Iran

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:40 AM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gotta agree with Gino, Piz. Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons, and soon. Otherwise, we might decide to invade. As we've already shown with Iraq and North Korea: If we THINK you're trying to get them, we'll invade; if we KNOW you already have them... we'll talk.

The only way Iran gets a seat at the big boys' table is if they have nuclear weapons. Those aren't THEIR rules; they're ours. At least that's the example we've set.

---

We can't even handle 2 military locations Mike, Iran has to see that. They're just posturing. That's almost ALL they do.

---

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 4:54 AM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:

Quote:

---

I'm not more scared of a nuclear Iran than I am of a nuclear Israel, Pakistan, or United States.

---

Well there's that prospect of a middle east nuclear arms race that might concern you a little bit.

Ultimately whether you think non-proliferation is hypocritical or not, this ultimately becomes a question of whether we *want* every country that desires its own nukes to have them, or not (or, like Gino, whether you think a country like Iran acquiring a nuke would improve the nuclear balance).

If no to both questions, then non-proliferation is an imperative - and one we can't afford to not enforce rigidly.

A debate on the apparent hypocrisy is ok I guess - it speaks to the question of whether all nations should reduce their nuclear arsenals in the future, or eliminate them completely (there'd be downsides to this, even if it could be achieved). But I question the value of apathy/hand-wringing on this issue...

Heads should roll

---

Like I said earlier...

If heading off an arms race is so important, why didn't this come up with Israels nukes ?

There was attempts to stop Pakistan, but as India was there to, it was let go to preserve a balance...

I would be all for making the middle east a nuclear weapons free zone, but don't see how it could be done. How willing would Israel be to give up their arsenal ?

Are you willing to start another war over this KPO ?

and this time with a country that hasn't been starved, bombed and terrorized into submission for a decade ?

I think nothing would unite Iran, like the US firing missiles into their country, and I really believe they would not let that stand...

Your troops in Iraq could face not only a Shia uprising, but a full on Iranian counter attack at the same time...

It is not an issue for the US to decide anymore,

unless your going to use nukes, and become what you say you fear them of them becoming...

---

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:29 AM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Yeah, bad analogy, but you get a pass since I know what you are going for. That was within this country = different.

Guys, I know what you are saying but I also know you don't know what's in Ahmadinejad's heart and soul (pls, no Bush references) so you don't win me over. "If you're guessing then you don't know." And with Iran we'll be guessing for a long time. Tomorrow, if they put you in charge of US security (not you Gino) are you going to be so trusting?

It's WORLD politics. If you think local is crazed and full of paranoia this is even worse.

Gino - my favorite thing you said is other countries not feeling like they need to do what the US says. No one likes a bully - we've got a lot of repairing and bridge building to do. OBAMA'S NOT HELPING. Sorry for the caps - I'm starting to get pissed when I think of him. It's a slow process but no matter what I think of O. I feel like we're making the turn.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

---

I know you said not me, but I will answer that anyway pizmo, it is a good point you make.

I would let them have their nuclear power... and if they felt they needed to go to nuclear weapons, well ok

but that line about great power equals great responsibility...

You make the point ( not just with them, but everyone with nukes... ) perhaps a new treaty would be quite appropriate, that such weapons are for defensive purposes only, and that any country launching a first strike with them, or passing weapons or tech to third party automatically becomes the enemy of all the other signatorys...

ie Iran pre-emptively nukes Israel, US, Russia and China Nukes Iran

or US nukes Iran pre-emptively then Russia, China, and India nukes US

legal use requires a majority vote, or you are the next target...

some type of collective security arrangement that would make these weapons one of very last resort ie never to be used, including American ones.

Because Bush aside, why trust US leaders either ?

" That was within this country = different. "

why does it have to be ? if we reguarded folk as folk and treated everyone else as we would be treated, and not vilify some with RappyFacts when it suits us... would not many of our problems go away ?

sure it is bigger than individuals, but why do group rights fiqure lower than individual rights ?

as a species I think we need to have more respect for each other, and forget the race, religion, citizenship crap that divides us... that will be the next big evolution.

or maybe I'm too optimistic



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

---

Yes. And I'd also include in that great responsibility the idea that we tell Iran point blank: "You want to pursue nuclear weapons? That's your right, but know this: Fully one third of our CONSIDERABLE nuclear arsenal is now targeted at every city in your country, every town of over a hundred people. If ONE mishap occurs, if even ONE of your nuclear weapons finds its way into the hands of any rogue nation or terrorist group, we will hold you responsible for their actions, and your entire nation, your culture, your history, and your people will simply cease to exist, and will be forever lost in the dustbin of history. But hey, have fun with your toys!"

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

---

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

KWICKO

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:54 PM

Good point.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 8:50 PM

Iran confuses again with 'further enrichment'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8503751.stm


President Ahmadinejad visits natanz plant - April 2008
Iran plans to carry out the further enrichment at a plant monitored by the IAEA

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent BBC news website

Iran's announcement that it will further enrich its stock of uranium adds to suspicion of its ultimate intentions but leaves the United States and its allies as confused as ever.

The Iranian move came only days after President Ahmadinejad spoke positively of a deal under which the further enrichment would be done abroad.

There are still no answers to the questions: Does Iran intend to build a nuclear device one day?

Is it simply acquiring some of the know-how so that it could do so?

Is it, as it says, just developing the peaceful use of nuclear power, exercising its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (though this is for the moment superseded by the demands of the Security Council and the UN's nuclear watchdog the IAEA that it stop all enrichment activities)?

Or is it using its nuclear programme as a rallying-cry for the regime and to increase its international impact?

As is so often the case with Iran, it has, with this latest move, increased its resistance but has fallen short of reaching the significant red line of enriching to weapons-grade standard.

Medical reactor

It has said that it will raise the level of its uranium enrichment only to a level not suitable for a nuclear weapon and only for a particular purpose.

Specifically, it has said it will take some of the uranium it has enriched to the 3.5% level needed for nuclear power station fuel and will further enrich it to 20%, but not to the 90% needed for a useable nuclear bomb. One assumes it can do this, though the IAEA will have to verify it.

URANIUM ENRICHED TO...
3.5%, Iran's current level, is used in nuclear power stations
20% is used in research reactors
90% and above is used in nuclear weapons

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue
Iran's key nuclear sites

This plan, it says, would give it fuel to power a small nuclear reactor producing medical isotopes. The reactor has been operating in Tehran since 1968 (it was installed for the Shah by the Americans), but is running short of fuel. The current fuel for the reactor comes from Argentina.

Last year Iran suggested getting more fuel from abroad but was instead offered a deal under which its low-enriched uranium was taken to Russia and France for conversion into the necessary fuel rods and returned. The idea was to get the bulk of the uranium out of Iran (it is currently simply stored) and allow time for negotiations.

Despite some occasionally promising noises, this deal remains undone and would be redundant if Iran went ahead with its latest plan. Iran still says it would not need to do the extra enriching if it got fuel from elsewhere.

Arguments

In Iran's favour, it can be stated that it does have a problem with the Tehran reactor and that it has repeatedly said that it will not build a bomb.

The 20% enrichment, it also says, will be done at the Natanz plant, which is under IAEA monitoring.

Against that, it is still defying the United Nations Security Council on total enrichment suspension and refuses to enter into talks about a long-term way of ensuring that its intentions are peaceful.

There is an added loose-end this time.

It is not clear how Iran could convert - and therefore why it is doing so - the 20% enriched uranium into fuel rods for the Tehran reactor as only France and Argentina can do that at the moment.

Sanctions debate

All this leaves the countries negotiating with Iran - the US, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - split as to how to react.

The US, Britain, France and Germany want to increase sanctions, and aim them specifically at those involved in the nuclear work, but China has said no for the moment and Russia is uncertain.

The hope is that a policy can be agreed by the time of a nuclear Non-Proliferat

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

GINOBIFFARONI

Thursday, February 18, 2010 12:56 AM

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust ANYONE with nukes, why should I trust Iran?

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

But if you were surrounded by countrys with nukes,

and you had a pair with the record of Israel and the US making daily threats against you... ( and that hostility predates the nuke power program )

Would you not want to protect yourself ?

The best solution would be Pakistan, India, and Israel giving theirs up and the US getting out of the region... but that likely will not happen...

what do you do ?

---

That's the rub isn't it? To pursue nukes only makes that target on your back larger. To pursue higher grade enrichment Publicly only insights the US - that seems a big flaw in the reasoning of "if you want to protect yourself..."
I'd come out in favor of peace and win the world's favor. I know, quaint!

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com]

---

I seen this and I think it addresses what you were asking maybe a little more clearly than I did


http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/02/17/irans-unambiguous-ambig
uity

Iran's unambiguous ambiguity

"What is Iran hiding?" asked Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, rhetorically.

It is, she concluded on the basis of "mounting evidence" - read circumstantial evidence - developing "nuclear weapons" and that is not acceptable to the US.

True, Iran is not coming clean on its intentions over its nuclear programme. Rather it is doing the absolute minimum under its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations to underline how its nuclear programme is civilian in nature, when UN resolutions and mounting suspicion require more.

But states are in the business of hiding their intentions, especially concerning national security and sovereignty. If they were forthcoming and transparent, intelligence services would not exist.

Actually, Tehran is managing a sensitive, even dangerous balancing act. It reveals the minimum required by its international obligations while making bombastic statements about its breakthroughs in nuclear enrichment.

As it tries to please the IAEA as an accountable member of the international community, it annoys, even embarrasses, the US and its European partners to please its nationalistic popular base.

Nuclear made unclear

Why would Iran go through the trouble and risk of igniting stiffer sanctions and possible military attack?

Arguably because it reckons that is the best way to safeguard its national sovereignty and strategic deterrence in a region dominated by a US and Western military presence.

Iraq, if we care to remember, was also ambiguous about its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programme prior to the 2003 US-led invasion.

As the regime of Saddam Hussein complied with related international resolutions and destroyed all traces of whatever WMD programme (imagined or real) it had, it continued its political posturing just as it maintained its ambiguous military posture.

After his capture, Saddam Hussein told his US jailors that Baghdad did not come clean because the regime was concerned with maintaining a minimum deterrence towards Tehran. The same applied to Washington.

The Iranian regime which stood silent, even complicit, as the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, in the hope of gaining favour and influence, found itself vulnerable after 2004 when the Bush administration went wild in its crusade to transform the region's politics and stood by Israel as it invaded South Lebanon in 2006 to take on Tehran's ally, Hezbollah.

Remember in 2007, the most authoritative arm of the US government on the subject, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), concluded with "high confidence" that "in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons programme

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME