Isn't that more recent report is based on the presence of an explosives containment vessel that could be used to test nuclear explosions...but could also be used to create diamonds for industrial purposes?
I don't think that is really evidence enough to warrant terrorist attacks and assassinations.
Most of the evidence at this point is circumstantial - the enrichment equipment they have is overkill for creating energy-grade uranium, most of the work is being done in underground bunkers, and the usual vague "reports" that they want a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, these kinds of projects are very hard to gather intelligence on due to their high security nature and the fact that Iran isn't going to go "Hey guys we're working on nukes" until they actually have one to test.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Isn't that more recent report is based on the presence of an explosives containment vessel that could be used to test nuclear explosions...but could also be used to create diamonds for industrial purposes?
I don't think that is really evidence enough to warrant terrorist attacks and assassinations.
Most of the evidence at this point is circumstantial - the enrichment equipment they have is overkill for creating energy-grade uranium, most of the work is being done in underground bunkers, and the usual vague "reports" that they want a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, these kinds of projects are very hard to gather intelligence on due to their high security nature and the fact that Iran isn't going to go "Hey guys we're working on nukes" until they actually have one to test.
In this situations I always wonder why we don't offer to help them build a civilian program. If they don't actually want a nuke no harm done, though it could be argued that they wouldn't trust our motives and really, when you have an entire party of candidates claiming that their number one mission is to invade Iran can you really blame them?
After Operation Ajax, Iran Contra, and Flight 655 I can understand why they'd not want much to do with the US. But countries like Brazil and Turkey have successfully negotiated with Iran over its nuclear program recently. I'm sure Iran would be more open to assistance from these countries in building their civilian program.
Isn't that more recent report is based on the presence of an explosives containment vessel that could be used to test nuclear explosions...but could also be used to create diamonds for industrial purposes?
I don't think that is really evidence enough to warrant terrorist attacks and assassinations.
Most of the evidence at this point is circumstantial - the enrichment equipment they have is overkill for creating energy-grade uranium, most of the work is being done in underground bunkers, and the usual vague "reports" that they want a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, these kinds of projects are very hard to gather intelligence on due to their high security nature and the fact that Iran isn't going to go "Hey guys we're working on nukes" until they actually have one to test.
In this situations I always wonder why we don't offer to help them build a civilian program. If they don't actually want a nuke no harm done, though it could be argued that they wouldn't trust our motives and really, when you have an entire party of candidates claiming that their number one mission is to invade Iran can you really blame them?
Well we tried that with NK, and then later they were like "eh, we're going to reopen the enrichment facility so you will give us more food". I'm sure similar overtures have been made through back channels with Iran (though probably from Europe, not the US), but the points you and Dram made can easily explain why that hasn't gone anywhere.
In this situations I always wonder why we don't offer to help them build a civilian program. If they don't actually want a nuke no harm done, though it could be argued that they wouldn't trust our motives and really, when you have an entire party of candidates claiming that their number one mission is to invade Iran can you really blame them?
We do. It's part of the Non-proliferation treaty. IIRC you get help to build your own civilian nuclear power plants. In exchange you get inspected by the IAEA and the uranium enrichment is done by a nuclear power.
That's why it looks oh so suspicious when countries start enriching their own and kick out, or limit the access of, IAEA inspectors.
Well we tried that with NK, and then later they were like "eh, we're going to reopen the enrichment facility so you will give us more food". I'm sure similar overtures have been made through back channels with Iran (though probably from Europe, not the US), but the points you and Dram made can easily explain why that hasn't gone anywhere.
It's worth noting that Clinton was successful in backing North Korea off their nuke program. They didn't start things up again until Bush decided to include them in his "Axis of Evil."
Incidentally, North Korea got added because Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, felt that things flow better when in lists of three. He picked North Korea literally out of thin air, and he has defended this by saying that he didn't think it would make the final draft. If things go nuclear in Korea, this will end up being the world's most disastrous essay-writing blunder.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well we tried that with NK, and then later they were like "eh, we're going to reopen the enrichment facility so you will give us more food". I'm sure similar overtures have been made through back channels with Iran (though probably from Europe, not the US), but the points you and Dram made can easily explain why that hasn't gone anywhere.
It's worth noting that Clinton was successful in backing North Korea off their nuke program. They didn't start things up again until Bush decided to include them in his "Axis of Evil."
Incidentally, North Korea got added because Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, felt that things flow better when in lists of three. He picked North Korea literally out of thin air, and he has defended this by saying that he didn't think it would make the final draft. If things go nuclear in Korea, this will end up being the world's most disastrous essay-writing blunder.
Things were improving with Iran pre Axis of Evil speech as well. They had a moderate president who was attempting to improve things with the west. But then we brand them evil and Ahmadinejad gets elected and the anti-western forces were able to kick that whole modernization thing to the curb.
Well we tried that with NK, and then later they were like "eh, we're going to reopen the enrichment facility so you will give us more food". I'm sure similar overtures have been made through back channels with Iran (though probably from Europe, not the US), but the points you and Dram made can easily explain why that hasn't gone anywhere.
It's worth noting that Clinton was successful in backing North Korea off their nuke program. They didn't start things up again until Bush decided to include them in his "Axis of Evil."
Incidentally, North Korea got added because Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, felt that things flow better when in lists of three. He picked North Korea literally out of thin air, and he has defended this by saying that he didn't think it would make the final draft. If things go nuclear in Korea, this will end up being the world's most disastrous essay-writing blunder.
Things were improving with Iran pre Axis of Evil speech as well. They had a moderate president who was attempting to improve things with the west. But then we brand them evil and Ahmadinejad gets elected and the anti-western forces were able to kick that whole modernization thing to the curb.
After 9/11 there was even some co-operation. Both sides kept it quiet as a matter of domestic politics, but when the US was invading Afghanistan, Iran allowed air shipments of supplies to be flown over its territory. That's a huge move for enemies to make, but Iran hates the Taliban as much as anyone. Then came the axis of evil speech came out of the blue, and Iran was all like: "Ok, well fuck you guys too".
Japan will take "concrete steps" to reduce its oil dependency on Iran, its finance minister has announced.
The comments from Jun Azumi came after he met US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in Tokyo.
Mr Geithner is seeking backing from China and Japan for stricter sanctions on Iran's oil industry in a bid to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
On Wednesday he raised the issue with Chinese leaders in Beijing, but did not get the same public support.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
After the Iraq casastrofuck, I don't give much credibility to the constant assertions that Iran is after the bomb. It's clear that Israeli-backed US forces are intent on pushing that agenda, so unless some real proof comes out, I'm taking everything with a grain of salt.
Also, Iran has been receptive to deals like trading unenriched uranium for enriched with Russia, right? Which isn't the kind of thing you'd do if you were actually shooting for a nuclear weapons program.
Here are a couple possibilties off the top of my head.
1) It flies during the day "Hey look, that cloud just broke the sound barrier"
2)The obama administration thought making disposable drones all black was racist.
Yeah Iran is clearly crazier than North Korea, or Pakistan which barely has a government.
Calling Iran "crazy" is stupid. The Ender was making this argument earlier in the thread and apparently gave up on it. There is absolutely no indication that Iran would be any more willing to use a nuclear weapon than any other country. If all they did was start crazy wars, well, they've had 30 years to do so and have only fought one, defensive, war. If they really hated Israel or the US so much that they'd be willing to risk their own destruction in an attack they would have done so long ago.
Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war was stupid when applied to Saddam, and its even more stupid now that we've had time to learn from that debacle.
Iran is no more likely to use a nuclear weapon than Israel, India, or Pakistan.
You just named three countries that I think could potentially deploy nuclear weapons. Granted, I doubt that Israel or India would do it except in retaliation.
The thing is: every country we're worried about using a nuke knows that if they shoot first, they bring the entire world down on their own heads in a shitstorm.
There is absolutely no indication that Iran would be any more willing to use a nuclear weapon than any other country.
Nuclear proliferation is not OK. And I disagree with your assertion that Iran is not willing to use nuclear weapons. Their rhetoric and stated intentions certainly make it clear that they would use nuclear weapons given motive and opportunity.
I already spent a few pages refuting these exact arguments earlier in the thread. If you have anything new to add, then let me know. Otherwise won't be repeating myself, feel free to go back and read it if you want to imagine what my responses will be.
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
Calling "Iran" crazy is lazy and dismissive. Is Ahmadinejad a bad guy? Yes. Are Iranian forces offering aid to organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah? Yeah, probably. And not without cause, may I remind you. I have seen nothing about the Iranian government that indicates that any of the leadership wants to see themselves killed in a counterattack or dragged in front of a UN war crimes tribunal.
The only real risk as far as I can tell would be a nuclear device being supplied to a terrorist organization. And this is an outcome that only becomes more likely as we offer continued harassment and destabilization of Middle Eastern countries and support for an increasingly inexcusable situation in Israel.
0
Options
SerukoFerocious Kittenof The Farthest NorthRegistered Userregular
There is absolutely no indication that Iran would be any more willing to use a nuclear weapon than any other country.
Nuclear proliferation is not OK. And I disagree with your assertion that Iran is not willing to use nuclear weapons. Their rhetoric and stated intentions certainly make it clear that they would use nuclear weapons given motive and opportunity.
Please see earlier parts of this thread.
To boil down the arguments.
1. Iranian leadership appears to act in it's own best interest, i.e. the interests of Iranian leadership.
2. Iranian leadership appears to be rational.
3. Iranian leadership has very good reason to fear foreign military intervention UNLESS they acquire nuclear weapons.
4. Iran and Israel do not share a border.
5. Iran does not have a navy capable of projecting power.
6. Iran does not possess a sophisticated, large or dangerous air force.
7. The chief executive officer of Iran is Ali Khamenei (The Supreme Leader and Commander in Chief of the Military) not as some believe imadinnerjacket.
8. As a side note the president of Iran is imadinnerjacket. In other titular democratic countries the office of the presidency is a largely symbolic office without any power, prime ministers are usually who's in charge (which in the US would be Speaker for the House essentially). This goes double for Iran where both the president and the prime are without any real power, thus a "Supreme Leader" who in the US political systen would essentially by Chief Justice of the Supreme court. It's weird.
What is the rational for Iranian political leadership to use nuclear weapons against their neighbors?
1. Use medium range scud to maybe get small Nuclear nuclear weapon to Israel
2. See Allied forces turn Iran into Iraq or watch Israels nuclear counter strike turn Iran into radioactive crater
3. ???
4. Profit.
There's no end game there, there's no mid game there, there's just dead Iranians and some very angry Israelis.
No one wants anyone else to have a nuclear weapon, but in a world where such weapons do exist no one want to be the only person without them.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Iran is no more likely to use a nuclear weapon than Israel, India, or Pakistan.
You just named three countries that I think could potentially deploy nuclear weapons. Granted, I doubt that Israel or India would do it except in retaliation.
No country will openly use a nuclear weapon. If it ever happens, you may bet there will be suspicions and plausible deniability on government involvement.
There's a huge gulf between "Is it bad for Iran to get the bomb?" and "Should we invade Iran to stop them?" Lots of bad shit happens in the world, but I hope we're realizing that the answer to this isn't to start a war over it.
In this situations I always wonder why we don't offer to help them build a civilian program. If they don't actually want a nuke no harm done, though it could be argued that they wouldn't trust our motives and really, when you have an entire party of candidates claiming that their number one mission is to invade Iran can you really blame them?
We do. It's part of the Non-proliferation treaty. IIRC you get help to build your own civilian nuclear power plants. In exchange you get inspected by the IAEA and the uranium enrichment is done by a nuclear power.
That's why it looks oh so suspicious when countries start enriching their own and kick out, or limit the access of, IAEA inspectors.
Iran views the IAEA as a puppet of the US. Whether the IAEA actually is or not, that's Iran's view. Given that, Iran trusting the US to help build and monitor a nuclear power plant makes as much sense as the US trusting the Taliban to help run the TSA and air marshall programs. It's perfectly logical for Iran to distrust the IAEA.
Iran is the only one crazy enough to use it and close enough to our assets and resources that we care.
US: invades 2 sovereign nations in the last 10 years, conducts bombing campaigns in several others. Has used nuclear weapons in war.
Iran: hasn't attacked anyone in who knows how long, only conflict in recent memory was when a US client state invaded them, and used WMDs (chemical) against Iranian soldiers and civilians.
Conclusion: everyone should be afraid of Iran, because it's clearly they who are "aggressive" and "a danger to regional stability".
It's part of the Non-proliferation treaty. IIRC you get help to build your own civilian nuclear power plants. In exchange you get inspected by the IAEA and the uranium enrichment is done by a nuclear power.
That's why it looks oh so suspicious when countries start enriching their own and kick out, or limit the access of, IAEA inspectors.
Iran views the IAEA as a puppet of the US. Whether the IAEA actually is or not, that's Iran's view.
The IAEA is an international organization based out of Austria. It's neither a logical nor rational distrust, which is irrelevant because the "distrust" is a show so they can "covertly" develop weapons.
Iran is the only one crazy enough to use it and close enough to our assets and resources that we care.
US: invades 2 sovereign nations in the last 10 years, conducts bombing campaigns in several others. Has used nuclear weapons in war.
Iran: hasn't attacked anyone in who knows how long, only conflict in recent memory was when a US client state invaded them, and used WMDs (chemical) against Iranian soldiers and civilians.
Conclusion: everyone should be afraid of Iran, because it's clearly they who are "aggressive" and "a danger to regional stability".
Riiiight.
US: Already has nuclear weapons.
Iran: Trying to make nuclear weapons.
Conclusion: Stop Iran from making nuclear weapons.
It is worth a war to stop them, like it was worth the invasion of Iraq to stop Saddam from giving WMDs to terrorists? And to presumably stop any other country from making nukes? I guess we can just excuse any nation that actually has them.
No one wants anyone else to have a nuclear weapon, but in a world where such weapons do exist no one want to be the only person without them.
That doesn't mean the rest of the world should let them have it. That's ridiculous. Just because you think the guys currently in charge aren't going to use nukes doesn't mean you let them build an arsenal.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
First you write "That doesn't mean the rest of the world should let them have it." then you write " That's ridiculous."
If I can charitably interpret what you are saying to mean "Abetting Iran in getting a nuclear weapon would be ridiculous,"
then I can say Yay hurray! We are in agreement.
Or target assassinations, bribery and espionage while distasteful (not to mention illegal) are warranted, then I am also in agreement but without the yay hurray bits.
Edit after reading your next comments I think what you are saying is that the argument posed by certain others is: that Iran should be stopped from getting a nuclear weapon by any means necessary up to and including unilateral military boots on the ground action... then no.
Take the following factors into account.
We're talking about Iran. A country which defeated Iraq (Iraq itself a third rate Military Power) by using child soldiers and forced conscription.
Iran a country without the ability to meaningfully project power.
Iran a country without the necessary industry to refine enough of it's own petroleum to satisfy internal gasoline demand.
There's no threat there. Iran isn't threating anyone. Iran isn't able to threaten anyone outside of some guerrilla operatives and proxies such as hamas. Iran has nothing to threaten anyone with. Even if they found a magic lamp (Say Rogue Pakistani Secret Service Agents) and magicked up a nuclear weapon tomorrow, and make no mistake that's what it would take freaking magic.
Then Iran would still not represent an exigent threat to either the US or Israel.
Far Far crazier countries have nuclear weapons - North Korea - Far Far less stable countries have nuclear weapons - Pakistan- Far Far more aggressive countries have nuclear weapons - Israel- the notion that it would be game over for us all if Iran magicked one up in the next couple of days (and realistically we're talking years here) is untenable.
The notion that American military intervention is necessary to prevent Iran from maybe having a single tactical nuclear weapon in 5-10 years is preposterous, and you may very well not be saying that.
I hope that's not what you're saying anyway.
Imadinnerjacket says some things that don't play well on the inter-nation TV circuits (and that I think are so crazy he doesn't even believe), but do play well internally to Iran (and thus do not constitute insanity); however he is of NO consequence.
He's just some guy in a suit without a tie in the 2nd term of office limited to a 2 term presidency. He's not the commander of the armed forces, or the chief political officer or even the head of parliament.
As we achieve amazing sophistication in manufacturing and design automation the threat posed by rogue countries and nuclear material becomes absurd as any jackass with a sufficiently large 3d printer and access to some hospital night shift keys becomes equivalently dangerous.
Frankly we shouldn't be too concerned with Iran, we should be far more concerned with the teetering governments of Pakistan and North Korea. We know where the Iranians are going to be, where they live and play and sleep.
Frankly we shouldn't be too afraid of Iran, we should be far more afraid of cheap easy to make dirty bombs and small irrational groups difficult or impossible to hold accountable.
Edit: Continued although I agree with you many, especially itchy interventions will make the claim, and the US might engage in such folly as to intervene. Those are political problems. The American public has never met a stand up military intervention with a promise of swift sweet victory that it didn't like and in the case of Iran that poses a similar problem to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you conquer a peolpe when you can't speak their language and have no real idea about how you're going to replace their governing institutions?
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
@Gaddez So, because they don't want to get invaded, they're rushing headlong down the course that will surely get them invaded if a Republican is elected President?
Does not compute.
We aren't in any hurry to invade North Korea. If Iran gets the bomb, we will be backing off of any invasion threats there, too.
That's the issue. They know that we only invade nations that can't actually hurt us much.
@Gaddez So, because they don't want to get invaded, they're rushing headlong down the course that will surely get them invaded if a Republican is elected President?
Does not compute.
The republicans have been talking about war in one shape or another with Iran for 30 years, and if they get into office in the next 4 years it is almost a certainty whether they have nukes or not.
Having nuclear weapons in this situation may very well make them safer.
@Gaddez So, because they don't want to get invaded, they're rushing headlong down the course that will surely get them invaded if a Republican is elected President?
Does not compute.
We aren't in any hurry to invade North Korea. If Iran gets the bomb, we will be backing off of any invasion threats there, too.
That's the issue. They know that we only invade nations that can't actually hurt us much.
To be fair, korea having a nuke really isn't the reason that NK is still around. it has much more to do with the fact that they are effectively holding south korea hostage with their artillery and would smash it back to 3rd world status the instant they thought they were going to be invaded.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
@Gaddez So, because they don't want to get invaded, they're rushing headlong down the course that will surely get them invaded if a Republican is elected President?
Does not compute.
We aren't in any hurry to invade North Korea. If Iran gets the bomb, we will be backing off of any invasion threats there, too.
That's the issue. They know that we only invade nations that can't actually hurt us much.
To be fair, korea having a nuke really isn't the reason that NK is still around. it has much more to do with the fact that they are effectively holding south korea hostage with their artillery and would smash it back to 3rd world status the instant they thought they were going to be invaded.
Also, backing from China.
Which Iran has somewhat from Russia.
Allegedly a voice of reason.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I'm saying that stopping nuclear proliferation is probably worth a certain amount of military expenditure as a last resort. This does not include "any means necessary", because I can't imagine any situation where "unilateral military boots on the ground" ends well.
I agree with you whole heartedly.
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The US presumably invaded because Iraq had WMDs. So that's not a good argument, is it?
Presumably? You mean based on all that fabricated evidence and outright lies?
The argument to the American people was "Scary Saddam with Chemical Weapons he used against his own people is about to have nukes!"
I think we can all agree that the US Administration was honestly shocked to find nothing.
They were at least expecting to find some photo op worthy weapons grade material in drums somewhere;
as they had sold them to the Iraqi's a couple of decades before and Saddam kept saying loudly and publicly that he had more they were sure he must have had something...
ninja edit: Honestly I think that's what cost Chene the presidency, he promised George they were there and when it became abundantly clear they weren't he was out demoted to vice president.
So much snark.
Seruko on
"How are you going to play Dota if your fingers and bitten off? You can't. That's how" -> Carnarvon
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
The US presumably invaded because Iraq had WMDs. So that's not a good argument, is it?
See here's the flaw in your arguement: Iraq didn't have WMDs. If they did then I can guarantee you that the US would have lost thousands of soldiers during the war as chemical and biological weapons were deployed against them in the first few weeks.
I'm saying that stopping nuclear proliferation is probably worth a certain amount of military expenditure as a last resort. This does not include "any means necessary", because I can't imagine any situation where "unilateral military boots on the ground" ends well.
Dude, boots on the ground is the only way you will get at the facilities where the resarch is being conducted since they are too deep to get at with a bunker buster and I seriously doubt you could deploy a seal team of sufficent size covertly and swiftly enough to demolish them all before iranian defense forces respond with a vengeance.
Invasion is the only option for stopping Iran so the question needs to be repeated: do you support invasion to prevent iran from having nukes and staying their indefinitley to prevent them from ever developing them?
The US presumably invaded because Iraq had WMDs. So that's not a good argument, is it?
Presumably? You mean based on all that fabricated evidence and outright lies?
The presumption being referenced was that the reason for the war was Iraqi WMDs and not some other motive. But the rationale used to peddle a war that was probably a violation of international law is a little off topic.
Since the exact same rational, and the exact same arguments are being used today to hype a conflict with Iran, I think it is very on topic.
Also on topic, Obama and Netanyahu have been talking.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama discussed recent developments in the Mideast peace process as well as the West’s continuing standoff with Iran in a phone conversation on Thursday.
“The two leaders also discussed recent Iran-related developments, including the international community’s efforts to hold Iran accountable for its failures to meet its international obligations,” the statement added, saying that Obama “reiterated his unshakable commitment to Israel’s security, and the President and the prime minister promised to stay in touch in the coming weeks on these and other issues of mutual concern.”
Whew. Good thing the US is so committed to a foreign nation's security. There might be problems otherwise.
As opposed to the 4,459 that were killed? I remember reading about the war terrified that our soldiers were going to get hit with a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. At the time, that's what we (the public) thought our troops were being sent into.
4,459 killed over the course of ~what? 8 years?~ Is far, far less then 20%-30% of the initial invasion force.
Further, It was bordering on totally obvious that there were no actual WMDs in Iraq on the eve of invasion.
I'm not really interested in that level of theorycrafting. Like I said, stopping nuclear proliferation is probably worth a certain amount of military expenditure as a last resort.
This isn't theorycraft. This is me pointing out that the research facilities can't be bombed because they are subteranean.
I don't think invasion is the only option, which renders the rest of the question spurious.
Shit or get off the pot: Invade and go through iraq 2 nuclear boogaloo or iran gets the bomb. Which do you choose because I'm affraid those are the only two military options for ensuring that iran never gets the bomb.
The US presumably invaded because Iraq had WMDs. So that's not a good argument, is it?
See here's the flaw in your arguement: Iraq didn't have WMDs. If they did then I can guarantee you that the US would have lost thousands of soldiers during the war as chemical and biological weapons were deployed against them in the first few weeks.
Ere go: WMDs make invasion a non-starter.
As opposed to the 4,459 that were killed? I remember reading about the war terrified that our soldiers were going to get hit with a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. At the time, that's what we (the public) thought our troops were being sent into.
Sigh. Yet another post that makes me feel war is inevitable.
I was on the streets before the war began, protesting against such an obvious criminal fraud. But then I wasn't living in the US at that time. God bless the ignorant American public and their continued willingness to invade other nations.
The US presumably invaded because Iraq had WMDs. So that's not a good argument, is it?
See here's the flaw in your arguement: Iraq didn't have WMDs. If they did then I can guarantee you that the US would have lost thousands of soldiers during the war as chemical and biological weapons were deployed against them in the first few weeks.
Ere go: WMDs make invasion a non-starter.
As opposed to the 4,459 that were killed? I remember reading about the war terrified that our soldiers were going to get hit with a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon. At the time, that's what we (the public) thought our troops were being sent into.
So apparently, no, WMDs do not make invasion a non-starter.
I'm saying that stopping nuclear proliferation is probably worth a certain amount of military expenditure as a last resort. This does not include "any means necessary", because I can't imagine any situation where "unilateral military boots on the ground" ends well.
Dude, boots on the ground is the only way you will get at the facilities where the resarch is being conducted since they are too deep to get at with a bunker buster and I seriously doubt you could deploy a seal team of sufficent size covertly and swiftly enough to demolish them all before iranian defense forces respond with a vengeance.
I'm not really interested in that level of theorycrafting. Like I said, stopping nuclear proliferation is probably worth a certain amount of military expenditure as a last resort.
Invasion is the only option for stopping Iran so the question needs to be repeated: do you support invasion to prevent iran from having nukes and staying their indefinitley to prevent them from ever developing them?
I don't think invasion is the only option, which renders the rest of the question spurious.
Ground force invasion is not the only option. Ground force invasion was the plan in Iraq largely because the largest political supporters wanted to secure the oil facilities and rebuilding contracts. But if we had wanted to just go in and knock them back to the stone age technologically, we could have done that with out sending a single ground troop into enemy territory. And it can be done to Iran, pretty much as easily. Nuclear research, it needs lots of this stuff called electricity to be conducted.....and weve had 3 rounds of learning EXACTLY how to wreck peoples shit. Within a few weeks Iran would be dead in the water, we'd have probably 5% losses of air forces used, and we could probably just call it a day.
The question that should be discussed is not if we could, but is it worth it? Because at that point the Iranians have no incentive NOT to fuck with the entire rest of the worlds oil supply. They wouldn't succeed in closing off the Strait, but they would definitely try to blow shit up and probably mine the harbor. And while I have no doubt of the U.S. navies ability to destroy any threat to itself from Iran, even with subs and guided missile destroyers taking out Iranian mining ships, alot of sea mines can be put in the water by converted fishing boats....they will indeed make that section of water a literal minefield. The effect on oil prices will be astounding, even without any substantial decrease in oil supply.
Posts
Most of the evidence at this point is circumstantial - the enrichment equipment they have is overkill for creating energy-grade uranium, most of the work is being done in underground bunkers, and the usual vague "reports" that they want a nuclear weapon. On the other hand, these kinds of projects are very hard to gather intelligence on due to their high security nature and the fact that Iran isn't going to go "Hey guys we're working on nukes" until they actually have one to test.
In this situations I always wonder why we don't offer to help them build a civilian program. If they don't actually want a nuke no harm done, though it could be argued that they wouldn't trust our motives and really, when you have an entire party of candidates claiming that their number one mission is to invade Iran can you really blame them?
Well we tried that with NK, and then later they were like "eh, we're going to reopen the enrichment facility so you will give us more food". I'm sure similar overtures have been made through back channels with Iran (though probably from Europe, not the US), but the points you and Dram made can easily explain why that hasn't gone anywhere.
We do. It's part of the Non-proliferation treaty. IIRC you get help to build your own civilian nuclear power plants. In exchange you get inspected by the IAEA and the uranium enrichment is done by a nuclear power.
That's why it looks oh so suspicious when countries start enriching their own and kick out, or limit the access of, IAEA inspectors.
It's worth noting that Clinton was successful in backing North Korea off their nuke program. They didn't start things up again until Bush decided to include them in his "Axis of Evil."
Incidentally, North Korea got added because Bush's speechwriter, David Frum, felt that things flow better when in lists of three. He picked North Korea literally out of thin air, and he has defended this by saying that he didn't think it would make the final draft. If things go nuclear in Korea, this will end up being the world's most disastrous essay-writing blunder.
Things were improving with Iran pre Axis of Evil speech as well. They had a moderate president who was attempting to improve things with the west. But then we brand them evil and Ahmadinejad gets elected and the anti-western forces were able to kick that whole modernization thing to the curb.
After 9/11 there was even some co-operation. Both sides kept it quiet as a matter of domestic politics, but when the US was invading Afghanistan, Iran allowed air shipments of supplies to be flown over its territory. That's a huge move for enemies to make, but Iran hates the Taliban as much as anyone. Then came the axis of evil speech came out of the blue, and Iran was all like: "Ok, well fuck you guys too".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16523422
Also, Iran has been receptive to deals like trading unenriched uranium for enriched with Russia, right? Which isn't the kind of thing you'd do if you were actually shooting for a nuclear weapons program.
Because Pakistan has the bomb. So does North Korea. So does Israel for that matter. And of course the US itself.
Yet its Iran that gets singled out and threatened for their nuclear program, despite Iran getting in fewer wars than any of the above nations.
1) It flies during the day "Hey look, that cloud just broke the sound barrier"
2)The obama administration thought making disposable drones all black was racist.
Calling Iran "crazy" is stupid. The Ender was making this argument earlier in the thread and apparently gave up on it. There is absolutely no indication that Iran would be any more willing to use a nuclear weapon than any other country. If all they did was start crazy wars, well, they've had 30 years to do so and have only fought one, defensive, war. If they really hated Israel or the US so much that they'd be willing to risk their own destruction in an attack they would have done so long ago.
Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive war was stupid when applied to Saddam, and its even more stupid now that we've had time to learn from that debacle.
The thing is: every country we're worried about using a nuke knows that if they shoot first, they bring the entire world down on their own heads in a shitstorm.
I already spent a few pages refuting these exact arguments earlier in the thread. If you have anything new to add, then let me know. Otherwise won't be repeating myself, feel free to go back and read it if you want to imagine what my responses will be.
The only real risk as far as I can tell would be a nuclear device being supplied to a terrorist organization. And this is an outcome that only becomes more likely as we offer continued harassment and destabilization of Middle Eastern countries and support for an increasingly inexcusable situation in Israel.
Please see earlier parts of this thread.
To boil down the arguments.
1. Iranian leadership appears to act in it's own best interest, i.e. the interests of Iranian leadership.
2. Iranian leadership appears to be rational.
3. Iranian leadership has very good reason to fear foreign military intervention UNLESS they acquire nuclear weapons.
4. Iran and Israel do not share a border.
5. Iran does not have a navy capable of projecting power.
6. Iran does not possess a sophisticated, large or dangerous air force.
7. The chief executive officer of Iran is Ali Khamenei (The Supreme Leader and Commander in Chief of the Military) not as some believe imadinnerjacket.
8. As a side note the president of Iran is imadinnerjacket. In other titular democratic countries the office of the presidency is a largely symbolic office without any power, prime ministers are usually who's in charge (which in the US would be Speaker for the House essentially). This goes double for Iran where both the president and the prime are without any real power, thus a "Supreme Leader" who in the US political systen would essentially by Chief Justice of the Supreme court. It's weird.
What is the rational for Iranian political leadership to use nuclear weapons against their neighbors?
1. Use medium range scud to maybe get small Nuclear nuclear weapon to Israel
2. See Allied forces turn Iran into Iraq or watch Israels nuclear counter strike turn Iran into radioactive crater
3. ???
4. Profit.
There's no end game there, there's no mid game there, there's just dead Iranians and some very angry Israelis.
No one wants anyone else to have a nuclear weapon, but in a world where such weapons do exist no one want to be the only person without them.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
No country will openly use a nuclear weapon. If it ever happens, you may bet there will be suspicions and plausible deniability on government involvement.
Iran views the IAEA as a puppet of the US. Whether the IAEA actually is or not, that's Iran's view. Given that, Iran trusting the US to help build and monitor a nuclear power plant makes as much sense as the US trusting the Taliban to help run the TSA and air marshall programs. It's perfectly logical for Iran to distrust the IAEA.
US: invades 2 sovereign nations in the last 10 years, conducts bombing campaigns in several others. Has used nuclear weapons in war.
Iran: hasn't attacked anyone in who knows how long, only conflict in recent memory was when a US client state invaded them, and used WMDs (chemical) against Iranian soldiers and civilians.
Conclusion: everyone should be afraid of Iran, because it's clearly they who are "aggressive" and "a danger to regional stability".
Riiiight.
It is worth a war to stop them, like it was worth the invasion of Iraq to stop Saddam from giving WMDs to terrorists? And to presumably stop any other country from making nukes? I guess we can just excuse any nation that actually has them.
Ironically, you are making the case why it is rational for Iran to develop nuclear weapons. We don't invade nations that have them.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.
First you write "That doesn't mean the rest of the world should let them have it." then you write " That's ridiculous."
If I can charitably interpret what you are saying to mean "Abetting Iran in getting a nuclear weapon would be ridiculous,"
then I can say Yay hurray! We are in agreement.
Or target assassinations, bribery and espionage while distasteful (not to mention illegal) are warranted, then I am also in agreement but without the yay hurray bits.
Edit after reading your next comments I think what you are saying is that the argument posed by certain others is: that Iran should be stopped from getting a nuclear weapon by any means necessary up to and including unilateral military boots on the ground action... then no.
Take the following factors into account.
We're talking about Iran. A country which defeated Iraq (Iraq itself a third rate Military Power) by using child soldiers and forced conscription.
Iran a country without the ability to meaningfully project power.
Iran a country without the necessary industry to refine enough of it's own petroleum to satisfy internal gasoline demand.
There's no threat there. Iran isn't threating anyone. Iran isn't able to threaten anyone outside of some guerrilla operatives and proxies such as hamas. Iran has nothing to threaten anyone with. Even if they found a magic lamp (Say Rogue Pakistani Secret Service Agents) and magicked up a nuclear weapon tomorrow, and make no mistake that's what it would take freaking magic.
Then Iran would still not represent an exigent threat to either the US or Israel.
Far Far crazier countries have nuclear weapons - North Korea - Far Far less stable countries have nuclear weapons - Pakistan- Far Far more aggressive countries have nuclear weapons - Israel- the notion that it would be game over for us all if Iran magicked one up in the next couple of days (and realistically we're talking years here) is untenable.
The notion that American military intervention is necessary to prevent Iran from maybe having a single tactical nuclear weapon in 5-10 years is preposterous, and you may very well not be saying that.
I hope that's not what you're saying anyway.
Imadinnerjacket says some things that don't play well on the inter-nation TV circuits (and that I think are so crazy he doesn't even believe), but do play well internally to Iran (and thus do not constitute insanity); however he is of NO consequence.
He's just some guy in a suit without a tie in the 2nd term of office limited to a 2 term presidency. He's not the commander of the armed forces, or the chief political officer or even the head of parliament.
As we achieve amazing sophistication in manufacturing and design automation the threat posed by rogue countries and nuclear material becomes absurd as any jackass with a sufficiently large 3d printer and access to some hospital night shift keys becomes equivalently dangerous.
Frankly we shouldn't be too concerned with Iran, we should be far more concerned with the teetering governments of Pakistan and North Korea. We know where the Iranians are going to be, where they live and play and sleep.
Frankly we shouldn't be too afraid of Iran, we should be far more afraid of cheap easy to make dirty bombs and small irrational groups difficult or impossible to hold accountable.
Edit: Continued although I agree with you many, especially itchy interventions will make the claim, and the US might engage in such folly as to intervene. Those are political problems. The American public has never met a stand up military intervention with a promise of swift sweet victory that it didn't like and in the case of Iran that poses a similar problem to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. How do you conquer a peolpe when you can't speak their language and have no real idea about how you're going to replace their governing institutions?
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
We aren't in any hurry to invade North Korea. If Iran gets the bomb, we will be backing off of any invasion threats there, too.
That's the issue. They know that we only invade nations that can't actually hurt us much.
Having nuclear weapons in this situation may very well make them safer.
Also, backing from China.
Which Iran has somewhat from Russia.
They presumably had biological weapons and were pursuing nuclear.
That's a lot different from actually having nuclear.
I agree with you whole heartedly.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Presumably? You mean based on all that fabricated evidence and outright lies?
The argument to the American people was "Scary Saddam with Chemical Weapons he used against his own people is about to have nukes!"
I think we can all agree that the US Administration was honestly shocked to find nothing.
They were at least expecting to find some photo op worthy weapons grade material in drums somewhere;
as they had sold them to the Iraqi's a couple of decades before and Saddam kept saying loudly and publicly that he had more they were sure he must have had something...
ninja edit: Honestly I think that's what cost Chene the presidency, he promised George they were there and when it became abundantly clear they weren't he was out demoted to vice president.
So much snark.
"You can be yodeling bear without spending a dime if you get lucky." -> reVerse
"In the grim darkness of the future, we will all be nurses catering to the whims of terrible old people." -> Hacksaw
"In fact, our whole society will be oriented around caring for one very decrepit, very old man on total life support." -> SKFM
I mean, the first time I met a non-white person was when this Vietnamese kid tried to break my legs but that was entirely fair because he was a centreback, not because he was a subhuman beast in some zoo ->yotes
Ere go: WMDs make invasion a non-starter.
Dude, boots on the ground is the only way you will get at the facilities where the resarch is being conducted since they are too deep to get at with a bunker buster and I seriously doubt you could deploy a seal team of sufficent size covertly and swiftly enough to demolish them all before iranian defense forces respond with a vengeance.
Invasion is the only option for stopping Iran so the question needs to be repeated: do you support invasion to prevent iran from having nukes and staying their indefinitley to prevent them from ever developing them?
Since the exact same rational, and the exact same arguments are being used today to hype a conflict with Iran, I think it is very on topic.
Also on topic, Obama and Netanyahu have been talking.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/netanyahu-obama-talk-mideast-peace-iran-nuclear-standoff-1.406984
Whew. Good thing the US is so committed to a foreign nation's security. There might be problems otherwise.
Further, It was bordering on totally obvious that there were no actual WMDs in Iraq on the eve of invasion.
This isn't theorycraft. This is me pointing out that the research facilities can't be bombed because they are subteranean.
Shit or get off the pot: Invade and go through iraq 2 nuclear boogaloo or iran gets the bomb. Which do you choose because I'm affraid those are the only two military options for ensuring that iran never gets the bomb.
Sigh. Yet another post that makes me feel war is inevitable.
I was on the streets before the war began, protesting against such an obvious criminal fraud. But then I wasn't living in the US at that time. God bless the ignorant American public and their continued willingness to invade other nations.
Ground force invasion is not the only option. Ground force invasion was the plan in Iraq largely because the largest political supporters wanted to secure the oil facilities and rebuilding contracts. But if we had wanted to just go in and knock them back to the stone age technologically, we could have done that with out sending a single ground troop into enemy territory. And it can be done to Iran, pretty much as easily. Nuclear research, it needs lots of this stuff called electricity to be conducted.....and weve had 3 rounds of learning EXACTLY how to wreck peoples shit. Within a few weeks Iran would be dead in the water, we'd have probably 5% losses of air forces used, and we could probably just call it a day.
The question that should be discussed is not if we could, but is it worth it? Because at that point the Iranians have no incentive NOT to fuck with the entire rest of the worlds oil supply. They wouldn't succeed in closing off the Strait, but they would definitely try to blow shit up and probably mine the harbor. And while I have no doubt of the U.S. navies ability to destroy any threat to itself from Iran, even with subs and guided missile destroyers taking out Iranian mining ships, alot of sea mines can be put in the water by converted fishing boats....they will indeed make that section of water a literal minefield. The effect on oil prices will be astounding, even without any substantial decrease in oil supply.