NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry Bush--and the rest--you'll have to find another WMD story. According to today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447.html):
Traces of bomb-grade uranium found two years ago in Iran came from contaminated Pakistani equipment and are not evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, a group of U.S. government experts and other international scientists has determined.

"The biggest smoking gun that everyone was waving is now eliminated with these conclusions," said a senior official who discussed the still-confidential findings on the condition of anonymity.
Iran has been saying this all along, but the Bush administration didn't listen because, hey, listening is so passive, and they're a bunch of doers, not listeners, and besides, without the notion that Iran was close to a nuke, no one would be willing to listen to the possibilty that we should go into Iran next. Sound familiar?
European officials convened an IAEA board meeting two weeks ago to discuss Iran's actions and sought a new report for this week on its program. But the report was pushed back to Sept. 3 so that the group of scientists, including officials from the Energy Department, could meet one last time to draft an account of its findings, according to U.S. and European officials.

The IAEA had put together the group of experts in an effort to foster cooperation but also to eliminate the possibility that its findings would be challenged by the White House, officials said. In the run-up to the Iraq invasion in March 2003, the White House rejected IAEA findings that cast doubt on U.S. assertions about then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal. The IAEA findings turned out to be correct, and no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
So I guess that makes the score IAEA 2 - Bush Administration - 0.

Ah, so Iran doesn't have WMD...well, I guess we're invading soon.

If Iran has not MDW, it's a dead country.

All the facts would seem to indicate that Iran has no WMD. :)

But I hope they do. :D

I shouldn't even waste my time here, but I will. Iran has a nuclear energy program. They insist that it is for peaceful purposes only. The problem when it comes to that is that, using their energy program, it wouldn't take many steps off on one direction to create nuclear weapons. In theory they could already have them, but I don't think even President Bush is saying that right now. Still, a good number of the global community think that we can't really trust Iran when it comes to their nuclear program. Many years ago (about 20 sounds close) they told everyone they didn't have any nuclear energy program. It was soon discovered that they definitley did. We just aren't sure if we can trust them being so close to being able to create WMDs.
Info: Irani Nuclear Program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program)

The thing is, under international law, any country is entitled to a nuclear energy program, and what's more, the IAEA is obliged to render technical assistance if it is requested, provided no overriding UN SC rulings exist. That is the whole reason the IAEA was set up, to proliferate nuclear power systems across the globe.

The problem that arises is nuclear weapons being a different branch of the same processes. But you can't really do much about it, without infringing national sovereignty and going against the activities of some very well-respected UN agencies, set up by the Permanent 5 themselves.

So the US is in an understandable tangle, because it has no legal recourse.

Iran May be recieving 3M83 Moskit Nuclear anti-ship missiles designed to deafeat Ageis from Russia. The missiles deliver a 750 pound or 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, and sea skim at mach 2.2, then use 'Violent end maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other anti-missile defenses.

http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm

May be

That's it.

Iran May be recieving 3M83 Moskit Nuclear anti-ship missiles designed to deafeat Ageis from Russia. The missiles deliver a 750 pound or 200 kiloton nuclear warhead, and sea skim at mach 2.2, then use 'Violent end maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other anti-missile defenses.

http://www.softwar.net/3m82.html

http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
Pretty standard stuff for an anti-shipping missile, these days, except for the nuclear capability, but it's not difficult to adapt, the tricky part is the warhead. I doubt it is beyond Iran's capability to adapt existing anti-shipping missiles for nuclear payloads - it is their ability to construct a compact nuclear warhead that can withstand those stresses that I very much doubt.

Now they're in for it. Not even Bush is stupid enough to hit a country that might nuke him back, hence the attacking of Iraq and the 'talking' with NK after they admitted that they were nuclear.

Now they're in for it. Not even Bush is stupid enough to hit a country that might nuke him back, hence the attacking of Iraq and the 'talking' with NK after they admitted that they were nuclear.
My guess is that Iran feels a bit more secure since they became China's primary source for oil--China's not going to take kindly to any interference with their oil supply, and they don't even have to rattle sabers to get their point across. They just have to stop buying dollars and they can screw our economy.

They should invade anyway. Cause maybe they are planning to get nukes. Especially after everything.

They should invade anyway. Cause maybe they are planning to get nukes. Especially after everything.
You have very accurately laid a finger on the pulse of the American people. :D

You have very accurately laid a finger on the pulse of the American people. :D

Mmmm. I can see it now.

"He looked at me funny. He might have been trying to mug me. So I shot him."

"The cashier didn't give me my 1 cent change. He might have been trying to cheat me. So I robbed the store."

etc, etc. =p

Since when was there an arguement whether Iran "had" nuclear weapons? The arguement was against a powerplant that would be capable of producing what they needed for a nuclear weapons program eventually...
Least that's how it's been sold to me as by the German news.

Since when was there an arguement whether Iran "had" nuclear weapons? The arguement was against a powerplant that would be capable of producing what they needed for a nuclear weapons program eventually...
Least that's how it's been sold to me as by the German news.
Those features come as standard. It's just the nature of the process. You need to produce nuclear fuel to make a reactor run, and you can take that stuff and do all sorts of unpleasant things with it, if you have the time, money, technology and inclination. But mere production of nuclear fuel is not a crime. It's just that the stuff you're unavoidably working with can be misused. This bullshit about certain cultures being insufficiently trustworthy to handle it...it's unbelievable prejudice. If India, Pakistan and Israel can be trusted not to do anything stupid, Iran certainly can.

I might add that the details of the nuclear fuel cycle are a bit of a cumbersome thing to explain to most Americans and produce the desired result, so it makes more sense for American politicians to fudge the details and act as though actually warheads are being produced RIGHT NOW! :rolleyes: When in reality you're talking about fairly involved chemical processes which can be taken in all sorts of directions.

Those features come as standard. It's just the nature of the process. You need to produce nuclear fuel to make a reactor run, and you can take that stuff and do all sorts of unpleasant things with it, if you have the time, money, technology and inclination. But mere production of nuclear fuel is not a crime. It's just that the stuff you're unavoidably working with can be misused. This bullshit about certain cultures being insufficiently trustworthy to handle it...it's unbelievable prejudice. If India, Pakistan and Israel can be trusted not to do anything stupid, Iran certainly can.Who's talking about cultures? I don't trust Iran because it's a theocracy, not because they're descended from the Persians...
And considering that it is found praiseworthy to do anything you can to avoid accepting Israel as a nation (like eating too much in order to be disqualified in an olympic event you'd have to face an Israeli in) isn't some government I'd trust with nuclear weapons.
The thing is, the EU is attempting to find a way that Iran can be kept from developing the materials necessary, and it is possible.

I might add that the details of the nuclear fuel cycle are a bit of a cumbersome thing to explain to most Americans and produce the desired result, so it makes more sense for American politicians to fudge the details and act as though actually warheads are being produced RIGHT NOW! :rolleyes: When in reality you're talking about fairly involved chemical processes which can be taken in all sorts of directions.Too true... The problem the EU has with it is that it can be used either way, so they're offering to take over part of the process to prevent it, with incentives added on top.

I might add that the details of the nuclear fuel cycle are a bit of a cumbersome thing to explain to most Americans and produce the desired result, so it makes more sense for American politicians to fudge the details and act as though actually warheads are being produced RIGHT NOW! :rolleyes: When in reality you're talking about fairly involved chemical processes which can be taken in all sorts of directions.

Right. Most americans are sheeple. If the admin tells them that reactor grade nuclear fuel is a clear indication that Iran wants to nuke us, they will believe it. Hell, 60% of them believed Saddam was responsible for 9/11 on the day we invaded Iraq. A fairly large percentage thought Saddam WAS bin Laden.

This admin is so fullofshit. And the sheeple are eating it like its candy. I blame the media for being used as a propaganda machine, the evangelical Christians for indoctrinating their followers to believe everything that comes out of a guy's mouth who stands behind a podium, and the NeoCons for their endless war agenda.

Anyone here read the Northwoods Project documents? Pretty scary.

We are SO screwed if Cheney and Rumsfeld stay in power. Bush is just their trained monkey.

Too true... The problem the EU has with it is that it can be used either way, so they're offering to take over part of the process to prevent it, with incentives added on top.

Didn't they more or less say "Nope, we're not outsourcing."?

This bullshit about certain cultures being insufficiently trustworthy to handle it...it's unbelievable prejudice. If India, Pakistan and Israel can be trusted not to do anything stupid, Iran certainly can.
Erm if America was a ""Christian""(not the turn the other cheek, forgive type the 'other' everyone else is going to hell type.) theocracy would you want it to have nukes? It's not about the culture it's about exetremism.

There are 2 options for Irani government:1. to build nuclear weapons and get a bad reputation but make sure that USA will not be after them, or
2. to keep claiming that the program is peacefull. Bush will say that they lie, conquer the country and then apologize for the mistake.

Can you people really, I mean REALLY blaim them if they build a WMD? It seems to me that it would be better for the world peace to build than not to build it.

Can you people really, I mean REALLY blaim them if they build a WMD? It seems to me that it would be better for the world peace to build than not to build it.

They would likely sell it to terrorists or use it against Israel. Iran is a theocracy which hates Israel (for being Jewish), and the Western world (for not being Islamic theocracies). Allowing them to get a nuclear weapon would probably be the biggest threat to world peace since the Cuban Missle Crisis.

They would likely sell it to terrorists or use it against Israel. Iran is a theocracy which hates Israel (for being Jewish), and the Western world (for not being Islamic theocracies). Allowing them to get a nuclear weapon would probably be the biggest threat to world peace since the Cuban Missle Crisis.
I think it's headed for the right track though, the youth are demanding more democracy and more western ideas.

The worst thing the US could do is invade, Iran is actively hunting down terrorists. US invades, yay another spawning ground for terrorists :(

The worst thing the US could do is invade, Iran is actively hunting down terrorists. US invades, yay another spawning ground for terrorists :(Much worse. Do you know who wouldn't like to see an invasion of Iran? The people keeping the largest ethnic group in Iraq docile, the Shia clerics...

Much worse. Do you know who wouldn't like to see an invasion of Iran? The people keeping the largest ethnic group in Iraq docile, the Shia clerics...
Woo 2 in 1! :(


Whatever happend to that war of terrorism anyway?

They would likely sell it to terrorists or use it against Israel.

Unlikely. If they have something called eyes and ears, they'd know Bush and co would be ready to point their fingers at Iran the moment a nuke went off that didn't have an ICBM launch signature to go with it in their borders or in Israell regardless of who owned it.

More likely if they ever do get nuclear weapons, they'd probably go "Nyah nyah! You can't invade us."

Giving away your best means of deterring an invasion to a group likely to trigger an invasion would be extremely stupid. And you don't get to be in a ruling position by being stupid. Being an asshole yes. Being a jackass, yes. But being stupid? No. Unless your a puppet.

Woo 2 in 1! :(


Whatever happend to that war of terrorism anyway?It went cold when they started relocating the camps to Pakistan, which is an ally.
Or, what might be nicer, Bush realized that there's more to a War on Terror than military action. I personally think that there's a lot of action we don't here about. You'd be surprised to find out in which other parts of the world the US military currently operates...

I think it's nice how the anti-Americans would love to see Iran get nuclear weapons just to spite the USA and Israel and don't give a crap about all the lives that will be lost in the regional nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran that is the inevitable result of an Iranian bomb.

Iran, using a nuclear weapon against Israel, would be commiting suicide in the very same moment. They do have brains.

Iran, using a nuclear weapon against Israel, would be commiting suicide in the very same moment. They do have brains.
All it takes is some Mullah who decides he's ready to send his people to meet their 72 virgins each. I don't trust the self preservation instinct of religious nuts.

I think it's nice how the anti-Americans would love to see Iran get nuclear weapons just to spite the USA and Israel and don't give a crap about all the lives that will be lost in the regional nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran that is the inevitable result of an Iranian bomb.

Have you become a seer? Are you certain it is inevitable? Or are you merely discarding any other possible outcome?

And a single Mullah having complete executive control over the use of a nuclear weapon belonging to the country? I am not sure you are familiar with how they operate in Iran, but they do have a council. A single person advocating that would have to be able to convince the whole council likewise.

It would be very much like a single Mullah having complete control of the army over the others in the council. In short, not possible.

Or in a context translated to American processes, it would be like a congressman deciding to use the country's nuclear arms on his own volition.

Peace through threat of mutual annihilation. A constant during the Cold War and apparently a re-emerging trend I do believe. Unfortunately, all that means is that wars will be fought with proxies rather than direct clashes.

Have you become a seer? Are you certain it is inevitable? Or are you merely discarding any other possible outcome?
Please don't use that arguement. I hear it too often from people that tell me global warming won't happen...

Please don't use that arguement. I hear it too often from people that tell me global warming won't happen...

Mmmmm, sorry about that. Unfortunately, I was speaking in terms of human behaviour, which in most cases, is far more unpredictable than global weather patterns and the effect humanity has on it.

Ah, so Iran doesn't have WMD...well, I guess we're invading soon.

Yup. Hopefully we'll stay too occupied in Iraq until Bush is out of office and then we can get a president who's focused on things besides declaring wars in the middle east.

Who's talking about cultures? I don't trust Iran because it's a theocracy, not because they're descended from the Persians...
Who decides that a theocracy is an unacceptable form of government?

Russia and China were ex-feudal communist dictatorships, and are now both tending towards fascism, with their expansionist instincts intact. Pakistan is effectively ruled by a military junta brutally trying to keep a lid on islamic separatists without starting a civil war. Israel has spent the last few decades furthering the Warsaw Ghetto project. India is a nominal, albeit corrupt democracy which never objected to nuclear brinksmanship with its neighbour as recently as a couple of years ago.

Presumably, the US, UK and France are in some way more 'reliable', although even in the US, the teaching of science is under attack from a powerful Christian fundamentalist lobby.

And we are to pronounce judgement that a constitutional theocracy is an unacceptable way of running things? When communism, fascism, military dictatorship and war crimes by democratic consensus are OK?

Bullshit.