfettered access. Just this weekend a UN report suggested that American claims were a pack of lies. Yet you know better of course. They're Muslim = they're mad = they want to kill us all. Get real.

Not 100% correct Padraig.
Iran recently "restricted access" (Elbaradei's words) or in the words of the IAEA: banned 38 inspectors.
Elbaradei is trying to control the situation, and is generally downplaying however, he does say they could have a bomb in 5-10 years.
He also seems to admit he doesn't know everything that is happening in Iran, so this must be taken into account.

Don't get me wrong, I do feel the Americans could be talking sh!te, just like the last time, but to say there is no question at all, IMHO, is incorrect.

I do support Iran having Nuclear technology, but one does have to wonder what the hurry is though??? is the oil going to run out next year? I just don't trust them, and if they want to build trust they could stop in the morning, easily shutting America up and getting rid of sanctions. So why don't they do that?

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/cnn270107.html

Judt

oscarBravo wrote:

Judt, you've obviously made a detailed historical study of all the nuclear wars the world has experienced to date. Care to list them?

Actually several thousand, via wargames, in every country with nuclear arms. They all follow a fairly predictable line. In the end there's only so many ways to use them.

Boomers are less of an issue for India/Pakistan as they are relatively close together. Unlike ICBMs, which generally require large fixed sites to launch from Dakota to get to Minsk, IRBMs and SRBMs will do quite nicely, and they can be mounted on the back of trucks, thus retaining the 'dispersal' benefit that boomers have.

True, but they also lack the sophisticated C&C and tracking equipment of others. In a theory thing, if they see birds flying overhead things get really, really dodgy.

Actually, tracing nuclear weapons is possible, because in practical terms, the uranium can't be refined beyond a certain point, due to trace elements and isotopes. As I understand it, give a nuclear scientist the composition of a uranium core and he will be able to tell you where and when it was mined.

Yeah. After we've lost several million people killed. Aircraft accident style investigation is no good with nuclear wars.

Yes, they can. Assumming its a ballistic missile, it was a rather determinable path. Missile submarines and cruise missiles are another matter, but Iran is rather low on that scale.

It's not the US you want to be worried about, it's the countries with less sophisticated systems. South Africa had four dodgy nukes in case of a race war breaking out. India and Pakistan use technology several years (if not decades) old. But a nuke is a nuke, your C&C tech is what matters.

However, let us say that country Y has 3 nuclear weapons. And it fires 3 nuclear weapons that detonate in country X. How many nuclear weapons does country X fire back? By your thesis, all of them. In reality, small nuclear was is not the sma eas big nuclear war.

Look into how these things work: When one person fires a nuke, because so much of your strike capability to win is at stake, a lot of people put their fingers on the button. It's a 50/50 as to what happens next, depending on the character of the people with their fingers on those buttons, how much caffeine they've had that morning..... Etc.

Can you define this?

Hezbollah would be your big poster child there.

IF they are such nut jobs, how come they haven't spent the last 27 years at war? Notably every country they have land borders with have had some sort of clict in that time.

It's all situational. They're smart nutjobs, then.

pretty sure I read somewhere that India brought a couple of nuke capable sub from the russians a few years back - dont know if they are in services yet though.

They're diesel powered, not nuclear powered. IE They're closer to U-Boats than the US Navy's subs.

Iran is restricting access to people. They're firing missiles. They're spewing rethoric. Etc etc etc. Add two and two people!

wes

Tea drinker wrote:

Hi, is this what you mean?
http://www.bellona.org/news/georgiasmuggling
I think this is a new incident though (2006 previously unreported), going by the dates.
On face value it seems to support the view that "Islamist extremists" have a special need for WMD.

As a contrast, this is a (sometimes) funny read:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/20a63baa-c5c4-11db-9fae-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=be75219e-940a-11da-82ea-0000779e2340.html

Cheers, thats the one. Thanks for finding it. I know some Islamist extremists want Nuclear weapons, but they seem to be trying to get them from former Russian republics or corrupt officials. Seems like the best thing make sure they don't get it is to make sure to secure Russia's former arsenal. Would be a really cheap and genuinely make the world safer.

Padraig Mor

Tea drinker wrote:

Iran recently "restricted access" (Elbaradei's words) or in the words of the IAEA: banned 38 inspectors.

He also seems to admit he doesn't know everything that is happening in Iran, so this must be taken into account.

Under the inspection regulations, Iran (or any other country for that matter) is allowed to deny named inspectors access (I would presume in this case that they were suspected of being American agents). The IAEA are allowed to replace them with further inspectors, i.e. no overall reduction in numbers of inspectors.

I haven't read the report but "doesn't know everything" can be interpereted several ways. If ElBaradei were, for example, asked to confirm that Iran was not developing nuclear weapons, he could not, for the simple reason that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Padraig Mor

Judt wrote:

Etc etc etc. Add two and two people!

You seem to have ignored the poster above who exposed the contradiction in your postings, i.e.

a. You say the Iranians are bunch of Islamic looneys blinded by religion

plus

b. Their supreme Ayatollah has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons

surely equals

c. They won't develop nuclear weapons.

Yet you say the opposite! Which is it - do they follow their Ayatollah or not? Or is it a case of "You can never trust them Muslims?"

Judt

Under the inspection regulations, Iran (or any other country for that matter) is allowed to deny named inspectors access (I would presume in this case that they were suspected of being American agents). The IAEA are allowed to replace them with further inspectors, i.e. no overall reduction in numbers of inspectors.

No, but it sure as hell inconveniences the operation. If I'm doing a job in an organisation and I suddenly stop then the next chap has to get to Iran, pick up my work, get the brief, get a feel for the place, ask a load of the same questions again.... Add this to everything else Iran has been doing and ohh my....

b. Their supreme Ayatollah has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons

Yeah, ya know where the defence against nuclear weapons is concerned I'm more likely to assume that the Iranians would screw us over on something like that if it suited them.

Or is it a case of "You can never trust them Muslims?"

Don't twist my words. As I said above, I don't trust religous fundamentalists, of any creed.

InFront

bk wrote:

Oh, it would benefit their economy if they were being honest

I'm not going to refer to the Irish situation because it's a long post and that's OT.
But as regards the above, what does this even mean? Nuclear energy will benefit the Iranian economy - even the USA have agreed with that - irregardless of how honest Iranians are.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060204-2.html

George W Bush Address to IAEA
Iran's true interests lie in working with the international community to enjoy the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy

it is going to cost them a fortune in capital expense to build a Nuclear reactor from scratch.

Well, lots of money, but you do actually agree that it benefits their economy long term, or do you not?
Do you think that they are better off using their expensive hydrocarbons to fuel roadbuilding and fuel Iranian villages and infrastructure, or selling the fuel to the West and using cheap uranium?
It is a completely obvious, reasonable statement that you seem to want to ignore - nuclear energy benefits the Iranian economy.

What well known foreign power over 40 years ago first approved around twenty Iranian nuclear plants?
And provided them with technology and experts in doing this?
What's changed? Is the oil and gas not going to run out after all? No, it is, in fact it's going to run out even sooner than they expected.

Let me ask you this: what kind of future do you honestly see for security in the Middle East while the Iranian economy is non-dependent on the West (as opposed to vice versa) and is a state in tatters?
What kind of peace do you think there will be? What kind of political geography is going to be created when the oilfields disappear? And do you not think that steps should be taken now to build up the domestic economies and prevent this from coming about in the first place?

I think it's a perfectly reasonably assumption that Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons. It's quite likely. But people should wake up to the fact that he doesn't call the shots on the issue, he just talks a lot. He doesn't run international Iranian relations. He doesn't run the nuclear programme. The guy who wrote the fatwa against nuclear weapons runs it.

Do you think it makes sense that the Ayatollah Khamene'i and the mullahs would go agaibst their own fatwa on nuclear weaponry? A fatwa is a serious ruling and document, it's not like a political manifesto or an election leaflet, it actually means something.

This entire supposition of Iranian WMDs being inevitable is built around American intelligence which has been proven exaggerated, and western conspiracy theories, a la...

Originally posted by Judt
The ultimate aim of the Islamic theocracy is to convert the world to Islam

the aim of Islam et al is conversion.

That's a lot of stupidity in two short sentences. It isn't the "ultimate aim" of anyone. Islam isn't an "all you can gather" club, it's a religion.
While most religions seek to inspire new followers, bringing 40 atheists and Christians to the mosque doesn't get you anywhere in Islam, there are no marketing rallies, it's of no known benefit to a Muslim to try to do this, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.

Pakistan has them because India has them, and they keep an eye on one another. Pakistan, also, is a secular country,

Complete and utter rubbish, it's called "The Islamic Republic of" just like Iran. Next time you meet a Pakistani ask him to what extent it is secular. Islam is an aspect of daily life, just like Iran. In the North, the militant mujihideen and their supporters are all over in the mountain villages, even Bin Laden is reported to be on the Pakistani side of the border because he knows he's safer there than even in Afghanistan. Chunks of that region and chunks of Pakistan in general are no-go for visitors without permits and bodyguards.
Pakistan is mainly Sunni, and al Qa'eda are exclusively Sunni - Iranians are Shias.
And despite all of this, you think nukes are safer with Pakistanis than with Iranians?! Get real.
Nukes are safe with anyone so long as they aren't used - and we all know there is only one country with a history of using them, and on innocent civilians at that.
You just don't want to admit that a reasonably volatile Muslim country can have nukes and still not pose a threat, because it doesn't back up your theory about the evils of state Islam.

The Pakistan point can be quite useful to understanding the situation. Ask yourself why Iran is unco-operative with the West - but Pakistan is. Both are Muslim countries next door to one another, both share ethnic histories, there are language, cultural and social commonalities - but one thing is different: economy.
The one thing that Pakistan has that Iran doesn't have is money, and not just Ruppees, but western money - dollars. The US are doing the same with Musharraff as they did with Ali Bhutto - they bought Pakistan to save face against the terrorists just as they did against the Communists to get them on their side.
They refuse that policy with Iran with all the stubborn bitterness that manifests itself with all dead friendships.

Sanctioning Iran will hurt their nuclear investment - eventually. But preventing economic growth in that way isn't going to help anyone - not one bit. They're just putting the problem on the long finger until something has to give. The key to a peaceful Iran (insofar as it would now somehow be non-peaceful?) is by making them like more like Pakistan in terms of economics and political approach.

There's no question of the west handing Islamic terrorists nuclear arms to come and bomb London.

You seem keen to try to associate Iran with attacks on London or the USA - where are you getting this from?
That's the kind of thing Al-Qaeda and Salafi-jihadis do, it's nothing to do with Iran, if for no other reason but that Iran with its Grand Ayatollah Khamein'i and fatwa against nuclear weaponry is Shi'ite - and AQ and SJs are exclusively Sunni, and based extensively in Pakistan! Guys like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are positively anti-Shi'ite. They're no friends of Iran, but would feel quite at home in nuclear Pakistan.

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with Pakistan having nukes at all, my problem is with the very odd double standard that exists that says 'forget nukes, Iran can't even have nuclear power'. Odd.

Tea drinker

Padraig Mor wrote:

Under the inspection regulations, Iran (or any other country for that matter) is allowed to deny named inspectors access (I would presume in this case that they were suspected of being American agents). The IAEA are allowed to replace them with further inspectors, i.e. no overall reduction in numbers of inspectors.

Hi Padraig, that's right.
But if you look at it another way, this places the iaea in a more difficult position. These specialists do not grow on trees, and replacing them with persons of equal skill or experience will take time. We can see from this Iran has damaged the inpection team on this basis.
How is this building trust?

InFront wrote:

Well, lots of money, but you do actually agree that it benefits their economy long term, or do you not?
Do you think that they are better off using their expensive hydrocarbons to fuel roadbuilding and fuel Iranian villages and infrastructure, or selling the fuel to the West and using cheap uranium?
It is a completely obvious, reasonable statement that you seem to want to ignore - nuclear energy benefits the Iranian economy.

Infront, I agree it benefits their economy, and that Iran should have Nuclear power for the future. I don't agree with the the mouthpiece that Iran themselves have decided to use: Ahmedinajad. I think he is deranged, and Iran should remove him, I think he is bringing shame and disrepute to their country. If he does not have the support and agreement of the ruling powers why is he there? I know he had a public slap on the wrists the other day, but that is meaningless. We can only assume he is accurately representing the people, or at least the powers that be.
The hydrocarbons are cheap as chips to Iran right now. We have nowhere near the resources of Iran yet we don't have an urgent need for Nuclear power. Again I agree with their power plant ambitions, but again, what is the hurry? Why will they not accept more international involvement? As far as I know they do not actually need the enrichment plants, an offer was made to supply "ready" material??

I think Iran could make themselves a success (like Dubai after the oil/gas ran out) but they have a different style of goverment which is unnatractive to western media and investment. In general UAE is amore open and tolerant society.

Akrasia

Tea drinker wrote:

Hi Padraig, that's right.
But if you look at it another way, this places the iaea in a more difficult position. These specialists do not grow on trees, and replacing them with persons of equal skill or experience will take time. We can see from this Iran has damaged the inpection team on this basis.
How is this building trust?

But on the same basis, The U.S. are threatening Iran with war, do you think it's reasonable for the U.S. to expect Iran to allow American Agents access to every secret military asset in Iran? Especially considering the fact that U.S. weapons inspectors have been previously been found to have engaged in spy activity while in Iraq under a U.N. mandate.
Do you think America would allow Iranian spies access to their Nuclear sites?

If he does not have the support and agreement of the ruling powers why is he there?

Because he was elected. Isn't democracy a wonderful thing?

Not liking a countries president is no excuse to attack them. If that was a legitimate reason, then the whole world would be bombing America every day

Judt

That's a lot of stupidity in two short sentences. It isn't the "ultimate aim" of anyone. Islam isn't an "all you can gather" club, it's a religion.
While most religions seek to inspire new followers, bringing 40 atheists and Christians to the mosque doesn't get you anywhere in Islam, there are no marketing rallies, it's of no known benefit to a Muslim to try to do this, and if you think otherwise, you're wrong.

Again, why do you think most of our terrorist buddies over there refer to us as "non believers", infidels and suchlike? They're as much religious nutjobs as anything else, and their idea is that the world should be Islamic.

As for Pakistan, I wouldn't have wanted Pakistan to have nukes either. But at least we can buy off Pakistan, unlike Iran. We have the opportunity to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, and we can't buy them off if they do. Pakistan has nukes to keep India in check. At least that's a somewhat manageable, if not ideal, situation. Iran on the other hand funds terrorists in the middle east, and if there then they're perfectly capable of doing it anywhere, if their actions and rethoric are anything to go by.

This entire supposition of Iranian WMDs being inevitable is built around American intelligence which has been proven exaggerated, and western conspiracy theories

I dont trust the Iranians. They spew rethoric. They fire missiles which could be ICBM's once they have nukes. They expel inspectors. I do not trust Iran to do what it says it will do, and I do not trust Iran not to attack the west. Neither should you. Look at everything! Add it all up! Add it all up and you do not get the picture of a country developing nuclear power for economic reasons! They can have two reasons to do it! One leads to the other. I would never, ever, bloody ever take a chance while they're a state sponsor of terrorism and a theocracy.

They're no friends of Iran, but would feel quite at home in nuclear Pakistan.

Difference is that we can do business with Pakistan. Anytime they're in trouble with the west some AQ operatives suddenly get found in a house somewhere. Amazing. Sure they're not our most scrupulous of allies, but we know they sure as hell aren't crazy enough to try and pull some stunt on us with their nuclear weapons.

Akrasia, we're adding up everything here. Throwing out a weapons inspector because you suspect him or her of being a spy is a very convenient way to cover your tracks, particularly if there's plenty of evidence and signs pointing towards you developing nuclear weapons. If I were Iran and I really wanted nuclear power but not nuclear weapons then I'd grin and let the spies in, because otherwise this is heading towards a situation where the west will put Iran further back into the stone age than most of it currently is.

If they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to hide. But spewing rethoric, throwing out inspectors and firing bloody great missiles into orbit don't point towards a simple ESB project.

RedPlanet

Judt wrote:

They fire missiles which could be ICBM's...

So bloody what? So does every other self respecting nation that maintains armed forces.

Judt wrote:

Throwing out a weapons inspector because you suspect him or her of being a spy is a very convenient way to cover your tracks...

There exists a very real precent here Judt. Don't you remember Scott Ritter the very outspoken American weapons inspector in Iraq?
He kicked up a fuss when he found out the US had hijacked the inspections to install listening devices for their own ends. Totally undermined people's confidence in UN.


So far Judt you've done nothing but spew your own prejudices here as far as i can tell. All your bluster fails to make a case against Iran.

Judt

So bloody what? So does every other self respecting nation that maintains armed forces.

Yes, I see those taking off from Gormonston every other day. They fired the missiles, their first to reach such altitudes, as this entire huhah is going on. Would it not have been advisable, whilst throwing out weapons inspectors and spewing rethoric in speeches, to have delayed this launch, which could be seen as a further provocation, if indeed Iran had only civilian uses for nuclear weapons?

They're goading the world....

There exists a very real precent here Judt. Don't you remember Scott Ritter the very outspoken American weapons inspector in Iraq?
He kicked up a fuss when he found out the US had hijacked the inspections to install listening devices for their own ends. Totally undermined people's confidence in UN.

Yep, well that's for the UN to sort out, and even if there were spies then the Iranians would, if their intentions were to avoid a war at all costs and use nuclear power for civilian uses alone, grin and take it. The alternative is a war. The UN isn't going to be much good to us when those Shaab 3's are in the air.

So far Judt you've done nothing but spew your own prejudices here as far as i can tell. All your bluster fails to make a case against Iran.

I disagree, and I think you take that point as your last resort to real debate of facts. Anti-Americanism isn't a great basis for arguments, either; nor is some rose tinted view that everything will be alright if we all just hold hands and sing together. Let's debate facts here, and not ignore them.

Akrasia

Judt wrote:

Yes, I see those taking off from Gormonston every other day. They fired the missiles, their first to reach such altitudes, as this entire huhah is going on. Would it not have been advisable, whilst throwing out weapons inspectors and spewing rethoric in speeches, to have delayed this launch, which could be seen as a further provocation, if indeed Iran had only civilian uses for nuclear weapons?

They're goading the world....

Hold on, Iran are goading the world looking to provoke a response? That is the exact opposite of what's happening. Doublethink is alive and well.
They were quietly going about their own business, developing a nuclear energy sector in full compliance with the IAEA when Bush comes along and starts accusing them of developing Nucular weapons.

When the Iranians fire off a test missile it's a show of strength to try and dissuade attack from the massive hostile naval presence off their coast.

Iran have been begging to negotiate for at least 3 years and every call for negotiations have been rejected. Now the U.S are playing the same tricks they played against saddam, insisting that they will not enter negotiations until the Iranians agree to verifiably stop all their nuclear research as a precondition before any talks can take place. That is not reasonable behaviour. What they are essentially saying is that "we won't talk to you until you agree to do exactly the thing we want to talk to you about doing. It's a nonsense and any honest observer would have to conclude that the U.S. doesn't really want to negotiate with the Iranians. Whatever happens, they've already made up their mind.

Yep, well that's for the UN to sort out, and even if there were spies then the Iranians would, if their intentions were to avoid a war at all costs and use nuclear power for civilian uses alone, grin and take it. The alternative is a war. The UN isn't going to be much good to us when those Shaab 3's are in the air.

Look, the Iranians have a very legitimate concern that the U.S. is using these inspection teams in order to collect intelligence for the war they are determined to have regardless of the outcome of an inspections program. Is there any evidence at all, that a clean sheet report from the IAEA would influence the U.S. government's military position? Did it work for Iraq re: WMD?

This stuff only happened 3 years ago, it's amazing how people can be fooled by the same trick twice in such a short space of time.

I disagree, and I think you take that point as your last resort to real debate of facts. Anti-Americanism isn't a great basis for arguments, either; nor is some rose tinted view that everything will be alright if we all just hold hands and sing together. Let's debate facts here, and not ignore them.

It doesn't take an some kind of irrational anti American-ism to conclude that the U.S. are a force for no good in the middle east. Any kind of analysis of recent or distant past events ought to bring you to that conclusion.

Judt

It's a nonsense and any honest observer would have to conclude that the U.S. doesn't really want to negotiate with the Iranians. Whatever happens, they've already made up their mind.

Do you have any evidence of that? No, but I think we can both conclude that that's a likely course of action from supposition. However I think, from supposition, that the Iranian's will get their just desserts on this one because, from the same type of supposition which leads you to expect the US to attack, I think - with quite strong evidence to back it up - that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability.

fly_agaric

Bit late now I suppose...

InFront wrote:

Fractious collections of religious groups, a society led by one strong leader, repressive laws, employing secret police? That sounds like France, the USA, India, Pakistan, the UK, Israel or China that you're talking about. What's your point, that such states don't deserve nuclear power? It's far too late for that now.

I think we've had a similar discussion before InFront. So you still believe that the Western democratic countries are every bit as oppressive (in their own much more devious ways of course) to live in as Pakistan, or China on that list?:(

You keep saying nuclear power InFront. Iran wants to own the technology. They have good reasons to want nuclear weapons and we can see they are very interested in rocket technology also.
I believe the weapons are what Iran's rulers are really most interested in. Why not admit that?

Some countries are probably less likely to be responsible with nukes than others. Surely I can say that can't I?

In a way I kind of agree with your equating France and the UK etc with the likes of China and Iran when it comes to this issue because I am unsure if the things which supposedly might make them less of a risk (like the economic prosperity you've talked of or the openness of the society or even democracy) will always act in that way.

I mean, democracy should make a country less likely to actually use nukes but what if the citizens can be motivated sufficiently by propaganda, or something to elect the wrong sort of people or pursue the wrong policies? Or what if they don't care?
A country can be rich and its people prosperous and happy, living in a pretty open society etc and still be run by a bunch of paranoid warmongering looneys with their fingers on the big red buttons. And since they are at the helm of a rich, prosperous country they can afford better toys for their military.

Anyway, these were the reasons I thought several ME countries would be especially risky custodians of nuclear technologies and that it would be in Europe's interest to try and stop them from developing this technology if possible:

1. As I said, some of the countries there are very unstable. What happens to any nukes/technology/knowledge if the governments collapse/are overthrown or if there are civil wars? God only knows.

2. Even if countries are stable, the current leaderships are quite agressive (Iran). They may actually develop weapons, use the things themselves (if provoked by you know who...), or give them to others.

3. The people.:) A section of them seem to be extremely píssed at Western countries in general. Who knows, they may even elect parties who would then be more likely to use any nukes available already or develop their existing nuclear technology in the weapons direction if the dictators etc are out of the way. Would economic prosperity actually defuse some of that anger or just make such people even more dangerous if they get control.

So what's it to be then? Let everyone have this technology on a point of principle + to hell with the consequences? Don't interfere? Pray?
If Iran remains under its current government and then goes on to develop nukes + the icbms to put them on its just too bad really.

Anyway, you are right. It's probably 62 years too late.:(

InFront wrote:

You want to see an economically weak Iran, is that your argument? Do you think that policy has worked so far?

Not particularly and no. But if Iran's economic weakness makes it more likely that a US [or more likely a European] city will be spared destruction in the future then it's worth it for us I think.
Anyway, IMO a nuked city in Europe or the US would probably be worse for future partnership than economic damage to Iran.

InFront wrote:

Do you not understand that so long as the west keep their boot on Iran's head, it's never going to get its head out of the ****.

In the end the only people who can get Iran out of the shít are the Iranians themselves. Sanctions or no sanctions.

InFront wrote:

What kind of international relations are going to come about then? What hope for any sort of partnerships will there be under those conditions?

I don't see much hope for "partnerships" of any type regardless of how rich/poor Iran is while it is under its current leadership.
As I stated earlier, I think Iran's leaders are not going away any time soon and will continue to maintain, their, shall we say, rather negative and agressive attitudes towards the "West" regardless of the prosperity or otherwise of Iran.

Poblachtach wrote:

Whats the bets on what was in that space rocket?

Admhadinejads used boxer shorts? May their skidmarks yet be the genesis of life on a distant planet? Realistically I suppose they will just burn up in earth's atmosphere.

nacho libre

Judt wrote:

Do you have any evidence of that? No, but I think we can both conclude that that's a likely course of action from supposition. However I think, from supposition, that the Iranian's will get their just desserts on this one because, from the same type of supposition which leads you to expect the US to attack, I think - with quite strong evidence to back it up - that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability.

Detail your evidence to the IAEA. As you seemingly know more than they do.

Akrasia

Judt wrote:

Do you have any evidence of that? No,

but I think we can both conclude that that's a likely course of action from supposition. However I think, from supposition, that the Iranian's will get their just desserts on this one because, from the same type of supposition which leads you to expect the US to attack, I think - with quite strong evidence to back it up - that Iran is building a nuclear weapons capability.

Actually there is plenty of evidence that the U.S. don't want to negotiate. There was a peace offer made in 2003 from the Iranians to the U.S. that pledged an end of support for Hezbollah, recognition of Israel amoongst other key demands. This peace offer was delivered directly to Condaleesa rice via a Swiss Diplomatic intermediary, and she completely ignored it.
Now they are setting impossible preconditions for talks to even start. It's a clear indication that they are not interested in talking. Even as recently as last week, The U.S. are set to meet Iran and Syria about the situation in Iraq, but Bush has come out and said he will Not talk about the Iranian nuclear program with the Iranians because they have not met his demands.

On the other hand, there is very little if any evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program and plenty of good reasons why they would want to pursue peaceful nuclear energy.

The Iranians are going to have to start rationing petrol next week because they are spending so much money to provide heavily subsidised petrol for the Iranian economy. They might be one of the worlds biggest producers of crude oil, but they are a net importer of Petrol at global market prices (due to a shortage of refining capacity)

marco murphy

I dont trust the Iranians. They spew rethoric. They fire missiles which could be ICBM's once they have nukes. They expel inspectors. I do not trust Iran to do what it says it will do, and I do not trust Iran not to attack the west. Neither should you. Look at everything! Add it all up! Add it all up and you do not get the picture of a country developing nuclear power for economic reasons! They can have two reasons to do it! One leads to the other. I would never, ever, bloody ever take a chance while they're a state sponsor of terrorism and a theocracy.

The US is a state sponsor of terrorism too. It funds Israel, in their onslaught against the Palestinian people, and indeed the Lebanese. Iran is'nt the one, who is building up a large military presence around America. No, America is building a large military presence around Iran. not to mention the already illegal war of terror already taking place in Iraq. The Iranians have full right to Nuclear energy. And it seems you have an issue with Iran being a theocracy. Is there something wrong?

Err, Iran arms Hezbollah, for a start...

If you base that on American gathered intellegence just remember the folly of the WMD and CIA drug trafficking

nacho libre

Poblachtach wrote:

The US is a state sponsor of terrorism too. It funds Israel, in their onslaught against the Palestinian people, and indeed the Lebanese. Iran is'nt the one, who is building up a large military presence around America. No, America is building a large military presence around Iran. not to mention the already illegal war of terror already taking place in Iraq. The Iranians have full right to Nuclear energy. And it seems you have an issue with Iran being a theocracy. Is there something wrong?


If you base that on American gathered intellegence just remember the folly of the WMD and CIA drug trafficking

also there is this:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/25/wiran25.xml

A bit rich when they complain about Iran fomenting strife in Iraq.

Judt

The US is a state sponsor of terrorism too. It funds Israel, in their onslaught against the Palestinian people, and indeed the Lebanese

Ohh snore. Israel is a recognized state on the UN statute books. Hezbollah is not. Let's use the UN as our benchmark, seeing as you like them so much when they agree with you.

The Iranians have full right to Nuclear energy.

Sure, and in Ireland I have every right to own a firearm. But unless I can prove I'm not a headcase who is going to use it merely for catching my dinner then I can't have one. Iran has the right, but it has to pass the "We won't nuke you" test, first.

And it seems you have an issue with Iran being a theocracy. Is there something wrong?

Err, yeah. Religion being the major reason to start and fight wars since God knows when (if you'll excuse the pun), I certainly don't trust a non-democratic nation run by religious figures. Iran is such a nice country that today a bunch of women protesting about the fact that another bunch of women were arrested and thrown in jail were themselves arrested and thrown in jail. Their crime? Demanding more human rights for women. Yeah, Iran is a trustworthy, peace loving nation and wouldn't use religion or bigotry to sanction anything against its own people or anyone elses.

Communist states were the only ones to ever build walls to keep their people in. Fascist states murdered the elderly and infirm. Theocracies keep women under the heel and do things like execute them for the crime of being raped. Judge a country by how it treats its own people, because God knows they'll treat you four times worse.

If you base that on American gathered intellegence just remember the folly of the WMD and CIA drug trafficking

Actually, that's 20 years of first-hand Irish experience in South Lebanon.

marco murphy

Ohh snore. Israel is a recognized state on the UN statute books. Hezbollah is not. Let's use the UN as our benchmark, seeing as you like them so much when they agree with you.

Israel is a recognised state by the UN yes but how does it stop it practicing terrorism.

Sure, and in Ireland I have every right to own a firearm. But unless I can prove I'm not a headcase who is going to use it merely for catching my dinner then I can't have one. Iran has the right, but it has to pass the "We won't nuke you" test, first.

And that test is?

Err, yeah. Religion being the major reason to start and fight wars since God knows when (if you'll excuse the pun), I certainly don't trust a non-democratic nation run by religious figures. Iran is such a nice country that today a bunch of women protesting about the fact that another bunch of women were arrested and thrown in jail were themselves arrested and thrown in jail. Their crime? Demanding more human rights for women. Yeah, Iran is a trustworthy, peace loving nation and wouldn't use religion or bigotry to sanction anything against its own people or anyone elses.

Communist states were the only ones to ever build walls to keep their people in. Fascist states murdered the elderly and infirm. Theocracies keep women under the heel and do things like execute them for the crime of being raped. Judge a country by how it treats its own people, because God knows they'll treat you four times worse.

Iran is democratic to the point that people support a theocracy. They are religious. At one point Ireland did too. It is your opinion yes, but the majority of Iran have an opinion too, and that is to be subjects of an Islamic State.

Actually, that's 20 years of first-hand Irish experience in South Lebanon.

Whether or not you served in Lebanon that doesnt defeat the fact that the CIA have a history of fabrication.

Judt

Israel is a recognised state by the UN yes but how does it stop it practicing terrorism.

Fine, let's say for arguments sake they're both as bad as one another. Iran is still a state sponsor of terrorism. If we follow that line then the USA is, too. Ok, I can live with that for a parameter in this debate. But the USA is a democracy and quite likes us, so I'd rather shaft Iran than shake their hand and discover I'm missing a few fingers.

And that test is?

Let's start with being a stable nation that doesn't promote crazy world views from its president up and down.

Iran is democratic to the point that people support a theocracy. They are religious. At one point Ireland did too. It is your opinion yes, but the majority of Iran have an opinion too, and that is to be subjects of an Islamic State.

I daresay that if we held a referendum in Iran tomorrow we'd see quite a lot of people who would disagree with the notion that everyone wants to live in an Islamic state. If a majority wanted a democracy I also doubt that the Islamic clerics would go quietly.

Iran is a country which would be far more likely to drop the bomb than a country like the USA. It's also a country I wouldn't trust to hold my tea and saucer. I know it's great to be anti-American and up anyone who is anti-American as a state policy, but I doubt you'd be laughing if they started the worlds first real nuclear shooting match.

Manic Moran

Judt wrote:

They're diesel powered, not nuclear powered. IE They're closer to U-Boats than the US Navy's subs.

He may be referring to INS Shakra, a Charlie class SSGN which was in service a few years ago.

A number of the Indian Kilo class diesel boats are equipped to fire Klub cruise missiles, which can carry nukes if the Indians have some small enough to fit. One can assume that the upcoming Amur and Akula-II purchases will also have that capability. I don't know if they're planning on fitting the Scorpenes with land attack capability.

NTM

marco murphy

Let's start with being a stable nation that doesn't promote crazy world views from its president up and down.

Would one of these crazy world views be bringing stability to Iraq?

Iran is a country which would be far more likely to drop the bomb than a country like the USA.

Hehe. How come the Iranians are developing relatively slow then?

Judt

Manic, it'll be one to keep an eye on alright.

Would one of these crazy world views be bringing stability to Iraq?

You mean annex one lot, murder another and let the Turks do what they will in the North? Well, the country would certainly get a lot quieter, same way a baby stops crying if you strangle it.

Hehe. How come the Iranians are developing relatively slow then?

Developing nuclear weapons isn't actually something you do with an airfix kit and a fold-out guidebook, even if it is in Japanese.

marco murphy

You mean annex one lot, murder another and let the Turks do what they will in the North? Well, the country would certainly get a lot quieter, same way a baby stops crying if you strangle it.

Elaborate.

Developing nuclear weapons isn't actually something you do with an airfix kit and a fold-out guidebook, even if it is in Japanese.

Iran has the capability to build a Nuclear Bomb before 5 years, why are'nt they speeding up, it is possible.

Judt

Elaborate.

Iraq is essentially three countries - like so many old colonies given arbitrary independence drawn on a map. The south to central region is populated by people religiously and ethnically affiliated with Iran. The middle bit is the Sunni minority, Saddam's tribe. The north is Kurdistan, which is a third group whom Turkey don't like because Turkey has a lot of Kurds who want to separate and join the Kurdish nation in Northern Iraq. The Kurds are the lot Saddam fired nerve gas at, remember.

So, the Iranians take over the south-central regions. The Sunni are wiped out - why do you think they're the group fighting the hardest in Iraq? They know they're screwed when the Shi'ite take power with Iran backing them. The Kurds then effectively have run their own country, with their own army and so forth, since the Iran-Iraq war. That's why the North of Iraq is so quiet.

If they get independence from Iraq then there will be an uprising of Turkey's Kurds, and Turkey will snuff the whole damn thing out. So, the kurds would be taken by Turkey, the Shi'ite's by Iran and the Sunni would be wiped off the face of the earth.

Iran has the capability to build a Nuclear Bomb before 5 years, why are'nt they speeding up, it is possible.

They've had the capability to research a nuclear bomb and build one. That's what they're gearing up to do now. There's a difference between having the reactor plans and theory on paper and actually doing it. They've become emboldened by the world situation and now they're moving on it. They know they can be the regional strong man once the US pulls out of Iraq... unless someone does a job on them first.

marco murphy

So, the Iranians take over the south-central regions. The Sunni are wiped out - why do you think they're the group fighting the hardest in Iraq? They know they're screwed when the Shi'ite take power with Iran backing them. The Kurds then effectively have run their own country, with their own army and so forth, since the Iran-Iraq war. That's why the North of Iraq is so quiet.



If they get independence from Iraq then there will be an uprising of Turkey's Kurds, and Turkey will snuff the whole damn thing out. So, the kurds would be taken by Turkey, the Shi'ite's by Iran and the Sunni would be wiped off the face of the earth.

I don't know why this is relevant to the thread. You claimed Iran has crazy views (or something). How is striving to bring stability to Iraq a crazy thing?

They've had the capability to research a nuclear bomb and build one. That's what they're gearing up to do now. There's a difference between having the reactor plans and theory on paper and actually doing it. They've become emboldened by the world situation and now they're moving on it. They know they can be the regional strong man once the US pulls out of Iraq... unless someone does a job on them first.

I seriously doubt that Iran is gearing up to build a nuclear weapons. An Oxford Research group has demonstrated the Iranians capability to develope nuclear weapons qutie quickly. But no, the Iranians are not, they are working towards Nuclear Energy.