NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.nuclear.fuel.reut/index.html

This saddens me. I wish the Iranian Government will look after its own people and give them freedom instead of risking their lives in a war that is probably going to occur :(

The Iranian people aren't "free"?

Looks like they held a revolution, and govern themselves.

I know it ain't Ozzie and Harriet, but it will have to do.

The Iranian people will enact thier own insurrection against thier oppressive government. What we westerners have to try and do is prevent conflict with Iran, so the Iranian people are not slaughtered by SCUD missiles, and aren't galvanised in nationalistic sentiment. Personally, I feel Britain and the US need to be less confrontational in thier dealings with Iran. I don't think the Iranian's will have a nuclear weapon developed any time soon, if that is in fact what they are planning, which I personally doubt.

We need to have an arrangement like we did in Iraq, where there are regular inspections of Iranian facilities by UN officials.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.nuclear.fuel.reut/index.html

This saddens me. I wish the Iranian Government will look after its own people and give them freedom instead of risking their lives in a war that is probably going to occur :(

Because planning for power needs in a future without oil is highly irresponsible of them. :p

The Iranian people aren't "free"?

Looks like they held a revolution, and govern themselves.

I know it ain't Ozzie and Harriet, but it will have to do.

USA and UK overthrew the last democracy they had.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.nuclear.fuel.reut/index.html

This saddens me. I wish the Iranian Government will look after its own people and give them freedom instead of risking their lives in a war that is probably going to occur :(

What part of this is news? We've known they're making nuclear fuel for quite a while. They're doing it underground because any reactor within 500 miles of Israel will get blown to bits.

USA and UK overthrew the last democracy they had.

Democracies make unstable pawns. They tend to have pesky things like elections that make them hard to control. A good dictator in your pocket though is good until you get bored with 'em!

USA and UK overthrew the last democracy they had.We had to install a dictator.. the Iranians elected a President we did not like.
And Bush is ready to do it all over again.

If the Iranians get even one nuclear weapon, there will be no war. :)

Therefore, I hope the Iranians get the bomb. :)

We had to install a dictator.. the Iranians elected a President we did not like.
And Bush is ready to do it all over again.

I believe that most of the candidates were disallowed to run because they were reformers.

If the Iranians get even one nuclear weapon, there will be no war. :)

Therefore, I hope the Iranians get the bomb. :)

I hope you're wrong. I really wish we'd take military action against rogue states that build nuclear or biological weapons and disarm them by force. More of these weapons makes it more likely that they'll be used.

Anyway, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and decides it's untouchable, what's to stop them from fucking with the flow of oil through the gulf in order to get their way on any issue? What's to stop them from sending Qods force people into the rest of the middle east at will to conduct operations like the one they did at the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia?

They are looking after their people. They're making weapons to protect them.

I really wish we'd take military action against rogue states that build WMD and disarm them by force. that s what we did.

we did take military action against rogue-state Axis-of-evil Iraq...
We found their WMD.. and disarmed them by force.

My dear leader did grant your wish.

If the Iranians get even one nuclear weapon, there will be no war. :)

Therefore, I hope the Iranians get the bomb. :)

Do you really want to place a bet like that when it comes to Iran?

Do you really want to place a bet like that when it comes to Iran?
I placed a bet that Bush won't use nukes, I am sure as hell willing to place a bet that Iran won't either.

I placed a bet that Bush won't use nukes, I am sure as hell willing to place a bet that Iran won't either.yeah.. Bush is more likely to use nukes than Iran.

yeah.. Bush is more likely to use nukes than Iran.

Was this sarcasm?

Making fuel, good grief the evil bastards will be mining coal next.

Anyway, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon and decides it's untouchable, what's to stop them from fucking with the flow of oil through the gulf in order to get their way on any issue? What's to stop them from sending Qods force people into the rest of the middle east at will to conduct operations like the one they did at the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia?

They'd be running around the place displaying contempt for international law, destabilising neighbouring states and acting with immunity from international action....like the Israelis a lot of the time. Maybe they might see each other as fellows...kindred spririts, both above the reach of ordinary states, populated by mere people, and join together, skipping merrily about the place, dispensing chaos where they would....

Was this sarcasm?http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/bushoptions.mov
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/hersh.access/index.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20PE20060410&articleId=2247
etc
etc
etc

Yep, its all about oil. How evil! America's oil supply. Great britains oil supply. Japans oil supply. Kenyas oil supply. Every fucking country in the world who have none of their own oil supply. And all these people have to lose because Iran does not like George W. Some people on this site forget the bigger picture!:rolleyes:

Every fucking country in the world who have none of their own oil supply. And all these people have to lose because Iran does not like George W. Some people on this site forget the bigger picture!:rolleyes:what do you mean "they have to lose"

and BTW most of the World does not like Bush.. Iran is just 1% of that pie

If it's Iran's oil, it's Iran's oil. They can do what they want with it. :D

As for nuclear weapons, there's a lot more to become a credible nuclear threat than just developing a bomb. There's also the need to create a viable delivery system.

There is the threat of Iran creating a nuclear weapon and delivering it into terrorist hands, but I can't quite see that happening. Once it was detonated it'd be pretty obvious who supplied the weapon, and then there'd be a hell of a smackdown.

They'd be running around the place displaying contempt for international law, destabilising neighbouring states and acting with immunity from international action....like the Israelis a lot of the time. Maybe they might see each other as fellows...kindred spririts, both above the reach of ordinary states, populated by mere people, and join together, skipping merrily about the place, dispensing chaos where they would....

Israel has never raised my fuel prices. If Iran fucks with the fuel supply it would could have catastrophic effects on the global economy, but hey, if they've got nukes who's going to fuck with them? Maybe someone who's facing a decision between a depression at home or a small scale nuclear war on an enemy's land.

If it's Iran's oil, it's Iran's oil. They can do what they want with it. :D

As for nuclear weapons, there's a lot more to become a credible nuclear threat than just developing a bomb. There's also the need to create a viable delivery system.

There is the threat of Iran creating a nuclear weapon and delivering it into terrorist hands, but I can't quite see that happening. Once it was detonated it'd be pretty obvious who supplied the weapon, and then there'd be a hell of a smackdown.

What if they stop oil tankers from going through the Persian gulf? What if their Qods force guys and Hezbollah guys decide to target oil facilities throughout the middle east? It's not Iran's oil I'm worried about. It's the flow of oil from that whole region.

What if they stop oil tankers from going through the Persian gulf? What if their Qods force guys and Hezbollah guys decide to target oil facilities throughout the middle east? It's not Iran's oil I'm worried about. It's the flow of oil from that whole region.

More incentive to switch to Ethanol.

'Course, then we have to worry about Iowa seceding and turning on us.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/petition/bushoptions.mov
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/10/hersh.access/index.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=%20PE20060410&articleId=2247
etc
etc
etc

Again, are you trying to be sarcastic? I have never heard Bush threaten to use nuclear weapons or to destroy whole nations.

Congratulations Iran, it seems you have learnt something from Osirak.

Honestly, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more willing to believe that Iran's nuclear program is purely civilian. Iran has no reason to want to do something as moronic as beginning manufacturing nuclear arms, this is just a propaganda war.

And, just to break some misconceptions: 1) Iran is not insane. I don't know where people got the idea that Iran is run solely on religious mumbo-jumbo and self-imolating jihadism - on the contrary, Iran is a competent and shrewd geopolitical players. 2) Iranians hate their regime. Again, clearly not true. The Islamic regime is one of the most popular regimes in the wider Middle East. Inter-ethnic strife is almost nonexistant, Iran has been a multicultural state for five thousand years, its not like any of the contrived post-colonial states. There is no real opposition to the regime, at least nowhere near the scale of the opposition found in any of the Arab states.

Was this sarcasm?

What's so sarcastic about it? It's the truth. The country on Earth most likely to nuke someone is the United States.

What's so sarcastic about it? It's the truth. The country on Earth most likely to nuke someone is the United States.

And the logic behind that explaination is?

And the logic behind that explaination is?

We're the only country that's ever done it before. :p

We're the only country that's ever done it before. :p

Out of military necessity I might add.

Out of military necessity I might add.

I'm not arguing the necessity. I'm merely pointing out that no dictatorship ever nuked another country. No muslim nation ever nuked another nation. No communist country ever nuked another nation. No terrorist group ever deployed a nuke. Only the United States has. I'm sure that Iran is also aware that no nuclear nation has ever nuked another. *nod*

when we kill other human beings its always "out of necessity".

the necessity to impose our will.
The only exemption -as far as I am concerned- is the American Revolution.. we killed the redcoats to break free.. or so my history books say.

Imposing your will for freedom from us Brits?

Out of military necessity I might add.when we kill other human beings its always "out of necessity".

The necessity to impose our will... the "American way"

The only exemption -as far as I am concerned- is the American Revolution.. we killed the redcoats to kick them out of our country.. for freedom.. or so my history books say.

when we kill other human beings its always "out of necessity".

The necessity to impose our will... the "American way"

The only exemption -as far as I am concerned- is the American Revolution.. we killed the redcoats to kick them out of our country.. for freedom.. or so my history books say.

So you are saying that the killing that occured in World War II was unnecessary?

Are you saying that invading Japan with over a million potential casualties would have been far better?

So you are saying that the killing that occured in World War II was unnecessary?

Are you saying that invading Japan with over a million potential casualties would have been far better?

I think he's saying there was no need to invade Japan at all.

Are you saying that invading Japan with over a million potential casualties would have been far better?I am saying "man" will always find an excuse for barbarism.

"We have to Invade Iraq.. they could launch WMD within 45 minutes"

"We have to win in Vietnam.. otherwise the Commies are going to take over the World"

"We have to kill thousands of civilians in 2 Japanese Cities.. otherwise it may cost US 1 million GIs"

>>> This applies to all nations.. not only US.

I think he's saying there was no need to invade Japan at all.

Which would be really unintelligent.

Which would be really unintelligent.once Germany surrendered.. Japan had no hope.. they had no choice but to surrender .. it was just a matter of time.

once Germany surrendered.. Japan had no hope.. they had no choice but to surrender .. it was just a matter of time.

Sir! With all due respect, do you have a clue as to the culture of Japan during that time period?

What's so sarcastic about it? It's the truth. The country on Earth most likely to nuke someone is the United States.

They are the ones doing shifting research into nuclear 'bunker busters'...

Personally I thought that the nuclear fission artillery was nifty sounding, as part of the old tech (I'd be worried if they were still around).

No communist country ever nuked another nation. Only the United States has.

The soviet union (russian part) did plenty of bombing on itself to try to find a useful way to use their huge nuclear weapon stockpile. The U.S might have done a few as well. So countries with nuclear weapons are can quite easily bomb themselves!

I thought there were some nuclear tests performed in Aus areas...

What if they stop oil tankers from going through the Persian gulf? What if their Qods force guys and Hezbollah guys decide to target oil facilities throughout the middle east? It's not Iran's oil I'm worried about. It's the flow of oil from that whole region.

Lebanon has large fuel reserves?

If Iran ever tried any of that then a pipeline would be built and opec would be forced to give up a large amount of power for shifting prices; that would not work in Iran's economic interests.

Sir! With all due respect, do you have a clue as to the culture of Japan during that time period?

I admit that the nuclear weapons dropped made it much easier but small scale bombing and low foodstuffs produced could have done the same.

Congratulations Iran, it seems you have learnt something from Osirak.

Was that the Iraqi one? If so they learnt well. Now they just need to make their facillities even deeper underground and/or more structurally sound.

Honestly, as time goes on, I am becoming more and more willing to believe that Iran's nuclear program is purely civilian. Iran has no reason to want to do something as moronic as beginning manufacturing nuclear arms, this is just a propaganda war.

Yep, they seem to have learnt the art of brinkmanship. Iran is not like north korea (though it is being pushed into that situation).

It has not invaded another country in about 150-200 years so it is not as if it is twitching to invade somewhere.

It's economy isn't horribly messed up either so it is not as if they need to invade a country filled with oil so they could offset their foreign debt *cough*Iraq*cough*.

Israel has never raised my fuel prices.

I would have thought that the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the 80's would have caused them to rise. Thats a direct cause.

If Iran fucks with the fuel supply it would could have catastrophic effects on the global economy,

And their economy. Raising the prices slightly above opec's wanted limit is what they can do but they do not want to completely mess it up unless someone is going to attack them (as there would be no point doing so otherwise and comments of such would just be a brinkmanship tactic).

but hey, if they've got nukes who's going to fuck with them?

Since North Korea has proved that to be true Iran might be pushed to that corner

Maybe someone who's facing a decision between a depression at home or a small scale nuclear war on an enemy's land.

A small war perhaps (though not likely given Iran's general not attacking other countries for 150-200 years). A nuclear war? That would just be stupid; they would lose support of the chinese (highest bidders for oil and largest investors) and the russians (investors and general support).

I hope you're wrong. I really wish we'd take military action against rogue states that build nuclear or biological weapons and disarm them by force. More of these weapons makes it more likely that they'll be used.For some odd reason this logic never makes it to pro-gun circles... :D More guns means more people are more likely to use them...no wait! :D

Then again nuclear arsenal and MAD are good tools for international stability...last I looked Iran is an independent more or less democratic nation which has a full right to pursue tools that increase it's internal and external security.

once Germany surrendered.. Japan had no hope.. they had no choice but to surrender .. it was just a matter of time.

Sure....but the US did not have the time...what with the Russians and all...

<snip>



Lebanon has large fuel reserves?

If Iran ever tried any of that then a pipeline would be built and opec would be forced to give up a large amount of power for shifting prices; that would not work in Iran's economic interests.



<snip>

Hezbollah has operated as far afield as Argentina and North Carolina. You don't think they can hit Iraqi, Saudi and Kuwaiti oil facilities? Also Iran has stopped oil shipments through the gulf before.

The United States and several Western European nations became involved in the war in 1987, in response to Iranian attacks on Kuwaiti oil tankers traveling in the Persian Gulf.http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-IranIraq.html

For some odd reason this logic never makes it to pro-gun circles... :D More guns means more people are more likely to use them...no wait! :D

Then again nuclear arsenal and MAD are good tools for international stability...last I looked Iran is an independent more or less democratic nation which has a full right to pursue tools that increase it's internal and external security.

Yeah, but you see, if someone sets off a nuclear weapon millions will die. If someone goes on a shooting spree maybe a few dozen will die. The risk of a shooting spree is acceptable to maintain individual liberty. The risk of a nuclear war is much less acceptable. Especially if it's just to allow a state sponsor of terrorism to act with impunity.

Hezbollah has operated as far afield as Argentina and North Carolina. You don't think they can hit Iraqi, Saudi and Kuwaiti oil facilities?

Considering that their rockets have at most a range of 120-150km (and very few of those, most would be about 40-60km at extreme range) .

I thought that their 'activities' in south america (didn't know about north america though) were fundraising in nature.

As a lebanese militia/terrorist organisation/freedom fighter organisation they tend to only do things in the best interest of themselves. If they benefit Iran or Syria (such as the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict was) that is secondary; they would not go and try to invade multiple countries to try to strike an oil field unless they absolutely had to (which an invasion led by Iran would not, unless it was an invasion of Israel).

Consider that the borders between Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait would be too much to even consider a viable assault on any oil areas, the only reason why they can attack with impunity is because they reside in terrain they know well with large obscuring areas (such as cities). Try to go across a large amount of land in a convoy of large, covered trucks would be incrediably suspicious (as a single truck mounted katyusha battery would be only enough to take out a couple of close by facillities).

Also Iran has stopped oil shipments through the gulf before.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-IranIraq.html

Notice that this was during war time and at a time when foreign powers sided with the other side. Attacks against their economy, whilst useless at that time (due to the further distancing) could have been considered a permissable tactic.

Since that particular water system was considered part Iranian and Iraqi then it would be within their rights to stop boats on their part and try to stop anything passing through the enemy's.

Considering that their rockets have at most a range of 120-150km (and very few of those, most would be about 40-60km at extreme range) .

I thought that their 'activities' in south america (didn't know about north america though) were fundraising in nature. In the US they used credit card fraud and a scam involving selling untaxed tobacco products to raise funds. In Argentina they bombed a Jewish community center. I guess they were just fighting for the freedom of Argentina against those evil Jews.

As a lebanese militia/terrorist organisation/freedom fighter organisation they tend to only do things in the best interest of themselves. If they benefit Iran or Syria (such as the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict was) that is secondary; they would not go and try to invade multiple countries to try to strike an oil field unless they absolutely had to (which an invasion led by Iran would not, unless it was an invasion of Israel).

Consider that the borders between Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait would be too much to even consider a viable assault on any oil areas, the only reason why they can attack with impunity is because they reside in terrain they know well with large obscuring areas (such as cities). Try to go across a large amount of land in a convoy of large, covered trucks would be incrediably suspicious (as a single truck mounted katyusha battery would be only enough to take out a couple of close by facillities. It doesn't take a convoy to send a handful of suicide bombers into a country and have them hit an oil facility.



Notice that this was during war time and at a time when foreign powers sided with the other side. Attacks against their economy, whilst useless at that time (due to the further distancing) could have been considered a permissable tactic.

Since that particular water system was considered part Iranian and Iraqi then it would be within their rights to stop boats on their part and try to stop anything passing through the enemy's.
They still dispute the border where their waters end. If they have no fear of being attacked, what's to stop them from cutting off oil tankers in the gulf in order to get their way politically and economically?

In the US they used credit card fraud and a scam involving selling untaxed tobacco products to raise funds. In Argentina they bombed a Jewish community center.

I found them accused of making counterfeit USD money.

Whilst I do not like to be wrong it is always best to find more information. After reading the bbc articles on the event it seems like a rather crappy attempt to investigate it was made.

Has there been any other attacks outside the lebanese/Israeli/contested regions? If not I'd chalk it up to the more radical elements in Hezbollah.

If not then they are doing things not that proper for a resistance group (though I'd say the tobacco and money ones would be in the grey area but other drugs would be a big no-no).

I'd say whomever planned the bombing thought that the place was an outpost of 'zionist thought'.

I guess they were just fighting for the freedom of Argentina against those evil Jews.

Oh yes, all people of Judaism (even converted ones!) are evil, yep using morally absolute terms here. Whilst I am trying to sound so nasty why don't I deny the holocaust/organised mass genocide event took place? Hmmm, glad I'm not in Germany.

AFAIK most Israelites, Semites and Jews are nice people (well, some orthodox are freaky but that is in most religions and religions are irritating). I don't like a fair few of Hezbollah's methods but they are a fair amount better than some other resistance groups.

It doesn't take a convoy to send a handful of suicide bombers into a country and have them hit an oil facility.

If the suicide bomber has a truck filled with explosives (which would be extremely difficult to then use the roads and not be caught) and targets a large processing factory then they would cause a large amount of damage.

However the most likely way would be via a single suicide bomber on foot andwhilst that is much easier to get in the country it would still be hard to read a facillity.

You are also forgetting that this kind of action is detrimental to the Hezbollah cause, it doesn't even benefit from a triumphant victory way as they are attacking a group that is not Israeli, which would make them look like not much better than common thugs.

They still dispute the border where their waters end. If they have no fear of being attacked, what's to stop them from cutting off oil tankers in the gulf in order to get their way politically and economically?

How would that aid them? It is only during war time (to reduce your opponents' capacity to fight for the short-mid term or to pressure their allies) that blockading the gulf would aid them: If they did it during peacetime then either they would be attacked via airstrikes (if there is no effective delivery system for a nuclear warhead) or everyone else would just build a pipeline

You are forgetting another reason why they would not do that: China. China currently is trying to get on Iran's good side so that it can have a continuous supply of fuel. If Iran attacked another country or blockaded the gulf then they would lose their support from China (which is of benefit to their oil sales as well as some military tech) and without the Chinese the Russians would not have as much incentive to lend support.

I admit that the nuclear weapons dropped made it much easier but small scale bombing and low foodstuffs produced could have done the same.

Have you heard of fire bombing? Did you know that we had a naval blockade around Japan? Nothing was getting into the country. Their people were already starving and yet nothing. It took them an additional 6 days before they agreed to a cessation of Hostilities.

Sure....but the US did not have the time...what with the Russians and all...

However, the US did not need the Russians to come into the Pacific by that time.

For some odd reason this logic never makes it to pro-gun circles... :D More guns means more people are more likely to use them...no wait! :D

Then again nuclear arsenal and MAD are good tools for international stability...last I looked Iran is an independent more or less democratic nation which has a full right to pursue tools that increase it's internal and external security.

Sorry but that is not correct. They are a signatory to the NPT which means they made a pledge to not pursue nuclear bombs.

In Argentina they bombed a Jewish community center. I guess they were just fighting for the freedom of Argentina against those evil Jews. ?Argentineans bombed a Jewish building?
What does it have to do with Iranian nuclear research?

Sorry but that is not correct. They are a signatory to the NPT which means they made a pledge to not pursue nuclear bombs.

U.S.A, U.K and I think Russia and China are signatories to that and what do they do? They 'upgrade' their weapon amounts when they are supposed to be dismantling as much as possible and not building new warheads.

Regardless Iran is being pushed into a corner. They were shown a country next to them which had no nuclear weapons and was attacked. Another country detonates a nuclear weapon and almost instantly the U.S is trying to get into 'negotiations'. What does that lead them to believe?

They do have full rights to pursue nuclear enrichment for the use in reactors and they even allow some inspections.

Argentineans bombed a Jewish building?
What does it have to do with Iranian nuclear research?

It was an accusation by Argentinian officials that either a Hezbollah or Iranian person set off a huge explosion at the building, in an attempt to try to say that Iran developing a nuclear weapon (though they seem to be only enriching to reactor grade) would be inherently reckless and dangerous, maybe like two world superpowers (well, only one exists now) already...

It was an accusation by Argentinian officials that either a Hezbollah or Iranian person set off a huge explosion at the building, in an attempt to try to say that Iran developing a nuclear weapon (though they seem to be only enriching to reactor grade) would be inherently reckless and dangerous, maybe like two world superpowers (well, only one exists now) already...thanks for the explanation..

#1 Is there any "Nigerian cake" to prove it was an "Iranian person"

#2 lets assume for a second.. an Iranian person actually did set up a bomb in some building in Latin-America.. Is that reason enough to nuke Iran??

I mean its like saying: If Pat Robertson ever sets a bomb in Venezuela and destroys one building.. then that is justification for surgical strikes in every US nuclear plant.

thanks for the explanation..

#1 Is there any "Nigerian cake" to prove it was an "Iranian person"

#2 lets assume for a second.. an Iranian person actually did set up a bomb in some building in Latin-America.. Is that reason enough to nuke Iran??

I mean its like saying: If Pat Robertson ever sets a bomb in Venezuela and destroys one building.. then that is justification for surgical strikes in every US nuclear plant.

Errr, I wasn't stating support of that position, just explaining how the topic went off into bombings in Argentina.

Anyway: 1) Well the accusation wasn't about a nuclear fission or even 'salted' conventional bomb, it was just about a conventional bombing.

2) I guess tit was brought up to try to say that Iran would try to cause Hezbollah to expand it's operations to things which do not benefit it (which would most likely be never allowed by the Hezbollah leadership) or allow Iran to try to extend it's regional power by warfare (unlikely) or by pressure (which would be instead used against )

That is if they even try to seriously develop one. If Iraq did not happen then I would say no, even with a North Korean bomb proving effective in the international scene.

Since Iraq I would say it would be possible but not likely in the next 15 years due to developing a nuclear reactor gets many benefits of being a nuclear power, without giving up their position of not initiating hostilities against other countries in a long time (150 years or so) or having to seem like a beligerent nation, allowing it to keep the moral ground against nations such as the U.S and Britain (as they could keep the international community on their side and since they have a military that can actually fight then belligerant nations would have to think a lot harder than they did with Iraq).

U.S.A, U.K and I think Russia and China are signatories to that and what do they do? They 'upgrade' their weapon amounts when they are supposed to be dismantling as much as possible and not building new warheads.

I take it you never read the text of the NPT? It is designed to stop the spread of Nuclear weapons to those that do not have it.

Regardless Iran is being pushed into a corner. They were shown a country next to them which had no nuclear weapons and was attacked. Another country detonates a nuclear weapon and almost instantly the U.S is trying to get into 'negotiations'. What does that lead them to believe?

It tells me that Iran has no concept of what International Law is and that they are going to be punished for doing so. To bad the civilians are the one's going to get hurt in that process and not the government.

They do have full rights to pursue nuclear enrichment for the use in reactors and they even allow some inspections.

Very limited and those inspectors are followed by the Iranian Secret Service. You are right that they have the full right to pursue nuclear power however when one is stonewalling inspections to see if that is all that they are doing while moving things underground, that makes it look suspicious that they are doing something other than going after peaceful means of nuclear energy.

It was an accusation by Argentinian officials that either a Hezbollah or Iranian person set off a huge explosion at the building, in an attempt to try to say that Iran developing a nuclear weapon (though they seem to be only enriching to reactor grade) would be inherently reckless and dangerous, maybe like two world superpowers (well, only one exists now) already...

reactor grade? Right now, they maybe but Iran wants to upgrade the number to 3000 centrifuges which is what is needed to make a bomb.

I take it you never read the text of the NPT? It is designed to stop the spread of Nuclear weapons to those that do not have it.So that those who have nukes can put pressure on those who don't?

So that those who have nukes can put pressure on those who don't?

:rolleyes: Read the NPT.

I take it you never read the text of the NPT? It is designed to stop the spread of Nuclear weapons to those that do not have it.

And the second part of it details that countries which do have nuclear explosive weapons are to reduce their stockpiles to achieve complete disarmament: Article VI. The states undertake to negotiate toward general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control

Considering that the current holders of nuclear weapons all continue to hold onto their weapons and in the case of Britain, renew their stockpiles, shows that those countries have no desire to disarm.

Then there is the placing of nuclear weapons in NATO countries...

It tells me that Iran has no concept of what International Law is and that they are going to be punished for doing so. To bad the civilians are the one's going to get hurt in that process and not the government.

Well the government and religious elite would be harmed, though I admit it would be the civilians that would receive the brunt, as would happen in any attack.

It shows that Iran knows exactly what to do to stay in the bounds granted by the NPT.

The sanctions have been put in place by the UN for refusing to stop their enrichment but that, when tied to Russia refusing to help to continue to build and supply uranium for their test reactor probably just encouraged the continuation of enrichment activities.

Very limited and those inspectors are followed by the Iranian Secret Service. You are right that they have the full right to pursue nuclear power however when one is stonewalling inspections to see if that is all that they are doing while moving things underground, that makes it look suspicious that they are doing something other than going after peaceful means of nuclear energy.

It does look suspicious and the reason of having them underground would be due to preperation to make a bomb if they were sufficiently threatened (part of their assymetric warfare strategies) and also to prevent a relatively easy strike by Israel, if such a thing were to happen.

Considering they believe a hostile nation is quite close it seems like a good idea to place those facilities underground just to be on the safe side.

AFAIK they were accompanied by the Iranian military (or was it the revolutionary guards?).

The inspections were not as limited until recently and even now it is not an overwhelming amount of locations.

reactor grade? Right now, they maybe but Iran wants to upgrade the number to 3000 centrifuges which is what is needed to make a bomb.

It requires more sophisticated equipment than they currently have to enrich and store 90% U235. Those centrifuges allow them to produce more low enriched uranium (reactor grade).

However, the US did not need the Russians to come into the Pacific by that time.

Ummm....silly me....All the stuff at Yalta was just guff then. Thank you for the history lesson Prof McDuff.

Errr, I wasn't stating support of that position, just explaining how the topic went off into bombings in Argentina.I know..

The "thanks" part of my post is for you. (thanks again)

The 2 question part is for the "Lets-Bomb-Iran" crowd. (maybe I should have posted 2 separate posts.. but I feel my post count is growing too fast ;) )

Ummm....silly me....All the stuff at Yalta was just guff then. Thank you for the history lesson Prof McDuff.

Ok. Think about this. August 6, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan. This is after we already swept them out of the Pacific Islands and knocking on the door of mainland Japan.

On August 8, 1945 the USSR declares war on Japan. August 9, the second bomb was dropped and on august 15, Japan agrees to the Pottsdam Declaration.

Yea. They did not need to get involved but by agreement, they did.

Ok. Think about this. August 6, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on Japan. This is after we already swept them out of the Pacific Islands and knocking on the door of mainland Japan.

On August 8, 1945 the USSR declares war on Japan. August 9, the second bomb was dropped and on august 15, Japan agrees to the Pottsdam Declaration.

Yea. They did not need to get involved but by agreement, they did.

I think you misunderstand me then.

My statement was with regards to ending the Pacific War as swiftly as possible for one primary reason. The Russians were not seen as allies. They posed a threat.

The war in Europe had ended and given Yalta well....

I withdraw the Mcduff comment. My bad.

I think you misunderstand me then.

My statement was with regards to ending the Pacific War as swiftly as possible for one primary reason. The Russians were not seen as allies. They posed a threat.

The war in Europe had ended and given Yalta well....

I withdraw the Mcduff comment. My bad.

It is ok Rubiconic Crossings! And yes, the USSR as seen as a threat and with good reason if you want my honest opinion.