NationStates Jolt Archive

While support for the Iraq war slides, and support for possible other adventurism virtually nonexistant... how can Iran help GW out in returning to that original mantra about being worried about WMD proliferation in the Middle East?

Well, first you continue with your nuke programs....


And then you do something really fucking stupid, like have the President say (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051026/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_israel_5;_ylt=AjxmmlPYQ_jBsheiFcM6W01g.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--) that Israel is a "disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map".


Merry Christmas George.

Have fun with it.....

OceanDrive keeps telling me that Iran has no intention of wiping Israel off the map, and he keeps asking me for a link.

Thank you for providing one.

Thanks Iran for proving that you want Israel gone. Guess what? Its not going to happen.

Don't you just love war?

Don't you just love war?

Nope but if Iran wants to start it, they can. US and her Allies will finish it.

Nope but if Iran wants to start it, they can. US and her Allies will finish it.

Yeah, but Iran is quite a bit more populated than Iraq... A potential guerilla war there could be much worse than the current one in Iraq.

Yeah, but Iran is quite a bit more populated than Iraq... A potential guerilla war there could be much worse than the current one in Iraq.

Only this time, we'll have more allies and we know how to handle a guerilla war. Especially if the Brits are in there with us.

Only this time, we'll have more allies and we know how to handle a guerilla war. Especially if the Brits are in there with us.

Possibly. We'd just have to see, and then, I hope we won't.

Possibly. We'd just have to see, and then, I hope we won't.

Makes 2 of us.

Thanks Iran for proving that you want Israel gone. Guess what? Its not going to happen.
Wow, how lame. You posted this response in the other thread about this as well. Find a new way of saying the same thing.

Wow, how lame. You posted this response in the other thread about this as well. Find a new way of saying the same thing.

Meh. I don't care. I'm to tired to write orginial things for threads on the same topic tonight. Besides that, today's my birthday so I'm going to be a pain :D

I hope everyone here remembers their responses, because it might shut you up in two years when you start bitching about how it's a big media and/or government conspiracy or something. On the surface, this looks like it could be politically "profitable" for the Republicans, so I'm sure pundits on the other side of the aisle will be quick to the draw, since we saw how quickly doubt was raised in response to Bush's intelligence on WMD in Iraq.

If I spoke for America, I would subtly remind all involved that while you may get a nuke or two and start a war, you can bet your ass we would end it. I would be perfectly willing to wash my hands of the situation and promise swift and brutal [i.e. all-destructive] retaliation for resultant attacks. I'd promise to end US meddling if they would be so nice as to not go crazy and blow things up. I do feel oddly sympathetic to the Palestinian plight but in light of their methods I'm forced to dispense nothing but condemnation. As far as I'm concerned, these guys are hanging by a thread.

Yeah, but Iran is quite a bit more populated than Iraq... A potential guerilla war there could be much worse than the current one in Iraq.
Who says we fight a guerilla war? You tell Iran bluntly that if they try any shit, a couple of Minuteman III or Trident IIs will be headed their way. That's how we should've dealt with the Taliban after 9-11. TOld them to turn over Bin Laden in 24 hours or be nuked.

Who says we fight a guerilla war? You tell Iran bluntly that if they try any shit, a couple of Minuteman III or Trident IIs will be headed their way. That's how we should've dealt with the Taliban after 9-11. TOld them to turn over Bin Laden in 24 hours or be nuked.

Yeah, and give every tin-pot dictator in the world the legitimate claim of "self-defense" in pursuing nuclear weapons.:rolleyes:

China's probably more than willing to sell them, too.

Who says we fight a guerilla war? You tell Iran bluntly that if they try any shit, a couple of Minuteman III or Trident IIs will be headed their way. That's how we should've dealt with the Taliban after 9-11. TOld them to turn over Bin Laden in 24 hours or be nuked.
Well, they were a backwards society. And I'll admit, you guess did a hell of a bang up job there by blowing up all that dirt and rubble! :p

Yeah, but Iran is quite a bit more populated than Iraq... A potential guerilla war there could be much worse than the current one in Iraq.

Sand and glass if they want to play with nukes. No worry for guerilla warfare.

Sand and glass if they want to play with nukes. No worry for guerilla warfare.

Of course doing that gives everyone more excuses to make nukes.

Yay for nuclear winter...

Yay for nuclear winter...

'Bout time ... it's been so hot here!

Y'know, it fightens me how eger some of the posters here are to toss around nukes. Don't you remember the idea of MAD? It's still in effect, if anyone launches that's it.

Y'know, it fightens me how eger some of the posters here are to toss around nukes. Don't you remember the idea of MAD? It's still in effect, if anyone launches that's it.

No ... it's just taking a laughing stance ... if a big ol' nuclear war broke out, there ain't much we can do about it .... so we laugh to keep ourselves from weeping ourselve's to sleep.

No ... it's just taking a laughing stance ... if a big ol' nuclear war broke out, there ain't much we can do about it .... so we laugh to keep ourselves from weeping ourselve's to sleep.
That I can accept, IDF's post though...

Of course doing that gives everyone more excuses to make nukes.

Yay for nuclear winter...

You answer nukes with nukes. Thats the only way in my eyes. This is why I do not want to see the US using them first.

Y'know, it fightens me how eger some of the posters here are to toss around nukes. Don't you remember the idea of MAD? It's still in effect, if anyone launches that's it.


Absolutely mad works... Only for logical thinking leaders. Some lunatic I cant say.

Yeah, but Iran is quite a bit more populated than Iraq... A potential guerilla war there could be much worse than the current one in Iraq.Not only that. Guerrilla warfare will be worse in Iraq too, if that happens.

Absolutely mad works... Only for logical thinking leaders. Some lunatic I cant say.

*Looks at IDF's post*

You mean like him?

Anyone got a profound guess how Pakistan would react to a US-Iranian war?
And how India´s response to a Pakistani interference in said war would be? The winning question, though, is: If India and pakistan get it going, will China make it´s move?
Besides, I guess there won´t be nukes on Iran until the fully automated oil-winning bots are ready ;)

(edit: I like typos)

I've noticed that unlike his usual denials, Ocean isn't denying this one.

Nope but if Iran wants to start it, they can. US and her Allies will finish it.
No we won't. We'll let the Israelis deal with it and shrug our shoulders. Israel is more a symbolic than an actual ally.

In the unlikely event that Iran goes massively nuclear on Israel, Israel will execute the "Samson option", which is its MAD program. Many of its neighbors would suddenly be very busy dealing with rebuilding major cities or stopping biologically engineered plagues.

Iran's real leadership - the people who keep stabbing the president in the back - aren't stupid. They know what'll happen if Israel comes face to face with annihilation.

Sand and glass if they want to play with nukes. No worry for guerilla warfare.
The United States is unlikely to push the button first. I would argue that the United States is unlikely to push the button at all, unless its own assets were nuked, Bushesque saber-rattling aside.

Wonderful, just ****ing wonderful. Lets just hope Iran hasn't been working on scuds.
Or I can look foward to the CNN On site team reporting with the Air Raid Sirens going off already already...

Yeah, but Iran is quite a bit more populated than Iraq... A potential guerilla war there could be much worse than the current one in Iraq.
We don't need to invade Iran to disarm it. A thorough bombing campaign of their military sites and airfields will do the job nicely. Plus we would have to bomb their nuclear sites. On the bright side, look at all the jobs we'll create for them. They'll need people to build new airports, new tanks, new military buildings, and to clean up the radioactive material that their leader's arrogance and ignorance created.

No we won't. We'll let the Israelis deal with it and shrug our shoulders. Israel is more a symbolic than an actual ally.

If Iran starts a war, the US will more than likely get involved. Why? Look at the region and you'll have your answer.

In the unlikely event that Iran goes massively nuclear on Israel, Israel will execute the "Samson option", which is its MAD program. Many of its neighbors would suddenly be very busy dealing with rebuilding major cities or stopping biologically engineered plagues.

Israel has bio weapons? You have proof of that? Also, are you sure that Israel has nukes?

Iran's real leadership - the people who keep stabbing the president in the back - aren't stupid. They know what'll happen if Israel comes face to face with annihilation.

They also know what will happen if they don't let inspectors in to make sure that it is for peaceful purposes as stated under the IAEA.

Nope but if Iran wants to start it, they can. US and her Allies will finish it.
Yup! And maybe this time they'll let me go back in too! Hoooah! I got nothin' better ta do anyway. Sigh. ( shrug )

We don't need to invade Iran to disarm it. A thorough bombing campaign of their military sites and airfields will do the job nicely. Plus we would have to bomb their nuclear sites. On the bright side, look at all the jobs we'll create for them. They'll need people to build new airports, new tanks, new military buildings, and to clean up the radioactive material that their leader's arrogance and ignorance created.

Yes, we wouldn't have any trouble reducing their military and civilian infrastructure to zero in a couple of weeks.

The question is, will that actually change their minds. I think they'll still build them.

Another thing to consider is this:

If I was Iran, and I was building nukes, I would know that delivery by ICBM is nice (in fact, they have already built the missiles that can reach as far as Europe - they just don't have the nuclear warheads), but attacking the US might not be technically feasible.

So I would put a few on cargo ships, and have them sail to the US, and meander around, carrying cargo to various Central American states. If the US attacked, I would then sail into various US harbors and blow up.

Yes, the Iranian government and its infrastructure would be destroyed - but it would not be without cost.

I submit that the US should force the Europeans to deal with this - the Europeans seem to want to take all the lead in negotiations. So, let them solve this by talking. And talking. And talking. And if we're not involved, the Iranians can hardly be tempted to let one off in our harbors. If they get pissed at anyone aside from Israel, it would be the Europeans with the potential sanctions.

Once the Europeans get a taste of nuclear terrorism, I'm sure they'll be willing to listen to US ideas.

If Iran starts a war, the US will more than likely get involved. Why? Look at the region and you'll have your answer.
Israel doesn't have energy resources. The United States would make threatening moves, but I doubt we'd step in actively unless a country with which we traded in energy resources was also threatened.

Israel has bio weapons? You have proof of that?
I don't have concrete proof, but it does have a BW research program heavily guarded by the Army. That's a little bit suggestive of a weaponisation program.

Also, are you sure that Israel has nukes?
Everyone in the world knows that Israel has nukes, about 200 of them, some of which are thought to be able to fit inside their Popeye cruise missiles. It's an open secret. (Google is your friend.) An Israeli kid once told me, as I was traveling with him through the country, "A few miles to the east of here, there's a nuclear weapons factory. The rest of the world knows about it, but it's a secret. Don't tell anyone I told you."

And if it didn't have any nuclear weapons (or a program to produce them), why'd they have a breeder reactor that's also heavily guarded by the army? (Google "Dimona".)

They also know what will happen if they don't let inspectors in to make sure that it is for peaceful purposes as stated under the IAEA.
The IAEA is a wonderful organization with a wonderful mission whose fangs and claws have been pulled by the UN. It can't get in to inspect sites that Iran doesn't want them to inspect. And it's never inspected India, Pakistan or Israel's programs, either.

Israel doesn't have energy resources. The United States would make threatening moves, but I doubt we'd step in actively unless a country with which we traded in energy resources was also threatened.

Apparently, you don't know the US as well as you think you do. We'll be fully supporting Israel in this type of fight. Also, even if it does come to nuclear blows, someone has to go in on the ground. That'll be the allies. Israel doesn't have the capacity to do it.

I don't have concrete proof, but it does have Biosafety Level 4 labs that are heavily guarded by the Army. That's a little bit suggestive of a weaponisation program.

Not necessarily true. You do know that Israel is always under terrorist threat right? Care to tell me what would happen if a lab was raided and something was taken and used in a terror attack? Its a safety precaution to prevent that.

Everyone in the world knows that Israel has nukes, about 200 of them, some of which are thought to be able to fit inside their Popeye cruise missiles. It's an open secret. (Google is your friend.) An Israeli kid once told me, as I was traveling with him through the country, "A few miles to the east of here, there's a nuclear weapons factory. The rest of the world knows about it, but it's a secret. Don't tell anyone I told you."

But has the world actually seen them? Have inspectors said that Israel has nukes? That's like me saying North Korea has nukes but I haven't seen them yet.

And if it didn't have any nuclear weapons (or a program to produce them), why'd they have a breeder reactor that's also heavily guarded by the army? (Google "Dimona".)

For the same reason that guards are at bio labs. See answer to that for further reasoning.

The IAEA is a wonderful organization with a wonderful mission whose fangs and claws have been pulled by the UN. It can't get in to inspect sites that Iran doesn't want them to inspect. And it's never inspected India, Pakistan or Israel's programs, either.

You are indeed correct. But we do know that Pakistan and India have them because they have tested them.

Not necessarily true. You do know that Israel is always under terrorist threat right? Care to tell me what would happen if a lab was raided and something was taken and used in a terror attack? Its a safety precaution to prevent that.
I am aware, but it also has heavy investment into a BW research program. It could be purely defensive in nature, yes; it could be. But I suspect that it isn't, despite all the CIA's reassurances to the contrary.

As for breeder reactors: yes, of course any reactor will be heavily guarded, but why a breeder reactor? That's a kind of reactor that can easily produce weapons-grade fissionable metals. If you were just after electrical power you'd go for a thermal reactor, which is cheaper to buy and maintain.

As for knowledge of Israel's weapons program, there's both covert investigations by foreign intelligence services and open statements by Israeli defence engineers to back up that assertions.

but why a breeder reactor?

Because you're not going to run out of fuel.

I hope Jimmy Carter is losing sleep over this.

As for breeder reactors: yes, of course any reactor will be heavily guarded, but why a breeder reactor? That's a kind of reactor that can easily produce weapons-grade fissionable metals. If you were just after electrical power you'd go for a thermal reactor, which is cheaper to buy and maintain.

Now if we can get Iran to figure this out.... we wouldn't be going through this whole sherade. And what type of reacter is Iran building? A BREEDER reactor. :eek:

I hope Jimmy Carter is losing sleep over this.

That makes 2 of us.

Because you're not going to run out of fuel.
The laws of thermodynamics say you're going to run out of fuel no matter what. Having a breeder reactor slows down that process slightly.

...slightly.

Besides, the fuel they produce isn't fuel for breeder reactors.

I've noticed that unlike his usual denials, Ocean isn't denying this one.I am a bit...you know... busy:fluffle: (looks like im going to get laid)...

Do you mind if I come late to the party?

The laws of thermodynamics say you're going to run out of fuel no matter what. Having a breeder reactor slows down that process slightly.

...slightly.

Besides, the fuel they produce isn't fuel for breeder reactors.

No reason why it couldn't be. The last breeder designed at Argonne would have fueled itself for over 600 years - longer than the design lifetime of the reactor itself.

No reason why it couldn't be. The last breeder designed at Argonne would have fueled itself for over 600 years - longer than the design lifetime of the reactor itself.
Mmm, then perhaps. I question, though, whether the increased expense of building and running a more complex reactor would be offset by the decreased expense of getting new fuel.

It would be reasonable, though, for the IAEA/UN to offer subsidies for thermal-reactor construction (specifically, designs that can't produce weapons-grade metal), maintenance and fuelling to help discriminate between people who want nuclear power so they don't rely so much on oil and people who want nuclear power so they can build weapons.

Mmm, then perhaps. I question, though, whether the increased expense of building and running a more complex reactor would be offset by the decreased expense of getting new fuel.

It would be reasonable, though, for the IAEA/UN to offer subsidies for thermal-reactor construction (specifically, designs that can't produce weapons-grade metal), maintenance and fuelling to help discriminate between people who want nuclear power so they don't rely so much on oil and people who want nuclear power so they can build weapons.

The most interesting reactor design I've seen is the German version of the pebble-bed reactor. Can't melt down. Operators can be idiots. Can't be turned into weapons. But these same nations that want reactors want a "fuel cycle". They argue that they have the ore - they don't want anyone to tell them they have to buy the processed ore from a Western nation.

Oh, and also, they want to wipe Israel off the map... or deter the US from attacking (depends on who we're talking about). So they need a nuclear weapons program.

The most interesting reactor design I've seen is the German version of the pebble-bed reactor. Can't melt down. Operators can be idiots. Can't be turned into weapons. But these same nations that want reactors want a "fuel cycle". They argue that they have the ore - they don't want anyone to tell them they have to buy the processed ore from a Western nation.

Oh, and also, they want to wipe Israel off the map... or deter the US from attacking (depends on who we're talking about). So they need a nuclear weapons program.
So they couldn't break open the metal balls in a pebble bed reactor to make weapons?

So they couldn't break open the metal balls in a pebble bed reactor to make weapons?

The Germans cast the uranium into vitrified ceramic balls. It's homogenized uranium and ceramic. Really, really hard to separate.

The Germans cast the uranium into vitrified ceramic balls. It's homogenized uranium and ceramic. Really, really hard to separate.
Oh, Pretty good idea.

Oh, Pretty good idea.
Their design requires no coolant, either. And no control rods. If you want power, you run water through the heat exchanger - if you don't, you turn off the water.

Too bad that Germany is planning to dismantle all of its nuclear power program.

Their design requires no coolant, either. And no control rods. If you want power, you run water through the heat exchanger - if you don't, you turn off the water.

Too bad that Germany is planning to dismantle all of its nuclear power program.
Yeah. I'd heard that it was totally safe to run without coolant.

Yeah. I'd heard that it was totally safe to run without coolant.

I was watching DW, and they showed the Germans testing it like that.

They argue that they have the ore - they don't want anyone to tell them they have to buy the processed ore from a Western nation.
It's a reasonable objection, too. You could try offering three choices, then.

1. Thermal reactor support without the bother of inspections;
2. Breeder reactor support with full access for investigators, at the host country's expense;
3. Suspicion of weapons production.

Somehow I don't think "But we really want to commit genocide!" counts as an acceptable reason to develop nuclear weapons. Besides, the president of Iran noted that continuing to arm the Palestinian Arabs and destabilize their government should suffice to bring about the destruction of Israel with less risk to Iran.