Iran thinks the rest of the world-America in particular-is pretty stupid.
"We don't want to enrich uranium and make weapons, but if you try and get some real verification on that besides our word of honor to you, Great Satan, then we're gonna do it!"
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I think Russia's plan has some merit. A more globalized network of nuclear fuel refinement could be key to reducing the world's dependence on oil.
I very much doubt that Iran would strike first in any war at this point. They would be obliterated. And with Russia standing behind them, I think it would be very unwise to strike Iran preemptively. (I also definitely don't like the preemptive war doctrine.) All claims that Iran is developing nuclear weapons should be met with extreme skepticism given our outright 100%-wrong evaluation of Iraq's nuclear program.
I think that those who say Iran can't just be pursuing nuclear power because they have so much oil are not giving Iran any credit for seeking alternative fuels. Nothing is stopping an oil-rich country from conserving that limited resource or making money by selling it.
All in all, I do not think Iran is a grave threat, and while I do not support nuclear weapons proliferation, I think they should be allowed to use 60-year old technology to produce power.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:All in all, I do not think Iran is a grave threat, and while I do not support nuclear weapons proliferation, I think they should be allowed to use 60-year old technology to produce power.
If you do not think Iran with nuclear weapons is a grave threat, you haven't been paying attention. Their government has declared its desire to see Israel destroyed. They routinely label us the 'Great Satan'. Iran supports Hamas, a terrorist organization. They don't need to strike first openly, man.
We are trying to require Iran to demonstrate beyond its word that it isn't working to produce nuclear weapons. What, is that now some horrible imposition, too? I suppose because we were wrong about Iraq-aided and abetted by Hussein's constant manipulations and hedging-that we must be wrong everywhere, right?
Rubbish. No one is saying that Iran is not also pursuing nuclear power, people say they're extremely worried given Iranian history and propaganda that they're also pursuing nuclear arms.
Let them use nuclear technology to produce power. Let them also prove that is all they're using it for.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Regardless of whether Iran is a great threat or not, they have a right to nuclear energy and nuclear weapons if we have a right to them. After all, we've done worse than threaten nations - we've actually invaded nations.
I think Iran recognizes that we don't really have much of an argument to rest upon for attempting to stop them.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Iran has been working with the IAEA and would discontinue that cooperation if the Security Counsel adopts a resolution against them. I think the IAEA is the best mechanism we have for inspections, and we shouldn't throw that away.
Whether or not Iran believes Israel has a right to exist, whether or not they believe America is evil, I do not think they would use nuclear weapons against an enemy, especially not preemptively. They know that if they did, they would be immediately destroyed.
I emphatically refuse to support a war with Iran, especially a preemptive one.
Yes, let them pursue nuclear power. Let Russia refine it for them in Russia. I don't see a problem with that, and in fact, I support nuclear power on the whole.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, yeah, we're worse than Iran, Tresopax. We have a great argument for attempting to stop them: the majority of the rest of the planet is frightened at the prospect, too.
Nato, you're presuming that Iran would, what, launch a missile from Tehran and broadcast it on TV with the President signing the order? They're friends with Hamas. Do the bloody math.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
One of the reasons, I started this thread was because I was looking for good ideas before I make up my own mind. So, far, I find Nato rather persuasive.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:We have a great argument for attempting to stop them: the majority of the rest of the planet is frightened at the prospect, too.
That's not a valid argument to justify that sort of military action, though. If it were, we would have been supported in our invasion of Iraq. As it is, we haven't even invaded North Korea, which is equally feared and is openly pursuing nuclear weapons.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Tresopax. Additionally, Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against the production or stockpiling of nuclear weapons last year.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: we haven't attacked NK (and won't) because they have nuclear weapons. Its been years since they moved (to a hidden location from a location under seal and observation) a large quantity of weapons grade nuclear material. They have nukes.
There are other reasons, too, but you can bet that having nukes tops the list.
The assertion that our behavior should be identical against many countries in vastly different situations due to an overly simplistic similarity is laughable. That you are using such a bad argument in response to at least somewhat more complex arguments underscores the weakness of your position.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Tresopax.
North Korea was a signatory of that treaty too. I believe Iraq even was. But when you have enemy nations who do possess nuclear weapons, and call you evil, and demonstrate a willingness to unilaterally invade nations that it considers evil, I suspect the argument that you are bound to obey that treaty loses some credibility. After Iraq, I doubt there will be much support, especially in the neighboring Muslim nations, for a hard-ball defense of that treaty in Iran.
quote:The assertion that our behavior should be identical against many countries in vastly different situations due to an overly simplistic similarity is laughable.
Well, yes, but I haven't made that assertion. I just asserted that we would have had support for invasions of Iraq and North Korea if being afraid of a country were considered a good enough justification to invade it.
quote:That you are using such a bad argument in response to at least somewhat more complex arguments underscores the weakness of your position.
Do you agree or disagree that being afraid of a country is a good justification to invade it?
[ February 02, 2006, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Pretty much everyone ignored my post on the last Iran thread, and I think I will repost it here, considering we are talking about the NPT.
Why should any country honor the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when the nuclear weapon owning members haven't fulfilled their own obligations?
quote:Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament
quote:Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Its fourty years later and we still have 10,000 estimated nuclear weapons. The United States is in violation of this treaty.
The NPT was a deal made between the nuclear weapon owning countries and the non-nuclear weapon owning countries. The deal was basically that they not try to get weapons, and we will make every effort to get rid of ours.
We obviously have no intention of doing this, so trying to hold other countries to a deal when one side is cleary not holding up to their end seems hypocritical to me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003. Iraq is still a signatory, but I'm not sure I see how that's relevant.
I'm also not sure I buy "but the other guy is doing it too" as a valid justification for reneging on your own committments. I certainly don't take it as a truism. I think it's valid in some cases, but when we're talking about building nuclear bombs I'd really rather everyone just didn't; I don't take "but some do" as a justification for doing it too.
However, I've said here before that if I were leader of Iran and shared their beliefs, I expect that I would be pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It's easy to read the example of North Korea as "Build nuke == don't get invaded," from the Iranian perspective.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm also not sure I buy "but the other guy is doing it too" as a valid justification for reneging on your own committments.
I agree. But the issue changes when your agreement is also related to a number of other agreements that are being broken by other nations.
I suspect the idea of a peaceful, law-abiding international community underlies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. You accept the idea of non-proliferation on the grounds that other nations will accept their responsibilities to maintain an international community that is safe for you, or at least that they will not destroy you without due process. Once you have good reason to think that underlying assumption is gone and that you might be attacked at any time without due process, treaties built under that assumption begin to dissolve. No nation would honestly agree to such a treaty if they thought it would mean getting conquered or dominated by another... yet, I suspect that is exactly the situation we've put Iran in. (Same reason Israel felt compelled to pursue nuclear weapons, I suspect - because they feared an Arab invasion otherwise.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Mere fear from is an overly simplistic similarity, not to mention a mischaracterization of several people's positions.
This question is nearly meaningless in this discussion:
quote:Do you agree or disagree that being afraid of a country is a good justification to invade it?
For one thing, even those here whose arguments entail fear of Iran are not motivated because of fear. The same things that cause fear (can) create a need for invasion; mere fear is not what motivates a desire for invasion, but comes from the same causes.
I don't think Iran should be invaded, at least not yet. However, there's certainly a case to be made, largely motivated by our understanding of Iran's professed desire to use nuclear weapons combined with the window of opportunity available before they can.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
As far as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty goes, some people have said that no country can be trusted to have nuclear capacity.
Perhaps so, but I don't think that knowing that has much impact on whether or not we get rid of our nukes.
If we all got rid of our nukes, some rogue country would still make them and then we would have no deterrent to stop them from bombing the world. Nukes are a part of our world now. In saying that I am not resigned to letting every country develop their own nukes. But, I do believe it is not wise to give up our nukes just because we might do something awful with them.
On the whole, I feel better about democratic countries having nukes than dictatorships.
[ February 02, 2006, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: enochville ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If we all got rid of our nukes, some rogue country would still make them and then we would have no deterrent to stop them from bombing the world.
Well, except for the myriad of other military, economic, and political weapons we have... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So far as the Non-Prolif Treaty goes: The wording is loose enough to where I don't think we're violating what Xavier bolded. The nuclear arms race is over. We've decommissioned ICBM silos and scrapped much if not all of our boomer fleet, and those polaris missiles aren't aimed at anyone anymore. "Undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament" is rather vague. And from what I see, we're taking measures in that direction. There's nothing more concrete to the wording than that.
There's a huge difference between Iran and Iraq when it comes to nuclear weapons. We know Iran has long range missiles that can reach Israel. We know they have a nuclear plant, and while the public doesn't know what they are doing there, even Europe is concerned, which is enough to worry me. Europe doesn't get out of bed these days unless it's serious. Iraq was sketchy evidence, and we were wrong, but that was a lot shakier ground than what we're on right now.
And no, they don't have the RIGHT to have nuclear weapons. No one has that right. America has them because we got there first, as did Russia, France, and Britain. And now Korea and China, India and Pakistan. If powerful nations of the world decide that a nuclear Iran is a threat to world safety, then they can do whatever they want to stop Iran from getting nukes. There is no moral imperative Iran could employ to possibly get me to agree they have the right to nukes.
And I'm sorry, but until the world is a safer place, I feel much better have a nice stockpile of nukes. 10,000 is overkill, but whatever, anything over a thousand or two is just window dressing. With America in control of nukes, we don't have to worry about what will happen with them. Our military is powerful enough to win a conventional war without being a worried a nuke will be a FIRST resort, rather than a last one. I don't feel anywhere near as safe knowing they are in the hands of Iran, or North Korea, or to be honest, Pakistan and India. Even Russia's nuclear safety measures are nowhere near what they used to be.
Say what you want about the West being in control of nukes, but we've had them for fifty years, and we've yet to see one of them fall into the hands of a terrorist, and excepting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which can be argued until the end of time, we've never used them, and those two times we did, was with a ruthless enemy.
If someone else wants to make non-weapons grade nuclear material for Iranian reactors, then I approve of that. Everyone should have access to nuclear power, but not nuclear weapons.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Thank you for addressing my post Lyrhawn, I'm glad somebody did.
I disagree, but that's sort of the whole point .
The NTP calls for every nation with nuclear weapons to totally disarm. Its clear. Its not loose at all.
quote:"Undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament" is rather vague.
Sure, this quote is from the introduction, and is left intentionally vague. But article VI is there to provide details, and it is NOT vague in any way, shape, or form.
Article VI says that every country needs to COMPLETELY disarm at an early date. This disarmament is to take place under strict international control. Its right there in article VI, in plain English. How can you dispute that?
The only vague part is the inclusion of "early date" as opposed to a hard deadline. So the only way you can claim that the Unites States is not in violation is to claim that we do plan on disarming at some date in the future.
Do you really think that when the treaty was written, that they were talking about more 40 years when they say "early date"? Nuclear weapons were only 13 years old at that point.
And no one even tries to claim that we plan on disarming at ANY point. Much less any time soon.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:If we all got rid of our nukes, some rogue country would still make them and then we would have no deterrent to stop them from bombing the world.
Well, except for the myriad of other military, economic, and political weapons we have...
Yeah, because those reasons worked so well for Japan against us.....
Wait....nevermind. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Both a good and bad example. Japan was working hard to get the nuclear bomb. They were just too far behind us. I have little doubt they would have used if they had it first. Assuming they had a plane capable of dropping it anywhere.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
I'm with Kwea on this one Tres. No amount of military might is going to help if your home country has just been obliterated by nukes. What in the heck is the military going to come home too? However, I don't really believe that we will be the first to go in.
Or as a friend of mine posted some time ago on a different board:
quote: We're going to do a lot of sabre rattling. And for now, that's probably it. Going into Iran is a whole differant ball of wax than going into Iraq. The Iranians are equipped, ready and trained specifically to take us on under their own conditions. Not to mention any major land campaign would be hampered by their rather unique geography that while most Persians may call "home" most of our tactical commanders would call "Bad News".
I wouldn't be very surprised if Israel and Iran traded a few conventional ballistic missiles though. If that happnens, Israel will volley at Bushehr, Natanz and Esfehan in an attempt to enforce policy with or without global support, maybe even a surgical air strike if they get the balls for it. In retaliation, Iran will answer with her Shahab-3 MRBMs. Probably conventional loadout, but with Ahmedinejad and Komenaiei at the helm, lord knows there could be something nasty inside. Jerusalem would be fine, but Tel-Aviv would take the brunt of it. They really hate that city.
In the old days (pre Iraqi Freedom) the Iranians probably would have launched and tanked F-4s and Su-24s over Iraq and Syria for a good ole fashioned strike and subsequent furball with the IAF. That would have been a hoot to watch.
Either way, I don't really see us making a beach landing at Bandar Abbas anytime soon, unless the Iranians get cute and mine the straight of hormoz like they've always threatened (and did in the Tanker wars).
If it happens...I would NOT want to be on that spearhead. I'll wait till we reopen an embassy in Tehran before I go to Iran like that. It would be...ugly. America is not invincible, and Iranian commanders are not self-absorbed power mongers like Arab commanders tend to be. They are coolheaded and tactically proficient. The only thing they lack is all the money they need. If it comes to it, the major Inf. Divisions and Expeditionary forces in Iraq will have some comabt experience in it, but not at the level that the IRIGF and the IRGC would throw at us. They would be a lot more coordinated than an insurgency. It would be more like a Viet Cong style, hit and fade, with the equipment to back it up. An occupation force would be chewed up pretty soon.
On a brighter note however, there is extreme dissatisfaction at the "mullocracy" as it were, and we might just find a pretty loyal citzenry to back us up, not to mention potential defecting units of their military, especially if this all happened during another revolution. I wouldn't put money on entire units defecting, but it's possible. The thing that worries me is that even though most Iranian youths really like Americans, violating Persian soil tends to bother them on a socio-psychological level. They've been invaded a lot of the years and every time, Iran finds new and interesting ways to make life very difficult for the invading force, ever since the greeks and the mongols.
I dunno. I'd like to not go to any more wars though.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
As far as a signatory of the NPT: Yes, another friend of mine. Lets just say that he thanks god every day that he doesn't have to do his job. He's a Missle Tech.
quote: Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.
2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so [namely, us] shall also cooperate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.
Since no-one can prove (or disprove) that they (Iran) are not using the technology for that purpose, then they are still within the confines of the letter of the treaty.
Further, one of the last articles is particularly pointed (in partial reference to NK and probably Iran in the future):
Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.
Obviously there's alot more to the NPT than just the portions quoted here, to include notification requirements for withdrawl from the Treaty (but really, think about this now, why would a country give three months notice? Better yet... what the heck would anyone do if they didn't give three months notice? Spank them?)
I know my posts have been just quotes from friends of mine. However the first one deals with intelligence items. And the other has been following this when I didn't have time to. As long as I have known them I stand by their opinions.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Yeah, because those reasons worked so well for Japan against us.....
Japan had already lost when we dropped our nuclear bombs. The nukes just made them surrender much faster.
Had Japan had the technology we have, and alliances with almost every nation in the world to back them up, they would have had more than enough to deter any invasion by us. You can't nuke everyone without ruining your own country as well. That's not to mention the economic power we hold. You can bet that the fact that most of Iran's wealth comes from their ability to sell oil to us is a strong deterrant against any Iranian decision to move against us in a way that would disrupt that trade.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
The last I checked we are loosing alliances. We're loosing friends like a bad hair day gone even worse. And it's not as if we are the only ones who purchases oil. China's buying almost as much as us. An' them stopping an oil supply is definately a way to wage war against us. Not that we have ever had that used against us before *cough* WW2 (by our own companies no less).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think the old alliances are as dead as you might imagine. Our traditional allies are still as much allies as they were. Britain, Canada (for what it's worth), Australia, much of Western Europe. If America were attacked, they'd be on our side, if they were attacked or if an area of common interest were assaulted, they would be on our side.
If by "losing allies" you mean that "no one is supporting us in Iraq" then I question your definition of ally. Ally doesn't mean they do whatever we ask, hell, we rarely ever do what our allies ask of us. Those allies are still there for us in many ways, but I think they've finally hit tilt when it comes to what they will do for us without question.
The honeymoon is over.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Stan,
Almost every country in the planet is against Iran having some kind of unfettered nuclear enrichment programm, and for referring them to the security council. Iran is not Iraq 2002. Iran is much more Iraq 1990 since the evidence is much more persuasive that they are a threat.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Uhm, Storm Saxon, if you are implying that the world is close to supporting some kind of armed response against Iran I think you are very mistaken. In my view, it is doubtful that even an outright declaration from Iran that they were working to arm themselves with nuclear weapons would provoke the majority of world countries to support an armed attack (although probably an embargo). Afterall, Pakistan and India developed nukes soliciting (mostly) only verbal condemnation for their actions. The hypocracy between the disparity of response in relation to the disarmament versus the non-proliferation obligations inherent in the NPT that Xavier brought up is in fact seriously damaging the credibility of the nuclear powers' reaction towards Iran.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Storm is probably more right here. Pakistan and India's leadership isn't as twitchy as the Iranians, and the Iranians have known and scary ties to terrorists.
The world knows that Pakistan and India are scary with nukes, they may blow each other up. But the world also knows that with Iran in control of nukes, they could get loose to terrorists and then ANYONE could get blown up. And that most likely means the west.
I'm curious as to how Iran would ever try (if at all) to explain away how their nukes got into the hands of terrorists. We'd know it was theirs.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
Those had been posted up like a week ago. However, much of it is still the same. The difference, and I agree Storm, is the now plausible military action. I am hoping that Europe leads that one. I for one do not want to go in right now. It's almost impossible to do so. It would take about 250 planes to do a proper airstrike of their facilities. We are spread out pretty thin as it is.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm curious as to how Iran would ever try (if at all) to explain away how their nukes got into the hands of terrorists. We'd know it was theirs.
It's funny, I read that a few minutes ago, and wondered exactly how could we ID a nuke after it went off? It's not exactly your average CSI case. Maybe analyzing impurities in the fall out?
Then I saw this short blurb from the Washington Post via Google news:
quote: Pentagon to research potential nuclear fallout: report
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon has formed a team to analyze fallout from nuclear attacks on American soil in a bid to identify the potential attackers, the New York Times reported on its Web site on Thursday. The report cites Michael K. Evenson, associate director for operations at the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which directs the team, as saying the program began operations last year. The objective of the program is to quickly determine who exploded the device, in part to clarify options to strike back, the Times reported.
I don't know whether to be happy or sad that we're already planning the post-mortem for a terrorist nuke attack. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Did ya'll notice how the IAEA says Iran is not nuclear capable?
Did you see that they just won the Nobel Peace Prize?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
We'll see, Tristan. This goes back to me kind of joking around in another thread and saying that little was edit: probably going to come out of the Security Council beyond an endless cycle of resolutions. "'Stop!' or we'll say 'Stop!' again!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What, the IAEA says Iran is never going to be nuclear-weapons capable?
There's gotta be a special Nobel category for that. Maybe something more substantive than the 'Peace' category.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
Doesn't that fall under the Nobel Prize for fiction literature?
Morbo -
They can examine the fallout and check the plutonium to see which reactor facility created it. Assuming our intelligence can get the data from the Iranians (which is questionable these days), but at the very least they could determine if it were Western or Russian, which would only leave the Middle East, China, North Korea, and India. That may not seem like much, but it narrows it down.
Assuming we have the data from their reactors, we can determine if the fissile material came from their or not. At the very least, we'll know it wasn't us or an ally.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Perhaps the IAEA just said they weren't nuclear weapons capable now, which is exactly what our guy Negroponte said recently in congressional hearings.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Lyrhawn, that's basically what I guessed.
But given the US credibility gap after the non-appearance of Iraq WMDs, would anybody believe the administration if they claimed to have proof of who's nuke was used in an attack?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There are other nations besides the USA that have the ability to trace what sort of nuclear material was used in a bomb. It might not point to a single nation, but it would narrow things down.
If a nuclear weapon is used against an American target or worse in America itself, I think a lot of people are kidding themselves that we would give a damn what anyone in the world-even our allies-thought about who did it or what our response should be.
It would be the outrage at 9-11 multiplied many times.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If someone nuked America, and we knew who it was...
They'd better make their peace with their God. There'd be no force on Earth, no ally's calming words, that would save that group, person or nation from America's wrath.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Unless they are good at hiding. We haven't gotten bin Laden yet, after all, and I doubt we could try any harder to do so.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Al Qaeda has suffered, I would guess at least hundreds, and maybe thousands of losses in the last couple years of our warfare against them.
He's one man, and in a world where he really doesn't have control of the movement. He's a player within it, but he can't stop it, he can only move within it. Killing bin laden wouldn't halt their movement, it wouldn't slow them down, and it wouldn't lose them some mastermind genius of tactical planning.
If the movement hits us, we hit the movement, not ONE guy in the movement.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Iran reacted angrily over its referral to the United Nations Security Council Saturday, saying it'll stop allowing nuclear inspectors and the compromise with Russia is dead.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It is not definitive that OBL is still alive. I'm not suggesting that he is, really, I'm just saying that as far as we know, everything about him right now is an unknown.
He's either dead, or so far under a rock that someone could truthfully ask him, "Have you been living in a cave for the past five years?"
And if he's not dead, we'll kill him before he dies of natural causes, almost certainly.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
I think we have not gotten bin Laden, yet because he is in Pakistan (an almost autonomous, bin Laden supporting region of Pakistan). The Pakistani government might have a civil war on its hands if they directly pursued bin Laden. However, the Pakistanis together with US bombing have successfully captured or killed many al Qaeda leaders. Perhaps things are changing enough that the Pakistanis can go in and get bin Laden.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It is not definitive that OBL is still alive.
He did release a video just recently that referred to pretty current events, and the government said they thought it was really him, so if he is dead we killed him only in the last few weeks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The government has said that the voice they've pulled from scratchy tapes sounds like him. And the government has been known to be wrong.
All I'm saying is that the only "evidence" we have isn't really conclusive of anything except that someone who claims to be bin Laden is referring to recent events.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If someone nuked America, and we knew who it was...
They'd better make their peace with their God. There'd be no force on Earth, no ally's calming words, that would save that group, person or nation from America's wrath.
This is why nobody is going to pick a nuclear fight with America. Anybody who starts a nuclear war unprovoked has no allies.
Don't discount the IAEA so fast, Rakeesh et. al. Do you think our credibility on the matter is better?
As far as bin Laden goes, I agree with you. There were reports that he was in a hospital with severe kidney failure and an Egyptian newspaper ran his death notice in 2001, and many in the Arab world believe that he has been dead for years. There were questions to the authenticity of both the recent tape and another post-2001 tape, so I don't think it would be absolutely out of the question that he could be dead. The current tape could have been released by an imposter.
enochville: Did you see when the CIA keeps shooting missles at innocent civillians in Pakistan and not hitting the high-priority terrorist targets we said we were aiming for (at a wedding party for instance)? The strategy isn't working. Even if we somehow did hit a couple low-priority terrorists, which has not been proven, the people over there hate us for the collateral damage.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
Nato: What do you think about the article I posted at 8:42am today? Do you think there is any hope at resurrecting the Russian plan? What would you recommend next?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:from your article: Among those backing referral was India, a nation with great weight in the developing world whose stance on referral was unclear until the vote.
I found this interesting, mainly because the article didn't mention this previous news:
Just a week ahead of the International Atomic Energy Association meeting on Iran issue, the United States on Wednesday made it clear that if India did not vote against Tehran's nuclear programme, the fallout on the Indo-US nuclear deal in the Congress would be "devastating" and the initiative will "die".
I do support the Russian plan, as I mentioned earlier. I definitely support nuclear energy, especially the meltdown-proof "pebble bed" reactors. (They don't melt down because if there is a failure, core temperature decreases instead of increases, so there is no possibility for the reactor core to overheat and "melt down" through it's structure.) I would like nuclear power generation to proliferate, although I don't support use of nuclear weapons. One kg of uranium can produce up to 3,500,000 MW of electricity if it is reprocessed several times. Coal and oil kinda pale in comparison, eh?
I hope that this situation doesn't escalate to war. I would much rather see Iran allow increased IAEA inspections, but I would also like the US and other countries to be willing to accept those inspections as adequate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nato,
I have not discounted the IAEA. I have objected to you drawing much greater conclusions than their actual statements permit: such as IAEA says they're not capable now, meaning situation=no problem.
quote:This is why nobody is going to pick a nuclear fight with America. Anybody who starts a nuclear war unprovoked has no allies.
Look, the leadership of Iran are a bunch of fundamentalist fanatic Muslims. Which part of "fundamentalist fanatic"-and especially the word fanatic-is so difficult to understand?
They're freaking crazy. Normal standards of behavior do not apply to them, and especially not to the known terrorists of Hamas who they're in bed with.
A nation that makes a habit of calling us "Great Satan" and calling for our death and that of our allies even having nuclear power is seriously worrisome. I don't know where this magical "right" to have nuclear power was manufactured, exactly, but I'd love to hear about that place.
"Rights" imply "responsibilities". You cannot have the one without the other. For instance, I believe in the "right" to bear and own firearms. I do not believe that this "right" if, for instance, I stood up on a ladder on a streetcorner and said with a lunatic gleam in my eye, "I'm gonna bust a cap in you, you, your dog, your pizza-delivery man, and people who make fun of my holy figures."
Maybe that doesn't sound like such a big deal to you. Maybe you're thinking, "Well maybe if we weren't screwing them over so routinely, they wouldn't be saying things like that." (This is an argument that has some merit, much more than 'they've got the right to nuclear power') Me, though? I'm worried about the part where we're giving a pack of matches to the guy who's laughing maniacally with a can of gasoline and pointing to my house.
By "more concerned" I mean "almost to the exclusion of all else". As for CIA missile attacks, your statement is far from representative of the controversial practice. To date it remains unclear especially in the latest case, the "dinner party", whether or not numerous Al Qaeda leadership were killed. The jury's still out on that.
Our attempt at strongarming India seems to be pretty damn stupid.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: A nation that makes a habit of calling us "Great Satan" and calling for our death and that of our allies even having nuclear power is seriously worrisome. I don't know where this magical "right" to have nuclear power was manufactured, exactly, but I'd love to hear about that place.
"Rights" imply "responsibilities"...etc[/qb]
The right to peaceful nuclear tech is a major part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which Iran is signatory to. Iran having even peaceful nuclear tech worries me too, but there's little the US can do about it diplomatically. The NPT wouldn't have gotten off the ground without excluding peaceful nuclear technology. 187 countries would never have signed a more hard-line treaty.
quote: Third pillar: the right to peacefully use nuclear technology
Since very few of the nuclear weapons states and states using nuclear reactions for energy generation are willing to completely abandon possession of nuclear fuel, the third pillar of the NPT provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.
For some states, this third pillar of the NPT, which allows uranium enrichment for fuel reasons, seems to be a major loophole. However the treaty gives every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty#Third_pillar:_the_right_to_peacefully_use_nuclear_technology Of course, enrichment is a grey area, allowed by the treaty because it has peaceful uses but considered an intermediate step towards nuclear weapons.
Which is why it's so disappointing the Iranians didn't take the Russian compromise, where the Russians enriched uranium for the Iranians on Russian soil. It would have allowed the Iranians to pursue peaceful nuclear tech, without the more dangerous enrichment technology. It's a shame it was rejected, maybe it will be revived at a future date. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I hear ya, Rakeesh. I don't think the Iranian government is very trustworthy, especially with their current leader, but I still don't think they would start a nuclear war that they would be absolutely sure to lose.
I don't know what to think about the Iranian president. He makes ridiculous statements seeming to want to provoke war. I don't know what his goal is in this, or if there's something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Morbo,
See the "rights implying responsibilities" part.
Nato,
Again, I am not talking about a nuclear-tipped missile being openly launched from within Iran.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Here's an interesting article:
quote:Dispute Over Israel Delays Vote on Iran Nuclear Resolution Egypt and other Arab states routinely demand references to a "nuclear free zone" in the Middle East in Security Council documents, arguing that Israel — which has never admitted that it has nuclear weapons and unlike Iran has never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — should be part of a general security framework in the Middle East that bans such weapons.
In the current debate, Egypt has argued that if a resolution is passed that makes the Security Council a player in considering Iran's nuclear program, it must include language about a nuclear-free Middle East.
But the problem has exposed a split between the Americans who oppose the Egyptian demand and Russia, China and the Europeans who support it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think a nuclear Hamas would attack Israel before it attacked America.
Attacking America with nukes gets them less than nothing. It would ensure all aid to Palestine is eliminated for the rest of their existence. It would greatly and vastly empower Israel and return to them an unshakable moral high ground.
There's nothing to be gained for them, especially not when they consider their only true enemy to be Israel, many of them still consider America to be a party that can be swayed one way or the other, and the Palestinians wouldn't move to openly provoke us.
The Israelis would feel the brunt of their attack. And it's that fear that will ensure they always have nukes and will never give them up. They feel it's the only way to make sure they exist, if everyone around them is afraid of being immolated by an Israeli nuke.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
I think that the ideas of the NPT and the CTBT are inherently flawed. By attempting to limit nuclear weapons to US, UK, France, Russia and China is not only futile, but also stupid. While I dont think that Iran having nuclear weapons is a good thing, I don't think it has anything to do with the NPT or CTBT. Post WW-II, many of the erstwhile colonizing nations attempted to maintain their dominance over the third-world nations by enacting laws and 'treaties' that locked in the status quo in regards to ecnomic and military development. In many instances, this was achieved by offering third world nations short-term financial aid to steer public opinion. Personally, I think that Nuclear-Disarmament is the only way forward, neither the US or Russia needs the thousands of nuclear war-heads that they have stockpiled between them. Even if a "rogue" government (let's say Iran for example) launches a nuclear attack on the US, would it be okay for the US to retaliate with nuclear weapons on the innocent people of Iran? I, for one, don't think so. That being said, it's very difficult (and problematic) for the nuclear have's to tell developing nations not arm themselves with nuclear weapons, because for many, it's a form of making sure that the nuclear have's dont invade them. India, for example, needs to maintain it's nuclear arsenal as long as China is happy and willing to supply Pakistan with nuclear weapons or is maintaining it's own arsenal. One of the main reasons that has kept India and Pakistan from going to war in the last twenty years is the knowledge that both have access to nuclear weapons. That being said, I think that urgent military action does need to be taken against the Iranian Government because I shudder to think what they will do to Israel if they do managed to get their hands on nuclear weapons. From the PM's statements, it's pretty clear that he wants to obliterate the Israelis, and I don't think that's acceptable. I like Russia's offer of supporting the nuclear power-plants, but I would be startled if Russia "stood behind" Iran if they were to start developing nuclear weapons.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
*cough* WW2 (by our own companies no less).
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)