NationStates Jolt Archive

In a couple of months. Better get out the popcorn and the marshmallows - when they set one off, I'm betting the Israelis take matters into their own hands.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1132475683499&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

IAEA chairman Muhammad ElBaradei on Monday confirmed Israel's assessment that Iran is only a few months away from creating an atomic bomb.

If Teheran indeed resumed its uranium enrichment in other plants, as threatened, it will take it only "a few months" to produce a nuclear bomb, El-Baradei told The Independent.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. Your post is from the Jerusalem Post, and they didn't exactly give the entire flavor of the story from the Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article331219.ece):

But he warned that if Iran carries out a threat to reopen its mothballed Natanz underground enrichment plant, a dangerous escalation will ensue, and raise fresh questions about Iran's insistence that its nuclear intentions are peaceful. "If they start enriching this is a major issue and a serious concern for the international community," he said.

Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for Natanz to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be "a few months" away from a nuclear weapon. "That's why there is the concern of the international community about Iran," he said, "because lots of people feel it could be a dual purpose programme".

Did he believe the Iranians were building a nuclear weapon? "The jury's out," he said. "It's difficult to read their intention. We're still going through the programme to make sure it's all for peaceful purposes.

"I know they are trying to acquire the full fuel cycle. I know that acquiring the full fuel cycle means that a country is months away from nuclear weapons, and that applies to Iran and everybody else."

Mr ElBaradei said he could see no victors from an escalation. "Everybody would hurt," he said, referring to all parties in the dispute. "You would then open a Pandora's box. There would be efforts to isolate Iran; Iran would retaliate; and at the end of the day you have to go back to the negotiating table to find the solution."
So your thread title is misleading at best, since it seems the Natanz facility is not currently up and running and it would take a couple of years for that to happen. Once that happens, then Iran is a few months away, but that's not the case at present.

None of this should be construed to say that I support Iran having a nuclear arsenal--I don't. I'm just pointing out the misleading nature of your post and the Jerusalem Post's article.

I throroughly anticipate the "glowing" success of "negotiations".

...and the bad news are...?

In a couple of months. Better get out the popcorn and the marshmallows - when they set one off, I'm betting the Israelis take matters into their own hands.

Hope so.

Ah, what the hell! Let 'em build nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, let every frakking tinpot dictator and nutcase on the entire planet build them! Then we can all just sit there with our fingers on our buttons, waiting for the first wingnut to press down a bit. Won't THAT be fun! :rolleyes:

...and the bad news are...?

We're going to take what I call the "Jar Jar Binks" approach this time, and try to negotiate and inspect our way out of this one, since that's the way the world expects things to work.

When it blows up in their face, and produces a wider war than anyone could possibly imagine, I'll be laughing at anyone who said the negotiations would work.

We're going to take what I call the "Jar Jar Binks" approach this time, and try to negotiate and inspect our way out of this one, since that's the way the world expects things to work.

When it blows up in their face, and produces a wider war than anyone could possibly imagine, I'll be laughing at anyone who said the negotiations would work.

I wasn't joking. I want Iran to have nukes. Why? Because then they will be deadlocked in a Mutual Assegurated Destruction scenario, while shielding themselves of attacks from.. more "pro-active" nations. You can say this won't work, but hey, worked for 50 years in the cold war. Now, you will have a mini-cold war in that region. Is that bad? Well, someone once said that the price of peace is eternal vigilance.

Hope so.
Well, if it happens, we'll be looking even harder for alternative fuel sources. Drilling for oil is already a bitch. Drilling for oil in radiation suits must be damn near impossible.

I wasn't joking. I want Iran to have nukes. Why? Because then they will be deadlocked in a Mutual Assegurated Destruction scenario, while shielding themselves of attacks from.. more "pro-active" nations. You can say this won't work, but hey, worked for 50 years in the cold war. Now, you will have a mini-cold war in that region. Is that bad? Well, someone once said that the price of peace is eternal vigilance.
MAD doesn't work on religious zealots who believe that death will bring them paradise.

I wasn't joking. I want Iran to have nukes. Why? Because then they will be deadlocked in a Mutual Assegurated Destruction scenario, while shielding themselves of attacks from.. more "pro-active" nations. You can say this won't work, but hey, worked for 50 years in the cold war. Now, you will have a mini-cold war in that region. Is that bad? Well, someone once said that the price of peace is eternal vigilance.
There's a fundamental difference between Communist struggle, which anticipates liberating workers (and not necessarily killing them all), and some forms of Islamic fundamentalism, that anticipates "wiping from the face of the Earth" your chosen enemies as soon as it is practical to do so.

I believe that in a nuclear exchange, a lot of Iranians would survive. Maybe not the government, but Iran would have survivors. There would be no survivors in Israel, and I believe that in the minds of some fundamentalist Muslims, that is a perfectly acceptable tradeoff.

There's a fundamental difference between Communist struggle, which anticipates liberating workers (and not necessarily killing them all), and some forms of Islamic fundamentalism, that anticipates "wiping from the face of the Earth" your chosen enemies as soon as it is practical to do so.

I believe that in a nuclear exchange, a lot of Iranians would survive. Maybe not the government, but Iran would have survivors. There would be no survivors in Israel, and I believe that in the minds of some fundamentalist Muslims, that is a perfectly acceptable tradeoff.

Bahh, come on, Israel as how many nukes? 200? That is more than enough to burn down Iran. Plus, Jerusalem is a holy site for Muslims, Iranians would never nuke it, so you would have Israeli survivors there. Plus, even if Iranians "won" a war against Israel, they would be eaten alive by the US, and they know it. They may be freak religious fanatics, but that doesn't make them stupid. And the commies killed more people than every religion combined, and the soviet union showed agressive tendencies in more occasions than Iran ever did, so that doesnt cut it.

Lets face it: They are scared to death from a US invasion, and they know WMD's will be the only thing that will actually give them power in the long run - Attacking Israel will always be suicide and pointless (I mean, look at the demographics, soon Israel will have more arabs than jews), let them have their jiberish for internal public consumption. It's not like our leaders don't do the same.

I mean, discounting the usual rants, Iran is a somewhat stable country, (almost) unified culturally.. let them live, bribe them out with commerce, its more practical.

Negotiations are for when you have too much to lose or both parties have the upper hand in one way or another.
We should deal with them before we are forced to negotiate.

And negotiating w/fanatics is only a ploy on their part to buy time. They arent looking for peaceful trade and co-existence.

As a matter of fact, let every frakking tinpot dictator and nutcase on the entire planet build them!

You can't compare Iran to a tinpot dictatorship.

I have no worries about Iran having nukes. None whatsoever.

Ah, what the hell! Let 'em build nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, let every frakking tinpot dictator and nutcase on the entire planet build them! Then we can all just sit there with our fingers on our buttons, waiting for the first wingnut to press down a bit. Won't THAT be fun! :rolleyes:

I agree. Mutual Assured Destruction works for peace. Not to mention, ever since our pet nazi scientists so lovingly created the first nuclear bomb, the genie was let out of the bottle. It won't go in again. Ever. The sooner people realize you can't make technology progress backwards, the sooner we will learn how to deal with a nuclear world in which the USA and USSR are not the only ones 'allowed' to have giant nuclear penises.

You can't compare Iran to a tinpot dictatorship.

I have no worries about Iran having nukes. None whatsoever.
It's a tinpot theocracy, which is much worse. Saddam wouldn't have used nukes. He was a true tinpot dictator. A gangster who was only focussed on enriching himself. Someone you could trust and do business with. Iran's not led by the figureheads in Tehran, but by the mullahs in Qom. They are true believers. The kind of people who think dying will get them 72 virgins.

I agree. Mutual Assured Destruction works for peace. Not to mention, ever since our pet nazi scientists so lovingly created the first nuclear bomb, the genie was let out of the bottle. It won't go in again. Ever. The sooner people realize you can't make technology progress backwards, the sooner we will learn how to deal with a nuclear world in which the USA and USSR are not the only ones 'allowed' to have giant nuclear penises.
The genie can't be put back in the bottle, but it can be controlled. The more countries with nuclear weapons the more certain we can be that there will be a large scale nuclear war. Preventing that means keeping these weapons out of the hands of nations that aren't ready for them.

Iran's not led by the figureheads in Tehran, but by the mullahs in Qom. They are true believers. The kind of people who think dying will get them 72 virgins.

Well ... that's what ignorance gets you.

Some mullahs are, yes, but most aren't. How many mullahs do you think there are and how often do you suppose they agree on anything as a collective? Those "figureheads" in Tehran and strong voices like those of Shirin Ebadi hold more power than you obviously know.

Why don't you go there sometime and see it for yourself? It's actually not a bad place and they'd do just fine with nukes. Look at how much people have been trying to scare us with North Korea having nukes and, yet, nobody's been made a glass parking lot by them.

The difference between N. Korea and Iran is that there actually is a set of checks and balances in Iran that doesn't exist in N. Korea. The mullahs in Iran would no more have access to the big nuke 'em button than they have access to ordering around the Iranian military. Maybe you should study some of Iran's political structure instead of refusing to acknowledge they've come a long way since the rebellion in the 1970s.

The genie can't be put back in the bottle, but it can be controlled. The more countries with nuclear weapons the more certain we can be that there will be a large scale nuclear war. Preventing that means keeping these weapons out of the hands of nations that aren't ready for them.

No, the genie very well can't be controlled either. Sure, we can start a war when someone approaches getting a nuke and Americans start shivering in their booties about it. But isn't that kind of an oxymoron? To prevent destructive nuclear war, start destructive conventional wars? All on the BS assumption that the US is somehow responsible with nukes while a bunch of right-wing religious nuts isn't. We ARE a bunch of right-wing religious nuts!

The time to control the genie was before the USSR got their hands on the nuke. Too late now, unless we want to make Iran the first of a very long list of nations we'll happily burn to the ground in order to show how morally superior we are.

No, the genie very well can't be controlled either. Sure, we can start a war when someone approaches getting a nuke and Americans start shivering in their booties about it. But isn't that kind of an oxymoron? To prevent destructive nuclear war, start destructive conventional wars? All on the BS assumption that the US is somehow responsible with nukes while a bunch of right-wing religious nuts isn't.

The most amusing thing about it, for me, is that of all the nations in the world who've ever had nuclear weaponry, the US - the loudest voice against anyone developing nukes - is the only nation to ever use them.

Clearly, even we are less responsible with nukes than Kim Jong-il.

No, the genie very well can't be controlled either. Sure, we can start a war when someone approaches getting a nuke and Americans start shivering in their booties about it. But isn't that kind of an oxymoron? To prevent destructive nuclear war, start destructive conventional wars? All on the BS assumption that the US is somehow responsible with nukes while a bunch of right-wing religious nuts isn't. We ARE a bunch of right-wing religious nuts!

The time to control the genie was before the USSR got their hands on the nuke. Too late now, unless we want to make Iran the first of a very long list of nations we'll happily burn to the ground in order to show how morally superior we are.
Just throwing this out there.

How many nations would we have to "burn to the ground"? After attacking a couple of nations who try to build a nuclear weapons program don't you think the precedent that "nukes don't keep you safe but rather ensure you will be attacked" will be set?

The most amusing thing about it, for me, is that of all the nations in the world who've ever had nuclear weaponry, the US - the loudest voice against anyone developing nukes - is the only nation to ever use them.

Clearly, even we are less responsible with nukes than Kim Jong-il.
It can be argued that using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives, both American and Japanese, than it cost.

Just throwing this out there.

How many nations would we have to "burn to the ground"? After attacking a couple of nations who try to build a nuclear weapons program don't you think the precedent that "nukes don't keep you safe but rather ensure you will be attacked" will be set?
How long do you think any President that first strikes a country (assuming that's what you mean by "burning to the ground") will stay in power? No matter how many times any US politician says "nothing is off the table" when it comes to using nukes, no politician with half a mind toward any future of his own or his party's will set off a nuke without us being hit first--and it's doubtful that the military would let them do it anyway.

How long do you think any President that first strikes a country (assuming that's what you mean by "burning to the ground") will stay in power? No matter how many times any US politician says "nothing is off the table" when it comes to using nukes, no politician with half a mind toward any future of his own or his party's will set off a nuke without us being hit first--and it's doubtful that the military would let them do it anyway.
I used the term because the person I was responding to used it. I certainly think that we can disarm a country like Iran with conventional weapons. No need to inflict great losses on the civilians.

Just throwing this out there.

How many nations would we have to "burn to the ground"? After attacking a couple of nations who try to build a nuclear weapons program don't you think the precedent that "nukes don't keep you safe but rather ensure you will be attacked" will be set?

Well, since those nations "not ready yet" for nukes are supposedly so irrational they'd launch a nuclear strike just for shits and giggles anyway, your precedent which relies on their rationality wouldn't have much of an impact. So we'd probably to burn quite a few nations to the ground, and keep doing it, for as long as we determine nations are not ready yet for our nukes of responsible awesomeness.

It can be argued that using nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives, both American and Japanese, than it cost.
While it is true that the US and Japan weren't exactly on the brink of a peace resolution before the attacks, one can't justify TWO nuclear strikes that cost the lives of almost only civilians as "we just wanted a better bargaining position".

While it is true that the US and Japan weren't exactly on the brink of a peace resolution before the attacks, one can't justify TWO nuclear strikes that cost the lives of almost only civilians as "we just wanted a better bargaining position".

They didnt surrender after the first bomb was dropped.

I think we had an idea what they would have done to US civilians if we didnt do it to them. China already knew how nice the Japanese were to them.

Nukes on their soil is better than conventional war on my soil. Would "negotiations" worked with Japan? No.

Negotiating is what you do when you've let things get too far out of hand.

Look, this isn't a whether nuking Japan was right or wrong debate here. I only mentioned it to show the *fact* that the US has nuked the fuck out of noncombatant people before. Right or wrong, justified or not. I mean hell, what if someone justified Iran having nukes, and nuking Israel, as saving more lifes? Would that make it all better for you? It just might, for me. But then I don't actually value human life at all. :)