NationStates Jolt Archive

Three nays, five abstentions, and the rest are Yes votes - out of a total of 35 (IIRC).

Including India, China, Russia, France...

Difficult to pin this one as Bush's fault now.

The avalanche has begun - it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060204/D8FIF77O0.html

Difficult to pin this one as Bush's fault now.
Was it ever?
I was hoping this whole thing would serve to make it clear to a few Americans that Europe and the US do have common interests, and some nations simply disagreed with Iraq as a specific issue.
I'd be rather disappointed if the whole thing is credited to Bush now.

But to the topic at hand...well, little to say really. We'll see what happens next.

Was it ever?
I was hoping this whole thing would serve to make it clear to a few Americans that Europe and the US do have common interests, and some nations simply disagreed with Iraq as a specific issue.
I'd be rather disappointed if the whole thing is credited to Bush now.

But to the topic at hand...well, little to say really. We'll see what happens next.

Plenty of Bush haters and Islamic sympathizers who will say that this is all Bush's fault.

I would imagine that if this all turns out badly, the same people will turn out and say it's Bush's fault for following the diplomatic route, even though other nations went along as well. They will demonize those nations and say they were mere puppets.

I don't think that war is right around the corner, but I do believe that Iran will follow through on throwing out the IAEA inspectors at this point, and resume full scale enrichment.

It will be a lot of prolonged ugliness, including sanctions and oil shocks before it gets anywhere near violent.

But I predict that violent is how it will end - and the US will not start it.

I don't think that war is right around the corner, but I do believe that Iran will follow through on throwing out the IAEA inspectors at this point, and resume full scale enrichment.
We largely agree on this (although I think it might be worth watching who gets elected Iranian President next time 'round...Ahmadinejad hasn't impressed either the people or the Ayatollahs), but I would just like to mention that Iran can't resume full-scale enrichment because they don't have enough centrifuges and stuff.

This might illustrate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm

We largely agree on this (although I think it might be worth watching who gets elected Iranian President next time 'round...Ahmadinejad hasn't impressed either the people or the Ayatollahs), but I would just like to mention that Iran can't resume full-scale enrichment because they don't have enough centrifuges and stuff.

This might illustrate: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm

I would bet that we may never know how many centrifuges they have.

Or will build. It's not as though it's impossible to do.

I believe that a lot of the Iranian President's rhetoric is meant to excite the people and mullahs, just as Hitler's speeches were intended to excite the German people in 1934.

I'm feeling an echo from that time, and I don't think I'm alone.

It's one thing for people to be scared of Bush (because the US actually has a powerful military), and to be frightened when he calls one nation or another "evil".

But it's quite another to advocate in public that a certain nation should be "wiped off the map".

Plenty of Bush haters and Islamic sympathizers who will say that this is all Bush's fault.

I would imagine that if this all turns out badly, the same people will turn out and say it's Bush's fault for following the diplomatic route, even though other nations went along as well. They will demonize those nations and say they were mere puppets.

I don't think that war is right around the corner, but I do believe that Iran will follow through on throwing out the IAEA inspectors at this point, and resume full scale enrichment.

It will be a lot of prolonged ugliness, including sanctions and oil shocks before it gets anywhere near violent.

But I predict that violent is how it will end - and the US will not start it.

If the Us won't start the violence then who will? Iran doesn't have the technology to strike at the US or Europe.

If the Us won't start the violence then who will? Iran doesn't have the technology to strike at the US or Europe.
Yes it does. Not all of Europe, but some of it can be reached by ICBMs that Iran already possesses.

Yes it does. Not all of Europe, but some of it can be reached by ICBMs that Iran already possesses.

Iran has ICBM? That's certainly news to me.

Iran has ICBM? That's certainly news to me.
Well, almost ICBMs. The Shahab Series is a derivative of North Korean derivatives of Scud-Missiles, and they have the range to hit targets in South Eastern Europe.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm

Not that it wouldn't be shot down by the Patriots stationed everywhere around Europe, and in Turkey. Or the Israeli Arrows, for that matter.

Well, almost ICBMs. The Shahab Series is a derivative of North Korean derivatives of Scud-Missiles, and they have the range to hit targets in South Eastern Europe.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-4.htm

Not that it wouldn't be shot down by the Patriots stationed everywhere around Europe, and in Turkey. Or the Israeli Arrows, for that matter.

South Eastern Europe would be Turkey and the surrounding area, I don't think Iran has any particular grudge against them (no more than they do with anyone else anyway) and as you say the attack would be pretty futile.

Yes it does. Not all of Europe, but some of it can be reached by ICBMs that Iran already possesses.

I think you mean MRBM.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/

If I remember correctly, you have:
* Short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) with range less than 1000 km
* Medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) with range between 1000 and 2500 km
* Intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) with range between 2500 and 3500 km
* Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)with range greater than 3500 km

Time to sit out and watch this develop. Who knows what will happen next? And I worry for Israel, they are within those missile ranges according to that link.

Time to sit out and watch this develop. Who knows what will happen next? And I worry for Israel, they are within those missile ranges according to that link.
Although that is more of a matter of principle than of actual danger. Israel has successfully tested advanced versions of its Arrow system, which they say they are pretty confident will shoot down anything incoming. Considering that Iran will initially (meaning in ten years) only have a few bombs, which still have to be fitted on top of a missile, I don't think Israel actually has to worry much.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_missile
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/arrow.htm
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryid/151/documentid/3290/history/3,2360,646,2516,151,3290

Sorry to say but Iran IS developing an ICBM with a 6,000 kilometer(estimated) range.

http://www.missilethreat.com/missiles/shahab-6_iran.html

Not only that, but look at where it says 'Associated Countries'. Thats North-goddamn-Korea! You know! The people who already have nukes and have TRIED to put a sattelite into orbit!

Three nays, five abstentions, and the rest are Yes votes - out of a total of 35 (IIRC).

Including India, China, Russia, France...

Difficult to pin this one as Bush's fault now.

The avalanche has begun - it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060204/D8FIF77O0.html

Personally I don't see the significance in a referral to the UN Security Counsel. It looks more to me like more of the same exact script they were using with Iraq. Iran will get sanctions 10 or 15 times over the next 10 years with the participating sanctioner nations by passing and violating their own solutions. When they run of of delaying tatics, which ever one has a bribe due will simply torpedo the whole process, and yell it's America's fault. Useful idiots in the media will jump on the band wagon and declare Iran an enlightened center of peace and cooperation, while the French are shipping them delivery systems as fast as they can churn them out.

Are people seriously worried that Iran might launch a conventional nuclear strike on Israel using ballistic missiles? I mean, first of all they have to develop the weapons, so the scenario is some years into the future anyway.

But secondly, barring the complete collapse of rationality in the Iranian government, why would they do so and risk a retaliatory attack both from Israel and their allies? It seems to be clear that the US have not ruled out the use of nuclear weapons in such an event?

So I do not worry much about this part of the problem at the present time. I would rather be worried that the Iranian governement would "misplace" a nuke, and it would end up in the hands of terrorists. That, to me, is a much more plausible scenario. (But still not something that could happen tomorrow...)

Because the Iranian Goverment is NOT rational. They are theocratic, religious fundementalist who believe they will go to heaven adn get 20 vigins IF they blow up a couple of thousand/million infidels(IE:Jews, Europeans, and Americans). And by the time the Iranians have nukes, they might have an ICBM as well, rendering Isreals ARROW Missile irrelevant... of course who is to say that Isreal will not have developed anti-ICBM capability by then?

So I do not worry much about this part of the problem at the present time. I would rather be worried that the Iranian governement would "misplace" a nuke, and it would end up in the hands of terrorists. That, to me, is a much more plausible scenario. (But still not something that could happen tomorrow...)
But you need to remember that for Iran, this is not so much about religion as it is about Patriotism.

I wouldn't even be surprised if most Iranians wouldn't even think of making the connection we make between the obviously religion-slanted comments about Israel and the nuclear program.

So I don't think it makes much sense for Iran to give away the weapon/achievement that is meant to signify their greatness as a nation to a bunch of amateurish, untrustworthy and unreliable fanaticists with a grudge.
Not to forget that the only group that Iran could actually do business with is Hezbollah, which hasn't blown up anything in ages, is a legitimate political party in Lebanon and still has the problem of actually transporting a warhead through the entire middle east.

But you need to remember that for Iran, this is not so much about religion as it is about Patriotism.

I wouldn't even be surprised if most Iranians wouldn't even think of making the connection we make between the obviously religion-slanted comments about Israel and the nuclear program.

So I don't think it makes much sense for Iran to give away the weapon/achievement that is meant to signify their greatness as a nation to a bunch of amateurish, untrustworthy and unreliable fanaticists with a grudge.
Not to forget that the only group that Iran could actually do business with is Hezbollah, which hasn't blown up anything in ages, is a legitimate political party in Lebanon and still has the problem of actually transporting a warhead through the entire middle east.

For the most part I agree with your assessment, it's just that I feel that if Iran ever should want to use nuclear weapons it is much more likely to be a covert attack than an overt one. And then a terrorist organization could be a useful tool, as long as nobody could trace the weapon back to Iran - but that would be very difficult to do in practise, I imagine.

I don't know, maybe I believe to much in the power of MAD to seriously consider Iran launching ballistic missiles with a nuclear payload on anyone.

Even if we were to put aside the Iranian president's insanity and fundamentalist fervor, we would still have to deal with the fact that Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism.

As a result, it's almost guaranteed that Iran wouldn't use its own nuclear weapons against us but rather supply that material to terrorist groups and they would use it...and in reality we wouldn't be able to pin those attacks on Iran given the large amounts of vulnerable and for sale HEU in the world.

The effectively universal sentiment against this amongst the nations of the world, even those with compelling economic interests in Iran is a sign that a nuclear Iran is a threat to world stability. Where we proceed from here depends on Iran's response and the sentiment of the UNSC...and the possibility of war cannot be ruled out.

Even if we were to put aside the Iranian president's insanity and fundamentalist fervor, we would still have to deal with the fact that Iran is a known sponsor of terrorism.
So is the US. As of yet, no Mudjaheddin, not even the Contras got nuclear weapons supplied to them by the States.
There are some things that you just don't give away, and nukes are among them.
I know its fashionable to just assume the Iranian government to be some sort of crazed loony faction, but in reality, it's not like that. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain from using nukes, and a lot (ie protection from US attacks) if they don't. Same as with the DPRK.

As a result, it's almost guaranteed that Iran wouldn't use its own nuclear weapons against us but rather supply that material to terrorist groups and they would use it...and in reality we wouldn't be able to pin those attacks on Iran given the large amounts of vulnerable and for sale HEU in the world.
See above.

...religious fundementalist who believe they will go to heaven adn get 20 vigins ...WTF ?? only 20 ???

Dude.. you wont convince Iraqis to Work at Walmart's with your silly offer.

Nuclear weapons are a great defensive measure- its not wonder Iran is rushing development and is stepping it up (probably)- with the US sabre rattling for months before invading Iraq, and now doing the same to Iran.... the only reason it has become such an urgent problem is because Iran is being threatened.

Solution in Irans eyes: Get nuclear weapons- fast- to prevent invasion.

Cyclical.

So is the US. As of yet, no Mudjaheddin, not even the Contras got nuclear weapons supplied to them by the States.
There are some things that you just don't give away, and nukes are among them. I know its fashionable to just assume the Iranian government to be some sort of crazed loony faction, but in reality, it's not like that. Iran has absolutely nothing to gain from using nukes, and a lot (ie protection from US attacks) if they don't. Same as with the DPRK.

That is true as well; honestly, I feel that full scale military action would be unwise at this point. I think we should wait and see how Iran responds before making any more decision.

Even if there was absolutely no intention of Iran either selling or providing nuclear material to terrorists or using it themselves as a weapon, there are still the security risks associated with producing weapons-grade nuclear material. Iran may very well produce it and end up having security problems not unlike those in other nations, with nuclear materials being stolen or misappropriated by terrorist infilitration in to the projects themselves. The more I read about it, the more this becomes my concern rather than the Iranians actually using it themselves.

I think Iran should probably enter in to an agreement with Russia to supply the fuel unless they can fully confirm the security of these sites and cooperate fully with the IAEA to ensure the fuel is not being supplied to terrorists. If they want nuclear power, there is no grounds to stop them as long as they comply. On nuclear weapons, I'm still unsure but it seems unlikely that a nuclear Iran would even consider using them.

Personally I don't see the significance in a referral to the UN Security Counsel. It looks more to me like more of the same exact script they were using with Iraq. Iran will get sanctions 10 or 15 times over the next 10 years with the participating sanctioner nations by passing and violating their own solutions. When they run of of delaying tatics, which ever one has a bribe due will simply torpedo the whole process, and yell it's America's fault. Useful idiots in the media will jump on the band wagon and declare Iran an enlightened center of peace and cooperation, while the French are shipping them delivery systems as fast as they can churn them out.

Given that Iraq had no WMDs, apparentely this script works fine. :eek: :D

Nuclear weapons are a great defensive measure- its not wonder Iran is rushing development and is stepping it up (probably)- with the US sabre rattling for months before invading Iraq, and now doing the same to Iran.... the only reason it has become such an urgent problem is because Iran is being threatened.

Solution in Irans eyes: Get nuclear weapons- fast- to prevent invasion.

Cyclical.

Doesn't make it right of course.

I think the real question we should be asking is, where is this all leading to? Not in the sense of war with Iran, I mean the war after that, or the war after that. It is sad to think that the 21st Century might become more violent then the 20th.

I see my prayer about this didn't come true.

I can only pray now that the situation doesn't worsen than it already has.

That is true as well; honestly, I feel that full scale military action would be unwise at this point. I think we should wait and see how Iran responds before making any more decision.

Even if there was absolutely no intention of Iran either selling or providing nuclear material to terrorists or using it themselves as a weapon, there are still the security risks associated with producing weapons-grade nuclear material. Iran may very well produce it and end up having security problems not unlike those in other nations, with nuclear materials being stolen or misappropriated by terrorist infilitration in to the projects themselves. The more I read about it, the more this becomes my concern rather than the Iranians actually using it themselves.

I think Iran should probably enter in to an agreement with Russia to supply the fuel unless they can fully confirm the security of these sites and cooperate fully with the IAEA to ensure the fuel is not being supplied to terrorists. If they want nuclear power, there is no grounds to stop them as long as they comply. On nuclear weapons, I'm still unsure but it seems unlikely that a nuclear Iran would even consider using them.

No, I think that Iran will never enter that agreement now. They've even said so.

I think that Iran will make a bomb soon, and as soon as they have one, they will make threats to Israel and to the EU/US in the form of threats to other Persian Gulf oil assets.

And we'll go along with that.... just to convince the EU that we're following the diplomatic path.

Even if it means 260 dollar per barrel oil.

And then Iran will have many nukes. And they'll use them on Israel. Of course, Israel will respond, but I don't think they have enough to really waste all of Iran.

And after the fallout starts drifting, I'll be happy to tell any EU resident, "I told you so."

No, I think that Iran will never enter that agreement now. They've even said so.

You may find this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear) to be of interest.

You may find this article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060205/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear) to be of interest.
Saying you're open to the idea and doing it are two separate things.
Why would they enrich in Russia when they've already started full scale productions in Iran?