Evidence of Iran's nuclear bomb ambition

[Tyrant]

Shall be presented in this thread, and shown that it is something more than a suspicion (AKA Wishful thinking).

 

[Elrod Jericoho]

I am worried about Iran. Whaat if they invade part of Iraq???

 

[Tyrant]

You just gave a bunch of idiots the option on going about completely different topics RE: Iran, such as:

Iran oppresses people
Iran once took Americans hostage
Iran smells funny


What do you think of their nuclear power ambitions?

 

[Organic]

Iran's nuclear weapon project has to be stopped. It is a question of how, which how and when what way is best to provoke them into attacking first.

-Organic

 

[Elrod Jericoho]

Persian food can be pretty good.

On the other hand, I think the key question with Iran's nuclear ambitions is whether it's driven by nationalist or religious motivations.

Decent article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/magazine/29islam.html?ex=1162875600&en=045bd7b7b40b67dc&ei=5070

sorry, I know this has little to do with "evidence" of nuclear ambition.

 

[Tyrant]

On the other hand, I think the key question with Iran's nuclear ambitions is whether it's driven by nationalist or religious motivations.

Decent article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/magazine/29islam.html?ex=1162875600&en=045bd7b7b40b67dc&ei=5070

sorry, I know this has little to do with "evidence" of nuclear ambition.

No need, it seems relevant. Before I begin reading the article, I'd like to state unless I'm mistaken, Iran is a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and has every right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy.

Why do you think religious motivations might be behind them seeking to acquire this source of energy?

I'll dissect this article as I see it in the next post... (EDIT: 9 pages? Hmm...)

 

[Elrod Jericoho]

Basically the religious vs. nationalist motivations is part of the thesis of the article I linked... I'll refrain from expounding and allow you to read for yourself.

 

[Tyrant]

For nearly 50 years, worries about a nuclear Middle East centered on Israel.

I'd have to say that depends which country you're in. The only thing I have seen in the mainstream US media are worries of Arab nations building nukes. You rarely hear about Israel's WMDs, at least when compared to how much we hear about the possibility of Arabs acquiring the bomb.

Arab leaders resented the fact that Israel was the only atomic power in the region, a resentment heightened by America’s tacit approval of the situation.

These are weasel words. Resented..?

But they were also pretty certain that Israel (which has never explicitly acknowledged having nuclear weapons) would not drop the bomb except as a very last resort. That is why Egypt and Syria were unafraid to attack Israel during the October 1973 Yom Kippur War. “Israel will not be the first country in the region to use nuclear weapons,” went the Israelis’ coy formula. “Nor will it be the second.”

Interesting. Would Russia or any other nation not have developed the bomb if the US had stated the same thing?

Russia developing nukes in response to the US' developing nukes, or France's in response to Russia's is understandable, but Arab nations who also want the aegis of a M.A.D doctrine should be blocked ?

Today the nuclear game in the region has changed. When the Arab League’s secretary general, Amr Moussa, called for “a Middle East free of nuclear weapons” this past May, it wasn’t Israel that prompted his remarks. He was worried about Iran, whose self-declared ambition to become a nuclear power has been steadily approaching realization.

This isn't completely accurate. Iran is attempting to build a reactor. Germany has plenty of reactors yet isn't considered a nuclear power by military standards. Have the concepts described by the words suddenly become interchangeable?

The anti-Israel statements of the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, coupled with Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, might lead you to think that the Arab states would welcome Iran’s nuclear program.

And based on the presumption this article makes, that Arab leaders (Even the ones in bed with the West) resent Israel, and are petty enough to support the acquisition of nukes for any Islamic state. Doesn't jibe.

After all, the call to wipe the Zionist regime from the map is a longstanding cliché of Arab nationalist rhetoric. But the interests of Shiite non-Arab Iran do not always coincide with those of Arab leaders. A nuclear Iran means, at the very least, a realignment of power dynamics in the Persian Gulf. It could potentially mean much more: a historic shift in the position of the long-subordinated Shiite minority relative to the power and prestige of the Sunni majority, which traditionally dominated the Muslim world. Many Arab Sunnis fear that the moment is ripe for a Shiite rise. Iraq’s Shiite majority has been asserting the right to govern, and the lesson has not been lost on the Shiite majority in Bahrain and the large minorities in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. King Abdullah of Jordan has warned of a “Shiite crescent” of power stretching from Iran to Lebanon via Iraq and (by proxy) Syria.

All this over a reactor? It seems as though if the author has completely ignored the question of 'if' and as jumped to 'what, when, how,' etc.

But geopolitics is not the only reason Sunni Arab leaders are rattled by the prospect of a nuclear Iran. They also seem to be worried that the Iranians might actually use nuclear weapons if they get them. A nuclear attack on Israel would engulf the whole region. But that is not the only danger: Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere fear that the Iranians might just use a nuclear bomb against them. Even as Iran’s defiance of the United States and Israel wins support among some Sunnis, extremist Sunnis have been engaging in the act of takfir, condemning all Shiites as infidels. On the ground in Iraq, Sunni takfiris are putting this theory into practice, aiming at Shiite civilians and killing them indiscriminately. Shiite militias have been responding in kind, and massacres of Sunni civilians are no longer isolated events.

Adding the nuclear ingredient to this volatile mix will certainly produce an arms race. If Iran is going to get the bomb, its neighbors will have no choice but to keep up. North Korea, now protected by its own bomb, has threatened proliferation — and in the Middle East it would find a number of willing buyers. Small principalities with huge U.S. Air Force bases, like Qatar, might choose to rely on an American protective umbrella. But Saudi Arabia, which has always seen Iran as a threatening competitor, will not be willing to place its nuclear security entirely in American hands. Once the Saudis are in the hunt, Egypt will need nuclear weapons to keep it from becoming irrelevant to the regional power balance — and sure enough, last month Gamal Mubarak, President Mubarak’s son and Egypt’s heir apparent, very publicly announced that Egypt should pursue a nuclear program.

Nuclear weapons program?

Given the increasing instability of the Middle East, nuclear proliferation there is more worrisome than almost anywhere else on earth. As nuclear technology spreads, terrorists will enjoy increasing odds of getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

This is clever. More nuclear bombs = more chances of them falling into the 'wrong hands.' And it makes as much sense as saying that the more China, Russia, and the US pursue laser weapons technology, the better the chances terrorists have of constructing a Death Star.

States — including North Korea — might sell bombs or give them to favored proxy allies, the way Iran gave Hezbollah medium-range rockets that Hezbollah used this summer during its war with Israel.

This person is comparing a weapon capable of unimaginable destructive power to conventional rockets?

Nuclear weapons can't just be smacked together using a button of plutonium and a high-explosives. No nation would be foolish to give away its nuclear stockpile to any old mullah on the street, or anyone. In such an event, the world would decide that that nation simply isn't responsible enough to function as a nation, and would dismantle it as a political entity.

Bombing through an intermediary has its advantages: deniability is, after all, the name of the game for a government trying to avoid nuclear retaliation.

So a bomb would blow up somewhere, and the entire world would sit on its arse and politely ask and point fingers as to where it came from? Does this sound plausible to you?

Proliferation could also happen in other ways. Imagine a succession crisis in which the Saudi government fragments and control over nuclear weapons, should the Saudis have acquired them, falls into the hands of Saudi elites who are sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, or at least to his ideas.

So the $5 trillion nuclear deterrent the US has developed won't help? I'd like my money back, please.

Or Al Qaeda itself could purchase ready-made bombs, a feat technically much less difficult than designing nuclear weapons from scratch.

If we are to operate under the assumption that sovereign states could might maybe be daft enough to share their bombs, why are we even having this discussion? We'll always be able to say 'Well MAYBE they'll give it terrorists," so let's just fire the EMP and send them all back to the dark ages.

Does it ever occur to anyone that no one wants nuclear proliferation because the nations that do have nukes don't want to lose this advantage?


Sorry, this is insanely boring. I think I'll stop now, but I will read it.

 

[Tyrant]

The marriage of Islamism and anti-Americanism will probably be considered by history as the most significant consequence of the Iranian revolution.

And yet, no mention of near-unconditional support of Israel.

Finished. It has quite a few holes in it and many of the conclusions are based on fallacy, but it was a good read either way.

Iran might be religious on the outside, nationalist on the inside. Certainly it wouldn't be overtly nationalistic to its Islamic neighbors when it could play the Islam card and have their support. I, however, do not agree with much of the foundations of the article.

 

[Ogami]

When a nuclear Iran nukes Israel, Messenger will applaud because Israel deserves it. And should we go back and tell Messenger of your prior claims that Iran had no such bombs or ambitions, you'll claim you were misunderstood.

So far messenger, you've told us you believe explicitly any claim by Iran that they only want peaceful nuclear energy. You've also told us you believe any claim made by Saddam Hussein in his justification for conquering Kuwait. But there is one country you believe lies, America, and its leader, President Bush.

Thanks for keeping us clear on your scorecard. (This means that if I was a dictator, messenger would be kissing my butt so much that your lips would suffer contusions.)

-Ogami

 

[headvoid]

Iran is trying to develop Nuclear Weapons - The type of enriched uranium they have and the Gas centrifuges they have at "nankan?" (sp) are just too fishy for anything else.

I'll look it up later Mess when I'm not so tired - but I will have to disagree with you on this one.

 

[Tyrant]

When a nuclear Iran nukes Israel, Messenger will applaud because Israel deserves it.

Yes, I will applaud when millions of innocent people are fried. Good catch.

And should we go back and tell Messenger of your prior claims that Iran had no such bombs or ambitions, you'll claim you were misunderstood.

There's no evidence. They may develop a bomb, or the world might be forced to intervene, but at this moment and based on the current facts, the whole debacle is nothing more than a smear campaign and an attempt to soften the public up for another war.

So far messenger, you've told us you believe explicitly any claim by Iran that they only want peaceful nuclear energy.

Links, please.

You've also told us you believe any claim made by Saddam Hussein in his justification for conquering Kuwait.

Links, please.

But there is one country you believe lies, America, and its leader, President Bush.

Yup.

Thanks for keeping us clear on your scorecard.

You're the one who dreamed it up. Links, please.

(This means that if I was a dictator, messenger would be kissing my butt so much that your lips would suffer contusions.)

-Ogami

It means you've wasted more time formulating a post based on bullshit.

 

[Tyrant]

Iran is trying to develop Nuclear Weapons - The type of enriched uranium they have and the Gas centrifuges they have at "nankan?" (sp) are just too fishy for anything else.

I'll look it up later Mess when I'm not so tired - but I will have to disagree with you on this one.

Old but relevant:

"An Iranian plant that produces heavy water officially went into operation on Saturday, despite U.N. demands that Tehran stop the activity because it can be used to develop a nuclear bomb."

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://apnews.myway.com//article/20060826/D8JO3EQ00.html



As a side note, both the US and Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which authorizes signing nations to use nuclear reactors for power generation and to process the fuel for those reactors. Iran is within its rights under international law to build power reactors and fuel them. In attempting to rescind that right, the United States is now in violation of that treaty.

The warhawks will scream that Heavy Water Reactors are more efficient at making plutonium, which is a key ingredient of implosion type nuclear weapons. However, to recover the plutonium from the spent reactor fuel requires a processing plant as complex and large (and observable) as a weapons-grade uranium enrichment plant, i.e. 16,000 centrifuges in a cascade in a plant covering 700 acres of ground. As of this writing, Iran's agreement with Russia under which the reactor was constructed is that fuel rods are returned to Russia for processing.

In summary, what Iran is doing is exactly what it is allowed to do under treaty the US has signed. As was the case with Iraq, claims that nuclear weapons are being built are undocumented and unproven. There is no evidence that Iran is doing anything other than building power stations.

However, if Iran were building nuclear weapons, who could blame them? Israel (which has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and does not allow inspections of their reactor and weapons lab) certainly is building nuclear weapons, and Iraq taught the world a lesson on what the US does to nations that do not have nuclear weapons. The US has already broken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by attempting to pressure Iran into shutting down their nuclear power projects.

And if Iran had a nuclear bomb, so what? We The People of the United States are still paying off the massive loans from the building of the US nuclear arsenal. We were sold the thousands of warheads and delivery systems with the promise that this was a DETERRENT; that having this formidable (and costly) nuclear weapons arsenal would prevent other nations from attacking us. Well, either the deterrent works, or we all got screwed for the trillions of dollars spent on nuclear missile submarines, nuclear-capable bombers, and land-based nuclear attack missiles.

If that deterrent works, then let Iran have their nuclear weapons. They won't dare use them on the United States because the United States would turn Iran into a giant green glass parking lot.

If, on the other hand, Iran having a nuclear bomb is a real danger to the US, and the deterrent does not work, then we all got ripped off by the government in yet another "Let's suck more money out of the suckers" swindle for which the US Government has become infamous.

Which is it? Is the US nuclear arsenal a deterrent or isn't it? Were those trillions spent worth it, or did we get suckered? Are we all owed a refund because we did not get the safety and security we were promised when we paid for those missiles and submarines?

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot force us to pay to build the most powerful nuclear weapons force in the world, then pretend that Iran is a threat to us is they build a single bomb.

 

[Organic]

Once again, Messenger freely admits that he believes anything Iran and Soddam tell him. I consider him a security threat to this great nation because he did not vote for the One True Party as he freely admitted towards the doing of in a thread of different addressnessness.

Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb and will give it to terrorists the second it does. We know this for certain and if we did not we should not take chances. We know this. I also have my serious extreme suspicions of this. I'm not the only one who extremely suspects the Islamo-fascists.

This is why we have to invade and make sure they don't. Except if we don't get them to attack first it will give another excuse to faggot liberal bitches communist peace dove to try to undermine our Great Nation.

-Organic

 

[Tyrant]

Criticism is welcome.

 

[Ogami]

I guess Messenger takes the easy way out on discussions, just endlessly saying "prove it" without saying anything to support your contention that Iran does not seek nuclear weapons.

Talk about being on autopilot.

 

[Organic]

Once again, Messenger takes the easy way out of the discussion. He endlessly asks for 'Facts' when we make the correct assertion that Iran is making a bomb. How do we know? Because we know. The bad guys are up to no good, and it's easy take the way out of discussioners like Messenger who act as enablers. I bet there were messengers around when the russians got the bomb.

Your entire post iran post is not only too long did not read, but also wrong.

Messenger, prove that they are not making nuculer weapons. I bet you can't.

-Organic

 

[FBI parte due]

Well, I dunno. Seems to me like the one making the positive assertion should have to defend themselves.

 

[headvoid]

Why would Iran enrich Uranium to 4.8% and be testing the P-2 gas centrifuge from Pakistan?

Why would Achmadintheheadijad state in April of this year that they had enriched to 3.5% (the level required for Nuclear Power Reactors) then later it be revealed they got to 4.8% and are looking to improve? They get to 20% and then they have weapons grade.

This is also a country that had a massive display of its Rocket Weapons in the centre of the country recently source including the Shahab 3 - capable of delivering a Nuclear Warhead over 1000 miles away.

This is all circumstantial evidence, I accept - but when the farmer comes out of the sheep pen with his trousers round his ankles, a rosy glow in his cheeks and bits of wool on his cock - assumptions can be made.

 

[jack]

Messenger is astute, as usual. Can't you guys engage in a rhetorical discussion without letting the personalities creep into it, once in a while? The post makes some strong points about our rhetoric.