Iran announces mass uranium production

[Odin]

From the AP:

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
1 minute ago

Iran is prepared to start "industrial scale" enrichment of uranium, the vice president said Monday, expanding a key nuclear process that the United Nations has demanded the country halt.

The announcement came as Iran celebrated the one-year anniversary of its first success in enriching small amounts of uranium at its Natanz enrichment facility in central Iran.

"Now we are entering the mass production of centrifuges and starting to launch industrial scale enrichment, another step toward the flourishing of Islamic Iran," Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh said at a ceremony at Natanz.

Aghazadeh, who heads Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, did not elaborate. Industrial-scale enrichment is the term Iran uses to mean a capability to produce greater levels of nuclear fuel — which would suggest Iran has increased the number of centrifuges working at Natanz.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to speak later at the ceremonies and announce "good nuclear news," according to state-run TV. The Iranian press has speculated he will announce the installation of 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz.

The U.N. has imposed limited sanctions on Iran until it suspends enrichment a key process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear reactor or the basis of a warhead. The United States and its allies accuse Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons, a claim the country denies.

Iranian state television reported Monday that an Iranian Revolutionary Guard general who is banned from traveling abroad under the sanctions has visited Russia without any difficulty.

Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, who is also deputy interior minister for security affairs, was quoted on the state TV Web site as saying that his six-day journey to Moscow, which ended Monday, showed "the ineffectiveness of the resolution."

The resolution calls on all governments to ban visits by the 15 individuals and says that should such visits occur — presumably for exceptional circumstances — the countries should notify a U.N. committee.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Krivtsov confirmed that Zolqadr visited Russia. He told The Associated Press that the resolution does not prohibit visits by the listed individuals, but calls for heightened vigilance "directed first of all at people who are directly related to nuclear programs" — suggesting that Zolqadr was not.

The unveiling of new centrifuges at Natanz, in central Iran, would be a strong show of defiance toward the United Nations, which has vowed to ratchet up sanctions as long as Iran refuses to suspend enrichment. The Security Council has set a new deadline of late May.

Tensions are also high between Iran and the West following the 13-day detention of 15 British sailors by Iran. The sailors, who were seized by Revolutionary Guards off the Iraqi coast, were released on Wednesday, but since then have said they were put under psychological pressure by their captors to force them to "confess" to being in Iranian waters when captured, angering many in Britain.

Diplomats from developing nations were attending Monday's celebrations at Natanz, but diplomats from European Union boycotted to protest Iran's refusal of the U.N. demands, said the Foreign Ministry in Germany, which currently holds the EU presidency.

Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, said his country was willing to negotiate with the West and offer assurances that its program is peaceful. But he said the West must accept its nuclear program as a fact.

"We are ready to reach understanding with the Westerners through a corridor of real negotiations — in the current situation, in which Iran's nuclear activities have been concluded," state television quoted Larijani as saying.

"The understanding regards assuring the other party about the peacefulness of Iran's nuclear activities," he said. "But we do not give in our rights."

Across Iran, school bells rang to mark the "national day of nuclear energy." The government sent out SMS messages of congratulations for the occasion to millions of mobile phone users.

In Tehran, some 200 students formed a human chain at Iran's Atomic Energy Organization while chanting "death to America" and "death to Britain." The students burnt flags of the U.S. and Britain.

On April 9, 2006, Iran announced it had first enriched uranium using an array of 164 centrifuges.

Iran has said its next step is to set up 3,000 centrifuges, but it is not clear where the project stands.

Experts say the Natanz plant needs between 50,000 to 60,000 centrifuges to consistently produce fuel for a reactor or build a warhead.

In the enrichment process, uranium gas is pumped into a "cascade" of thousands of centrifuges, which spin the gas at supersonic speeds to purify it. Uranium enriched to a low level, at least 3 percent, can be used as fuel, while at a far higher level, more than 90 percent, it can be used to build a weapon.

Iran currently has two cascades of 164 centrifuges each operating at an aboveground portion of the Natanz facility in central Iran. The two cascades have produced small quantities of non-weapons grade enriched uranium, U.N. nuclear inspectors have said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear

*********************************************************

So what exactly do we do now? Clearly this points out yet again the futility of taking the UN route, so anyone have any solutions to the Iranian drive for increased nuclear activity?

**scratches head** hhhhmmmmm 2 Carriers in the gulf already, increased military (the surge) in iraq, boy the direction it appears to be going looks like loads of fun for everyone !

[Ice]

We do absolutely nothing besides put pressure on the government to stop. There are moderates in the Iranian government who are probably getting fed up with Awantadinnerjacket's nuclear policy. Attacking would be a horrible idea for the following reasons:

A) Oil goes up... economy goes bad... Remember what happened with the small British hostage crisis?

B) A united Iran that hates the West is not a good thing.

C) I really don't feel like adding another 3 trillion dollars to our deficit for a war that could have been avoided.

[Odin]

We do absolutely nothing besides put pressure on the government to stop.


Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....

I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.


There are moderates in the Iranian government who are probably getting fed up with Awantadinnerjacket's nuclear policy.

Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.


Oil goes up... economy goes bad... Remember what happened with the small British hostage crisis?

Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.


A united Iran that hates the West is not a good thing.

given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.


I really don't feel like adding another 3 trillion dollars to our deficit for a war that could have been avoided

I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

[Devastatin Dave]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

[KukriKhan]

There really isn't a military option unless it within (meaning revolution). The only military action I could see at this point would be air strikes. I don't know, this is a real bugger...

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

[Odin]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.


Well that assumes we leave intact thier ability to move into these area's dosent it? I suspect that airstrikes will envitably lead to targeting military infrastructure as well (I am not advocating that, its just my read on the evolution of the event).

I also think that any land grab by Iran, in a weakened state, will envoke a reaction from Sunni majority states in the region. Iran is a powerful nation but its ability to act unilaterally is some what contigent on regional support for its policies which it dosent have.

[gunslinger]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.
I really don't think that scenario is too worrisome. The U.S. military has lost a lot of face due to the inability to end the insurgency in Iraq, but it is still nearly invincible in a "conventional war" against an army like the IRG. I'm sure the U.S. generals and policymakers would actually love to see the Iranian army come storming across Iraq's borders. Such overt actions are much easier to explain to the French, Germans, Russians, etc. than the fact that Iran is already comitting acts of war by supporting the insurgency in Iraq.

[Devastatin Dave]

. Such overt actions are much easier to explain to the French, Germans, Russians, etc. than the fact that Iran is already comitting acts of war by supporting the insurgency in Iraq.
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

[Adrian II]

"Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three and five years have been made again and again — for more than 15 years.

For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to this gross exaggeration of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the rest of the American intelligence community may know where Iran's nuclear installations are located. Or they may not. They may know how those installations are inter-connected, which ones are the most important, and how they can be hit and destroyed. Or they may not.

If their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind."Dixit Martin van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Hebrew University and said to be the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.

[doc_bean]

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys. But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran, so this is a non-issue.

Regardless it would probably be a bad idea to attack them, China would probably want part of the 'action' which could be very bad in the long term. The muslim world 'might' unite and that would be a VERY bad thing, and in the short term oil prices will go though the roof, possibly crippling US economy.

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

[BigTex]

And the day after the air strikes, the IRG moves into southeastern Iraq(where we've pushed the Baghdad badguys with our surge) and southern Afghanistan... voila! in 6 months you have 'Greater Iran' and Sunni/Kurdistan remaining. And zero international support.

Not a pretty picture. Talk, I guess. And talk somemore. And talk again.

There's almost no way they could win in an offensive conventional war agaisnt the USA and Britian. They'd definately try, but for one thing the only strength Iran has against the USA in a conventional role is the terrian of Iran. We may not be able to easily invade, but bombing and defending the borders is very possible, and Iran knows that.

We've already seen their inability to control the radicals in their government with them taking 15 hostages. What do you think will happen once they have nuclear weapons or just nuclear waste?

[Pannonian]

"Those of us who have followed reports on the development of Iran's nuclear program know that the warnings from American and other intelligence agencies about Tehran building a bomb in three and five years have been made again and again — for more than 15 years.

For 15 years, the intelligence agencies have been proven dead wrong. And to this gross exaggeration of Iran's true intentions and capabilities must be added the fairy tales the same intelligence agencies have been feeding the world regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

The Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and the rest of the American intelligence community may know where Iran's nuclear installations are located. Or they may not. They may know how those installations are inter-connected, which ones are the most important, and how they can be hit and destroyed. Or they may not.

If their past record is any indication, the intelligence agencies may not even know how to tell whether they know enough about Iran's nuclear installations — or whether or not they are lying to their superiors, or to themselves. Anybody who believes one word they are saying — let alone uses the "information" they provide as a basis for decision-making — must be out of his or her mind."Dixit Martin van Creveld, Professor of Military History at Hebrew University and said to be the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.
Don't forget his remark that Iran would be mad if they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons.


We've already seen their inability to control the radicals in their government with them taking 15 hostages. What do you think will happen once they have nuclear weapons or just nuclear waste?
That's why it's so important to get them on our side so we can help them retain control of any potential nuclear matter. To paraphrase, it's better to have them in the tent urinating out, than out urinating in. If you can't stop someone from getting something, you might as well try and get control of it once they have it.

[KukriKhan]

So it's green-light time for the US Navy & Air Force to bomb what might be nuke facilities someday, and military installations, as a pre-emptive measure, and our Euro friends will buy it, as long as we don't put boots-on-the-pavement of Tehran?

[Ice]

Can you be more specific? What more pressure can we put? There is no will to do more in the UN (seemingly anyway) and 2 aircraft carriers in the gulf and no shortage of rhetoric....


More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.


I personally think we should talk to them directly and attempt to come up with a solution that everyone saves face on

Yes, I agree.


, and if direct talks dont work then bomb the facilities, because short of these 2 options it seems everything else has already been tried.


Not a good idea.



Fair enough, but the supreme leader isnt a moderate and at the end of the day he makes the policy.

The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.


Yes and that will hurt, on this point I dont have a good rebuttal. This would be a high price for that war.


Very high. It would send the US economy into a deep recession.



given the state of the U.S. and the lack of influence/credability/prestige the U.S. has currently I dont think its going to slip much further then it is. Yes they might scream louder but would you rather have a minority who can enrich uranium and all those potential outcomes screaming? Or a majority without the capacity to enrich? Given what I know about the Iranian political system I'll take the later.


Oh, it can get MUCH MUCH worse. Like I said, a war with Iran would cripple our economy due to the fact they can cause even more instability in the already volatile Middle East.



I dont want any more deficits either, its killing me as it is, but a "war that could have been avoided" without the explination of how it could be avoided is thin mate.

It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.




Nothing personal, you and I seem of a similar mind, but this conflict seems to be heading in one direction and I am not seeing many solutions popping up.

Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

[Odin]

I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys. But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran, so this is a non-issue.

Regardless it would probably be a bad idea to attack them, China would probably want part of the 'action' which could be very bad in the long term. The muslim world 'might' unite and that would be a VERY bad thing, and in the short term oil prices will go though the roof, possibly crippling US economy.

Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it.

Yet again Doc you dont dissapoint, you offer no solution or even an attempt at one, merely listing the potential negative outcomes to prior actions or future choices is pure armchair general and smacks of lack of imagination,and no real thought of your own.

instead we get
I would be a lot easier to explain why we're invading Iran than it was to explain why we should have invaded Iraq with you guys.

and

But not even the US has the balls to attack Iran

Come on, go out on a limb, put the "U.S. dosent have the balls" rhetoric to the side and lets hear what you think should be done about the Iranian nuclear issue.

Love to hear you give us an original thought on it Doc, rather then the tired recycled jib jabs you currently offer.

Of course coming from a position of
Iran knows they've got us all by the nuts and there's little we can do about it. I suspect you dont really have a solution, or would even attempt to formulate one anyway.

ahhh makes it much easier to take the easy way out dosent it, I mean its easy to beat the same tired drum at nauseum after the fact.

Again, I find your contribution less then enlightening :thumbsdown:

[KukriKhan]

Steady lads. We're only on page 1 of this topic, so let's not start so early with personal criticisms, but rather: keep it on-topic: 'what is to be done about Iran's uranium production, and why'?

[Odin]

More economic and travel sanctions through the UN and independently.

Perhaps we disagree on the effect of any UN sanction, what was that Iranian generals name who was just in Moscow that was apart of the current ban ? It isnt working without full implementation by the soviets and the chinese, they dont seem to be on board.




The supreme leader is whatever power the people give him. Making moderates out of every day Iranians is the start to a Moderate Iranian Government.

I am not educated enough about the process of how one becomes a supreme leader in Iran to offer a counter argument. Currently though, he is not a moderate.




It's simple, don't go to war. There isn't a reason for us to go war with Iran. They are 5 (liberal) to 10 (conservative) years away from developing one nuclear bomb which they would never use. All the Iranians want is nuclear power for their country and perhaps a bomb to deter invasion by foreign forces. I'm not saying it makes it right, but coupled with the fact that we have plenty of time and they are in no immediate hurry to use the bomb, there really isn't a reason to go gung ho and start an unnecessary conflict.

I honestly agree, my position is based on the current situation though. It dosent appear to be heading in the direction you are noting as far as the time line. Our carriers arent there just for show I just havent seen any historical precedent for it.



Like I said, these things take time. Diplomacy isn't a one night thing. Let's not rush this issue and see where it can lead us.

I agree, I want to talk to these people 1 on1 and figure it out. I am not concerned with loss of prestige or recognition, I want Rice to visit Tehran and start a conversation with them now, so if your time line is correct by then we can recognize and monitor thier peaceful civilian nuclear program.

But, thats not the way it seems to be progressing.

[Odin]

Steady lads. We're only on page 1 of this topic, so let's not start so early with personal criticisms, but rather: keep it on-topic: 'what is to be done about Iran's uranium production, and why'?

Sorry, edit my post if you need to.

@Doc: I appologize for any personal shots that was my gut reaction to your post, in the future I will reread before hitting submit. Nothing personal was meant, I genuinely would like to hear your opinion, with the shots at the U.S. left aside.

[doc_bean]

You expect there to be a solution ? Like a puzzle you can solve or a game you can beat ? :laugh4:

Like I said there is none, military action is almost out of the question and economic sanction will only take us so far (until they decide we've had enough of their oil that is).

The thing to do is recognize our losses, try to keep face and let them have their nuclear technology. Undermine their government with propaganda (long live the internet, and radio stations with strong transmissions) and hope for the best.

If we were really serious about it we could bomb their installations (again) but I don't know how reliant we are on their oil supply, or if they don't have hidden reactors and decoys, nor do I have a clear vision as to what this will add to the west vs Islam 'war'. So I'd go for the accepting our loss.

Also: you seem angry about my 'US doesn't have the balls' comment, clearly missing the 'not even the US' part, clearly indicating that if anyone would be able to pull something like this off it would be the US.

So hey, sorry if I don't offer 'the solution', if you want solutions ask 4th graders, they have the answer to everything, I just see possibilities, better ones and worse ones, to consider. Nor am I really interested in 'the solution', people who preach one are often virtually impossible to argue with, and frankly, not very interesting, though some of them here at the Org can be quite funny.

But if you don't care to read my posts anymore, I'm pretty sure the Org offers a block option. You should perhaps look into that :bow:

[Adrian II]

Don't forget his remark that Iran would be mad if they weren't pursuing nuclear weapons.I speak to him every now and then (met him years ago at a conference and we stayed in contact) and I know that he thinks Iran could already have a rudimentary nuclear device without us knowing anything about it.

Van Creveld holds that Western intelligence on such issues is horribly, depressingly, criminally bad and policy is built on hunches and extraneous considerations instead of solid data and clear thinking. I think he is right. The Iraq adverture was based on three notions derived from so-called intelligence that were all three nonsensical.

Yes, Tehran would be crazy not to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea showed them the way. Nuclear arms usually act as a sedative in troubled regions. I think that once Iran has become an established nuclear power, not only Tehran but the whole Gulf region will be much more relaxed and cooperative.

[Odin]

But if you don't care to read my posts anymore, I'm pretty sure the Org offers a block option. You should perhaps look into that :bow:

Your right so it does ! I havent used in since I was in the off topic room when I first came here. Thankfully Doc you have very little of substance to say anyway so I wont be missing much.

Cheers

[Vladimir]

Yes, Tehran would be crazy not to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea showed them the way. Nuclear arms usually act as a sedative in troubled regions. I think that once Iran has become an established nuclear power, not only Tehran but the whole Gulf region will be much more relaxed and cooperative.

Hmm, methinks at least one nation in the region might get an ulcer or two. :inquisitive:

[doc_bean]

Your right so it does ! I havent used in since I was in the off topic room when I first came here. Thankfully Doc you have very little of substance to say anyway so I wont be missing much.

Cheers



So what exactly do we do now? Clearly this points out yet again the futility of taking the UN route, so anyone have any solutions to the Iranian drive for increased nuclear activity?

**scratches head** hhhhmmmmm 2 Carriers in the gulf already, increased military (the surge) in iraq, boy the direction it appears to be going looks like loads of fun for everyone !

Clearly your posts are more thought out than mine, I apoligize for wasting your time with my pointless rantings about 'global impact' 'economic concerns' and such. Clearly you know the way forward :bow:

[Odin]

Yes, Tehran would be crazy not to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea showed them the way. Nuclear arms usually act as a sedative in troubled regions. I think that once Iran has become an established nuclear power, not only Tehran but the whole Gulf region will be much more relaxed and cooperative.

You know a guy at work has a similar view on it and on the one hand I agreed with him that it allows for a degree of stability due to the deterrant factor, but absent in the North Korean comparisson is the cultural nuances of Israels exsistance.

North Korea dosent have an elephant in the room like that I suspect that if the U.S. dosent act first Israel might.

[Adrian II]

You know a guy at work has a similar view on it and on the one hand I agreed with him that it allows for a degree of stability due to the deterrant factor, but absent in the North Korean comparisson is the cultural nuances of Israels exsistance.

North Korea dosent have an elephant in the room like that I suspect that if the U.S. dosent act first Israel might.There are only two things that Israel can do to stop Iran's nuclear quest:

nothing
destroy Iran entirely with a nuclear assaultAny thought of commando raids, surprise bombings &cetera is a boy scouts dream.

Israel will have to learn to deal with nuclear neighbours and start talking to them in earnest with an eye to peace and regional cooperation. I am confident that they will.

[Pannonian]

There are only two things that Israel can do to stop Iran's nuclear quest:

nothing
destroy Iran entirely with a nuclear assaultAny thought of commando raids, surprise bombings &cetera is a boy scouts dream.

Israel will have to learn to deal with nuclear neighbours and start talking to them in earnest with an eye to peace and regional cooperation. I am confident that they will.
I've suggested before that Israel might be better off if they left the protection of the US, and started taking other countries in the region into account. Israeli politicians have historically been masterful pragmatists, playing off all sides against each other, and managing to wring the best deal from sponsors seemingly at intractable odds with each other.

However, since they've aligned themselves with the most powerful country with the world, they've not had to account for anyone other than the US, and have been too closely linked with them as a result. While they are still able to control the direction of policy to some exent, it also means that, once the course is set and Washington has been persuaded of a paradigm in thinking, they cannot easily change course, as that depends entirely on Washington's whim.

So my suggestion for Israel would be to lessen their dependence on the US, engage in more bilateral and multilateral relations with their neighbours, and regain some of their independence. They can't live in a cocoon forever, and this is healthier in the long run.

[Odin]

So my suggestion for Israel would be to lessen their dependence on the US, engage in more bilateral and multilateral relations with their neighbours, and regain some of their independence. They can't live in a cocoon forever, and this is healthier in the long run.

I think this might be true and a decent place to start is the arab peace initiative. Still its hard to deal for peace when you are surrounded by nations who prefer you not to be there if when they are offerring you a peace deal by which you give up something tangible in exchange for a change of mindset (that might not sell to the general public)

[Marshal Murat]

It's nice that Tehran is so considerate.

I think that the U.S. should either
A)Pull out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan
B)Prepare for some serious battles in a nation that hates you, any you have strapped your left arm behind your back.

[Pannonian]

I think this might be true and a decent place to start is the arab peace initiative. Still its hard to deal for peace when you are surrounded by nations who prefer you not to be there if when they are offerring you a peace deal by which you give up something tangible in exchange for a change of mindset (that might not sell to the general public)
Palestine is the key factor in all this. Other countries in the region are only able to make the noise they do because they have the excuse of backing their fellow Arabs/Muslims. If Israel are able to come to a settlement that is generally accepted by the Palestinian people, that excuse disappears. If Israel manages to come up with a settlement that is actively attractive to Palestine, not only does that excuse disappear, it will actually turn against those who have been using the Palestinians as a proxy tool to fight their wars.

What kind of settlement would that be? I don;t know, but I do know it would require a radical change in mindset from Israel to even contemplate it. Why does this all hinge on action from Israel, and little on Palestine? Because Israel is by many levels of magnitude the wealthier, more powerful player in this, and they can afford action much more than the Palestinians.

[Odin]

There are only two things that Israel can do to stop Iran's nuclear quest:

nothing
destroy Iran entirely with a nuclear assaultAny thought of commando raids, surprise bombings &cetera is a boy scouts dream.

Israel will have to learn to deal with nuclear neighbours and start talking to them in earnest with an eye to peace and regional cooperation. I am confident that they will.

I agree with your options to stop thier quest but I have no doubt in my mind that the Israelies could slow the progress signifigantly with air strikes. That would lead to a broader war which wouldnt be good, but historically I dont see a precedent for israel standing pat and watching and waiting.

If something else dosent happen on the international level with Iran, Israel will be forced to act or sacrafice its tactical advantage as being the one nation in the region with nukes.

I just dont think the israelies are going to watch on the sidelines indefinately, even if it is a boyscout dream thats all they have.

[TevashSzat]

IMHO, nuclear weapons are getting too old for only a select few countries to have access to it. The technology to build nukes are advanced enough that it is not impossible to get it from the black market. What we should do is invent an even more destructive weapon than nukes, something like a self sustaining fisson bomb.

Seriously though, North Korea and Iran will probably agree to some disarmament sooner or later, but more countries will always try to get nukes and the US along with other major countries can't just run around giving aid and money to those nations forever.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

What we should do is invent an even more destructive weapon than nukes, something like a self sustaining fisson bomb.

How would this make any difference? We've already got enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, and it's not as if you can make people any deader. Plus it would cost an outrageous amount of money to develop.

[Devastatin Dave]

Steady lads. We're only on page 1 of this topic, so let's not start so early with personal criticisms, but rather: keep it on-topic: 'what is to be done about Iran's uranium production, and why'?
Well, you might want to watch your tone as well Mr Moderator with your reply back to my original post. I'm all ears on how you plan to get the Iranian's to stop there uranium production without the use of any military force.

[KukriKhan]

I suppose it's too late for the "You got nuke-yuler power? Great! How can we help?" approach.

edit: Looking back at those posts, heck, I was agreeing with you Dave. There is no military option but air. And that assumes intel gets the targets right. And the day after our shoc-'n-awe campaign, Iran's retaliation is more than our land forces can handle right now.

The djini is out of the bottle, I think, since the Rosenbergs. And especially after that Pakistani guy sold nuke tech info to any and all buyers. We need to, in my opinion, embrace the inevitable. The ME is already nuclearized. And it's gonna spread. If we offer to help, and get taken up on the offer, at least we'll have a better idea of where they're at.

Telling them "You better stop, or else..." hasn't worked so far. Let's try something else.

But just in case I'm wrong, and DID step over the personal attack line, I've asked staff to review the conversation, and I'll accept any consequence adjudged. And I apologize to you personally, in advance.

[Suraknar]

*immagine a poker table, and the players of that table are the United Nations*

Iran has just raised the stakes...

How will the other players react?

Call it or fold?

[doc_bean]

IMHO, nuclear weapons are getting too old for only a select few countries to have access to it. The technology to build nukes are advanced enough that it is not impossible to get it from the black market. What we should do is invent an even more destructive weapon than nukes, something like a self sustaining fisson bomb.

Seriously though, North Korea and Iran will probably agree to some disarmament sooner or later, but more countries will always try to get nukes and the US along with other major countries can't just run around giving aid and money to those nations forever.

If you want to make a better weapon, make one that can target specific people, whereever they are, that way the politicians/mullahs/dictators/whatever themselves are at risk when they decide to cause some trouble, not the millions of people they don't give a fuss about. I think such a weapon would prove most effective.

[Odin]

Palestine is the key factor in all this. Other countries in the region are only able to make the noise they do because they have the excuse of backing their fellow Arabs/Muslims.

Well yes and technically they have the historic excuse of having the state of Israel forced upon them, but thats a bit of nastiness left for a post WWII discussion thread.



If Israel are able to come to a settlement that is generally accepted by the Palestinian people, that excuse disappears. If Israel manages to come up with a settlement that is actively attractive to Palestine, not only does that excuse disappear, it will actually turn against those who have been using the Palestinians as a proxy tool to fight their wars.

You know as I read your post a second time I am almost sold on your premise. Sadly in the U.S. we dont get the man on the street view, the moderate muslim. We normally get visuals of the old "death to america" and the "wipe them off the map" rhetoric.

Stepping away from that i would like to believe that infact a palestinan solution would solve the overall tension in the region created by Israels exsistence. I suspect that there will always be a vocal minority that will find some way to prolong the struggle though, but i'd like to be more optomistic.



What kind of settlement would that be? I don;t know, but I do know it would require a radical change in mindset from Israel to even contemplate it.

Well yes starting with a split of Jeruselum (which is in the arab peace plan currently). I cant see Israel giving control over half that city, additionally the political climate in Israel isnt prime for this either as it seems Likud and the right are gaining more of a solid footing giving the silly escapade into lebanon last year.

[Devastatin Dave]

I suppose it's too late for the "You got nuke-yuler power? Great! How can we help?" approach.

edit: Looking back at those posts, heck, I was agreeing with you Dave. There is no military option but air. And that assumes intel gets the targets right. And the day after our shoc-'n-awe campaign, Iran's retaliation is more than our land forces can handle right now.

The djini is out of the bottle, I think, since the Rosenbergs. And especially after that Pakistani guy sold nuke tech info to any and all buyers. We need to, in my opinion, embrace the inevitable. The ME is already nuclearized. And it's gonna spread. If we offer to help, and get taken up on the offer, at least we'll have a better idea of where they're at.

Telling them "You better stop, or else..." hasn't worked so far. Let's try something else.

But just in case I'm wrong, and DID step over the personal attack line, I've asked staff to review the conversation, and I'll accept any consequence adjudged. And I apologize to you personally, in advance.
I didn't consider it a personal attack, I was just making reference that you told two other guys to cool their jets when you had basically "stepped it up a notch" with my post. No hard feelings, I know how the elderly tend to be cranky sometimes!!!!:laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

'global impact' 'economic concerns', millions of peopleWhy do you hate balls?

The 'mericuns have got teh big bombs and I play this video game simulation 'nuke a mullah' it's really good and the Americans always win in it and they have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ready to strike so the solution is really simple we could end all this tomorrow and did I mention they have aircraft carriers as shockingly large as what I've got right here in my pants and

[Ice]

Why do you hate balls?

The 'mericuns have got teh big bombs and I play this video game simulation 'nuke a mullah' it's really good and the Americans always win in it and they have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan ready to strike so the solution is really simple we could end all this tomorrow and did I mention they have aircraft carriers as shockingly large as what I've got right here in my pants and

E c o n o m i c s?

:laugh4:

[BigTex]

What we should do is invent an even more destructive weapon than nukes, something like a self sustaining fisson bomb.


There are very scary things in development. I for one would hate to see that. The USA is already developing a pure fusion bomb, one requiring no fission to start he reaction. The abilities of a bomb like that are horridly scarry. We should focus on controling what there is now, and preventing other countries from proliferating nuclear weapons. Instead of just rushing ahead and developing bigger weapons. We don't want to live in a world were every country has nuetron bombs.

Preventing Iran from getting them is important, it will force many countries in the region to seek them. A nuclear armed middle east means a nuclear armed terrorist soon.

[SwordsMaster]

In all fairness, though, it is their own right to enrich whatever they see fit. Even if they are looking at expanding their nuclear arsenal. Noone protests against french submarines with nukes on board patrolling the coasts of Africa, but suddenly Iran doesn't have the right to produce their own uranium? Please.

Besides, there is not going to be war in Iran. Because if there is, nothing, and i mean nothing will be able to enter the Persian Gulf as that place is zeroed in and targeted from Iran by so many missiles it is scary. So if there is war against Iran it is going to be WAY more expensiv than the ones currently on. Plus there is the oil issue.

[doc_bean]

In all fairness, though, it is their own right to enrich whatever they see fit. Even if they are looking at expanding their nuclear arsenal. Noone protests against french submarines with nukes on board patrolling the coasts of Africa, but suddenly Iran doesn't have the right to produce their own uranium? Please.


According to international agreements (signed by Iran) this is exactly the case. However, we all know how well international law gets enforced :shame:

[Tribesman]

According to international agreements (signed by Iran) this is exactly the case.
But doesn't that agreement say something about all the other countries getting rid of their nuclear weapons .

[TevashSzat]

What I meant by my post was that nuclear weapons are so 20th century and are too easy to produce now. Someone should develop a way to make them generally harmless like the Star Wars defence program and then invent a new type of weapon for deterrence.

I remember that when the first machine gun was invented, noone would use it because it was considered too deadly and destructive. Once sufficient technology developed like better field hospitals and armor which decreased casualty rates, machine guns would become the standard of warfare.

[rory_20_uk]

It seems to be a tenant of faith that all that have them now can keep them for some reason or other, and everyone else isn't allowed them - we either try to stop them or attack them - the "call or fold" black and white argument.

I find it amusing that the midde east isn't allowed them as this will encourage proliferation - but although many get them due to the USA having them there appears to be no thought that perhaps either everyone gives them up (unlikely) or we learn to accept the world the way it is.

Parents start out by forcing their children to act a certain way. Generally this ends up failing as they get older. Then working with them as opposed to giving them orders sees to work.

~:smoking:

[Vladimir]

There are very scary things in development. I for one would hate to see that. The USA is already developing a pure fusion bomb, one requiring no fission to start he reaction. The abilities of a bomb like that are horridly scarry. We should focus on controling what there is now, and preventing other countries from proliferating nuclear weapons. Instead of just rushing ahead and developing bigger weapons. We don't want to live in a world were every country has nuetron bombs.

Preventing Iran from getting them is important, it will force many countries in the region to seek them. A nuclear armed middle east means a nuclear armed terrorist soon.

I'd actually really support this. I'm not sure what the yield would be but a pure hydrogen bomb would avoid the side effects of making the earth uninhabitable. Whether or not this would lessen the stigma in "civilized" countries on using them, I don't know. I do know that the trend seems to be on smaller bunker buster type bombs which I can support too. There's no need to wipe out New York or Moscow when you can single out military targets. It's the possibility of using antimatter in the future that I don't support.

Of course the civilian population supporting the war can be seen as part of the military supply chain too. This makes me realize that I'm not against Euroweenies, I just wish everyone was one. I can tolerate stupid politicians but this Death to America/Britain thing gets on my nerves.

[CrossLOPER]

What I meant by my post was that nuclear weapons are so 20th century and are too easy to produce now. Someone should develop a way to make them generally harmless like the Star Wars defence program and then invent a new type of weapon for deterrence.
lol


I remember that when the first machine gun was invented, noone would use it because it was considered too deadly and destructive. Once sufficient technology developed like better field hospitals and armor which decreased casualty rates, machine guns would become the standard of warfare.
You can't fix dust.

[doc_bean]

Of course the civilian population supporting the war can be seen as part of the military supply chain too. This makes me realize that I'm not against Euroweenies, I just wish everyone was one. I can tolerate stupid politicians but this Death to America/Britain thing gets on my nerves.

WWII thinking: kill as many civilians as possible and the factories will stop running. Not exactly considered 'civilized' these days.

BTW I don't think Euroweenies are the ones calling for the death of America or Brittain..

[Vladimir]

WWII thinking: kill as many civilians as possible and the factories will stop running. Not exactly considered 'civilized' these days.

BTW I don't think Euroweenies are the ones calling for the death of America or Brittain..

I agree and I wish Achmeda...... was a Euroweenie. He has quite a sweet deal and could rake in a lot of cash even without all the drama.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Let's see which suggestions have been given, and what their likely outcomes are:
1. Asking Iran to stop or face war, without being capable or willing to fight such a war, is not going to have any effect, because Iran isn't stupid enough to not see when the USA and Britain aren't strong enough to do as they threaten.

2. Asking Iran to stop or face war, and then going to war, is going to mean greater losses than it's worth to USA and Britain. For it to work very well, it would require support from the American and British people, possibly by conscription. Even assuming this could be achieved, despite the fact that there's little trust left for Bush and Blair when they state that a particular foreign country is dangerous and must be dealt with by war, such a war would be devastating to the USA and Britain. Due to the lack of a stronger casus belli, neutral nations such as Russia and China would feel threatened by US and British irrational policy, in the traditional sense countries fear and want to weaken countries that are prepared to attack neutral countries with weak or non-existing casus belli. There would be extremely few or more likely no UN support troops.

3. Nuking Iran because they are trying to get nukes would not only be immensely hypocritical, but also immensely dangerous, since it would mean an end to the era of no nukes usage, which could very likely escalate into world war and nuclear war within less than a decade, especially as many nations such as Russia and China would feel threatened by such a seemingly unprovoked attack on Iran with not just normal weapons but weapons that are detonated for the single purpose of massmurder of civilians, due to the quite weak casus belli that USA and Britain have towards Iran. The UN and the EU wouldn't support the war either. Bush and Blair would in the eyes of most of the world become the new Stalin and Hitler in this scenario.

4. Continue with the current strategy (as in the behavior of the last few years, I don't here refer to the planned future actions of current leaders, which may be no. 2 for example). The current strategy is to keep semi-hostile diplomatic relations with Iran while trying to weaken them by advocating UN blockade and other conditions and generally bullying them in the UN security council and other institutions. The current strategy has no solution for how to prevent nukes from falling into Iranian hands. The end result is a possibly angry Iranian people, with nukes. Whether they'll detonate them or not, only time will tell. Most likely they will not detonate them but only use them to scare off attackers, since the Iranian President would lose much internal support if he used them, since the inevitable response to that would be an invasion by US, British and possibly also European and UN forces, which would have high morale and have good support at home, to the point that a US conscription would possibly even be accepted by the public. If the current policy gives Iran more than say 10 nukes, it is also possible to gain a strong enough casus belli for an invasion with these forces, since a country owning more than 10 nukes isn't likely to own them solely for defensive purposes.

5. Lift the blockades of Iran, and granting them all the rights that other nations have, then offer them rewards for not using nukes, rather than threatening with punishment if they do. Offer them energy from abroad for a much cheaper cost than their nuclear project would grant them, in order to tempt them to not enrich Uranium. Offer favorable trade deals. Try to make compromises to resolve all other existing small scale conflicts such as the territorial water borders of Iran and similar. Try to establish good diplomatic relations with them. Give them an ultimatum that if they use any nukes, they will be attacked. The result of such policy could be that the west looks weak and indecisive, and Iran will most likely get hold of nukes, but probably but not entirely sure avoid using them. Due to an ultimatum, the west is at least able to gain a strong casus belli for an attack in response to detonation of any Iranian nukes, and support from the UN and EU. The only downside is a small risk of looking weaker than we are, but this can be avoided by decent rhetorics.

6. A combination of no. 4 and no. 5, offering punishment for usage of nukes or acquisition of more than say 5-10, while simultaneously offering rewards for not acquiring them, and trying to establish more peaceful relations with Iran, lifting blockades, and solving all smaller-scale issues such as territorial water borders of Iran etc., would be the optimal way of acting. It would mean Iran is unable to use any nukes they acquire, and if they get more than say 5-10 or against all odds use any nuke, there would be a western force with a strong casus belli, high morale and a huge troop reserve to attack Iran in response with both US, British, European and UN forces, several million could easily be acquired. More importantly, the local defense will be weak and indetermined, and west will have no requirement to establish any order after they finish operations in Iran, and thus avoid the problems of occupying the Iranian land with its perfect conditions for guerilla warfare. The lifting of Iranian blockade may strengthen Iranian defense somewhat due to Iranian economical improvement, but not as much as the gaining of a stronger casus belli will strengthen the invading force in both morale and numbers. Some would fear that improved relations with Iran would make it more difficult to convince the western opinion of attacking Iran in case Iran were to use nukes, but on the contrary this would most likely strengthen this possibility. After all, the current methods of Bush and Blair are hardly very effective at convincing anyone of attacking Iran, which could result in a situation where Iran owns nukes, uses nukes, and still isn't stopped by or attacked by the west. Leaders following this strategy will look strong and decisive, and also be strong and have all options open, while minimizing the risk of any Iranian nukes being detonated.

To me, option no. 6 seems to be most flexible and benefitial for all parts, since it avoids most disadvantages and combines most advantages of all other suggested strategies.

[Odin]

6. A combination of no. 4 and no. 5, offering punishment for usage of nukes or acquisition of more than say 5-10, while simultaneously offering rewards for not acquiring them, and trying to establish more peaceful relations with Iran, lifting blockades, and solving all smaller-scale issues such as territorial water borders of Iran etc., would be the optimal way of acting. It would mean Iran is unable to use any nukes they acquire, and if they get more than say 5-10 or against all odds use any nuke, there would be a western force with a strong casus belli, high morale and a huge troop reserve to attack Iran in response with both US, British, European and UN forces, several million could easily be acquired. More importantly, the local defense will be weak and indetermined, and west will have no requirement to establish any order after they finish operations in Iran, and thus avoid the problems of occupying the Iranian land with its perfect conditions for guerilla warfare. The lifting of Iranian blockade may strengthen Iranian defense somewhat due to Iranian economical improvement, but not as much as the gaining of a stronger casus belli will strengthen the invading force in both morale and numbers. Some would fear that improved relations with Iran would make it more difficult to convince the western opinion of attacking Iran in case Iran were to use nukes, but on the contrary this would most likely strengthen this possibility. After all, the current methods of Bush and Blair are hardly very effective at convincing anyone of attacking Iran, which could result in a situation where Iran owns nukes, uses nukes, and still isn't stopped by or attacked by the west.

To me, option no. 6 seems to be most flexible and benefitial for all parts, since it avoids most disadvantages and combines most advantages of all other suggested strategies.

I am inclined to agree with your option as you explained it (well done on your summation btw, with a few minor disagreements). However isnt your option 6 on the table already from the EU backed by the U.S.?

I honestly havent looked at the specifics of the EU deal to Iran but I do believe it is essentially what your advocating (correct me if I am wrong). Yet Iran hasnt accepted, the crucial flaw to your desired outcome.

All sides have to be willing to make the leap together, and while there is probably room to move for all sides, Iran for there part has dismissed it out of hand.

And so back to the other 5 choices....

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually my suggestion no. 6 doesn't require that the Iranians accept. If they don't, there's a middle section where they get neither rewards nor punishment, and if they go past another line, they face war. The wide grey zone between these lines is necessary to compensate for the fact that both sides will have slightly different ideas on what is a fair and reasonable demand and ultimatum.

[Vladimir]

Actually my suggestion no. 6 doesn't require that the Iranians accept. If they don't, there's a middle section where they get neither rewards nor punishment, and if they go past another line, they face war. The wide grey zone between these lines is necessary to compensate for the fact that both sides will have slightly different ideas on what is a fair and reasonable demand and ultimatum.

Remember the 1990's. What happened to an air war? You don't need conscription for that. Therefore I have a major disagreement with your first two assumptions. The cost in dollars would be horrendous but it would set their program back. One can only hope that it would be a part of a larger plan for regime change but we're not very good at that. We could only keep South and Central American on our side by financing extremists and largely lost the war in Africa. Oh yea, and Iraq.

The problem with number 4 is that you're assuming an overt use of nuclear weapons. Pre-AQK nukes could be tracked by their plutonium, I'm not sure if the centrifuge ones can. Number 5 also makes that assumption coupled with bribes for bad behavior (yes I mean the "H" word).

You don't seem to understand that they don't want to get along. They derive their power from bullying "the West" and it is not in their vested interest to change. If I seem to be too critical and not offering solutions, my solution is in my first paragraph.

[Cataphract_Of_The_City]

People are talking about nuclear weapons, yet Iran has about 0.6% of the centrifuges required and it is only now implementing plans to get to 5%. The Iranians are making a huge fuss over their miniscule enrichment capabilities and the west has taken the bait without thinking twice.

[Blodrast]

People are talking about nuclear weapons, yet Iran has about 0.6% of the centrifuges required and it is only now implementing plans to get to 5%. The Iranians are making a huge fuss over their miniscule enrichment capabilities and the west has taken the bait without thinking twice.

That's 'cause it's good practice to look a bit ahead in the future. Gives you more options and time to implement them.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Remember the 1990's. What happened to an air war? You don't need conscription for that. Therefore I have a major disagreement with your first two assumptions. The cost in dollars would be horrendous but it would set their program back. One can only hope that it would be a part of a larger plan for regime change but we're not very good at that. We could only keep South and Central American on our side by financing extremists and largely lost the war in Africa. Oh yea, and Iraq.

The problem with number 4 is that you're assuming an overt use of nuclear weapons. Pre-AQK nukes could be tracked by their plutonium, I'm not sure if the centrifuge ones can. Number 5 also makes that assumption coupled with bribes for bad behavior (yes I mean the "H" word).

You don't seem to understand that they don't want to get along. They derive their power from bullying "the West" and it is not in their vested interest to change. If I seem to be too critical and not offering solutions, my solution is in my first paragraph.
Two things:
1. what happens if the air war you suggest fails to destroy the Uranium? Then you have VERY angry Iranians WITH nukes, and have lost public support in most western countries. What would you do in that situation?
2. you assume that they won't accept a decent peace. However, this assumption is based on studying Iranian refusals to accept rather humiliating offers given by their opponents. Would you say for example USA would be "not willing to get along" if Iran offered USA to not get nukes in case USA were to dismount all of their nukes but 3, but USA declined that offer? Nobody knows yet if the Iranians wants to drive through their own will ruthlessly (something that militarily weak states seldom try against militarily stronger states), an acceptable compromise for both parts (something quite common for smaller states to seek), or are even willing to accept deals that are not very favorable to themselves in order to preserve peace. The offers given to them so far have been pretty ridiculous, usually offers of the form "quid pro nullus". That's why it is necessary to have a plan that pressures the opponent to either:

a. make a move that proves that they don't want to get along, which gives the western world a strong casus belli against Iran, and would result in the entire western world uniting against Iran, making any military operations we would like to carry out against them both possible and easy.

or

b. accept a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, and that isn't humiliating to either part, and that gives both sides some form of guarantee that the other won't be able to attack the other without great problems. History has shown that successful diplomacy is more effective than military annihilation at accomplishing a goal if it isn't to be lost with a vengeance shortly afterwards. "He is the greatest general who can defeat his enemy without battle", as Sun Tzu points out.

[Vladimir]

Two things:
1. what happens if the air war you suggest fails to destroy the Uranium? Then you have VERY angry Iranians WITH nukes, and have lost public support in most western countries. What would you do in that situation?
2. you assume that they won't accept a decent peace. However, this assumption is based on studying Iranian refusals to accept rather humiliating offers given by their opponents. Would you say for example USA would be "not willing to get along" if Iran offered USA to not get nukes in case USA were to dismount all of their nukes but

3, but USA declined that offer? Nobody knows yet if the Iranians wants to drive through their own will ruthlessly (something that militarily weak states seldom try against militarily stronger states), an acceptable compromise for both parts (something quite common for smaller states to seek), or are even willing to accept deals that are not very favorable to themselves in order to preserve peace. The offers given to them so far have been pretty ridiculous, usually offers of the form "quid pro nullus". That's why it is necessary to have a plan that pressures the opponent to either:

a. make a move that proves that they don't want to get along, which gives the western world a strong casus belli against Iran, and would result in the entire western world uniting against Iran, making any military operations we would like to carry out against them both possible and easy.

or

b. accept a compromise that is acceptable to both sides, and that isn't humiliating to either part, and that gives both sides some form of guarantee that the other won't be able to attack the other without great problems. History has shown that successful diplomacy is more effective than military annihilation at accomplishing a goal if it isn't to be lost with a vengeance shortly afterwards. "He is the greatest general who can defeat his enemy without battle", as Sun Tzu points out.

1. It’s not about destroying the Uranium; it’s about destroying their ability to enrich it. I’m also confused why Very angry Iranians without nukes are more dangerous that angry Iranians with nukes. They’ve been waging war unconventional war against Israel, the US, and recently the UK since 1979. What guarantees can you provide that they won’t use their proxies to launch a nuclear strike? You know how hard it is to stop a suicide bomber, imagine one that only has to be a mile away from his target. How do you trace a nuke back to its source?

2. They won’t, and decent to whom? You’d have a better chance getting Stalin and Mao to reject Communism. The Iranian “revolution” is less than 30 years old. It hasn’t had time to atrophy and have their leaders to become jaded (Gorbechev’s Soviet Union, Modern China). What do they have to gain from ceasing enrichment? What have they asked for? The destruction of a country? Which one would you sacrifice?

I’m not sure if you’re being serious about this one; but hey, I’m not serious half the time I’m here either :jester: . It’s a pretty extreme example but I’m sure it’s one they’ll demand. The point is that they don’t want compromise which is why sanctions were imposed on them. If they wanted to they could proceed along the enrichment process peacefully but they have chosen confrontation. They even refused the help of their valuable trading partner Russia.

a. Look at their 30 year history and show me one Ayatollah who says “Can’t we, can’t we all just get along…”

b. I agree, the greatest general is the one who wins without firing a shot. When you go to war you’ve already lost at least one battle (the peace). It seems like the only humiliation being done is by them to the Britons (sad to say, it was actually quite brilliant). What we have to do is reconcile our wants. Iran wears its heart on it’s sleeve and it’s clear what they want, how do you get along with someone who wants to kill you because of who you are (or where you were born)?

I also like Cataphract_Of_The_City’s observation. I hope it’s true.


Anyway, great fun! :2thumbsup: And great interactive even though I’m not sure if my decisions made an impact. :inquisitive:

[Rodion Romanovich]

1. It’s not about destroying the Uranium; it’s about destroying their ability to enrich it.

Same thing, you want to destroy something, with a plan that has no guarantee to successfully do so.



I’m also confused why Very angry Iranians without nukes are more dangerous that angry Iranians with nukes.

This is something I haven't written. On the contrary I've stated that very angry Iranians with nukes is the worst possible scenario.



They’ve been waging war unconventional war against Israel, the US, and recently the UK since 1979.

Is Iran the same thing yesterday as today? Would you, if you were Serbian for example, call USA your enemies, when it is currently ruled by leaders who have no interests or intentions whatsoever to carry out larger military operations in Serbia? Iran has changed leaders many times, so has the USA, and other countries. Both Iran and USA will probably change regime again some time soon.



What guarantees can you provide that they won’t use their proxies to launch a nuclear strike? You know how hard it is to stop a suicide bomber, imagine one that only has to be a mile away from his target. How do you trace a nuke back to its source?

In your post you used as your argument for attacking with air force that nukes were so easy to spot. Now you state that nukes are nearly impossible to spot.



2. They won’t, and decent to whom? You’d have a better chance getting Stalin and Mao to reject Communism. The Iranian “revolution” is less than 30 years old. It hasn’t had time to atrophy and have their leaders to become jaded (Gorbechev’s Soviet Union, Modern China). What do they have to gain from ceasing enrichment? What have they asked for? The destruction of a country? Which one would you sacrifice?

You can't really claim the west is trying to give them a chance to a compromise. Rather, some people in the west are fishing for a casus belli to be able to attack under all circumstances. The correct way of behaving is to force the opponent into either giving a valid casus belli or accepting a compromise decent to both sides. This can't be done, if you can't accept an end result in which Iran accepts a peaceful compromise, and it becomes politically impossible to attack Iran.



I’m not sure if you’re being serious about this one; but hey, I’m not serious half the time I’m here either :jester: . It’s a pretty extreme example but I’m sure it’s one they’ll demand. The point is that they don’t want compromise which is why sanctions were imposed on them.

Which compromise exactly are they refusing? The current offer seems to be "refuse any rights of own protection and refuse all guarantees of not being attacked by USA and Britain, and in return we will stop blockade of you if you also accept to exclusively by your energy from us, at a price which is not many cents lower than the cost a Iranian nuclear reactor program would cost, thus giving no price compensation at all for the advantage of security a system granting self-supporting of the country does".

That is not a compromise, but two strong bullies trying to impose their will on a weaker, with added humiliation.



a. Look at their 30 year history and show me one Ayatollah who says “Can’t we, can’t we all just get along…”

First of all, their rhetoric is different. Secondly, show me one Bush administration representative who has said "can't we all just get along". Rather, the Bush administration standard statement seems to be "do as we wish, if you want peace", in the meaning "do as we wish, or face war".



b. I agree, the greatest general is the one who wins without firing a shot. When you go to war you’ve already lost at least one battle (the peace). It seems like the only humiliation being done is by them to the Britons (sad to say, it was actually quite brilliant). What we have to do is reconcile our wants. Iran wears its heart on it’s sleeve and it’s clear what they want, how do you get along with someone who wants to kill you because of who you are (or where you were born)?

The Iranians are currently outclassing the west in the political game because they know how gaining a valid casus belli works. They are using the strategy of making the west either give Iran a casus belli by military action from the west as well as west looking bad for imposing too harsh demands on them, or force the west to accept their will, which is - in the opinion of many - shorter from a fair compromise than the western demands are. In return, the west overestimates the effect of propaganda and underestimate the need for success in the political game. Indeed the Iran rhetoric isn't nice at all, but people are judged first by their actions, second by what they say, and third by what they think. The west acts bad, the Iranians talk bad. That gives victory to the Iranians in the political game. The greatest achievement so far by the west, was the ability to gain a tie in the captured sailors incident, and avoiding another defeat. Hopefully this trend towards increasing political skill among western leaders will continue in this positive direction. As I said: either pressure Iran to give a casus belli, or to accept a fair compromise. This maximizes the chances of achieving the interests of the average citizen in western countries. However, the strategy can't be combined with an attack on Iran if Iran chooses the peaceful solution, which by Bush and some others is an unacceptable end result. Iran is already using this method of trying to gain a casus belli, often by provoking methods that are illegal and should normally be easy to use to assemble enough material for a casus belli against them. However, the west fails at doing this. As a result, the west will lose both the political game, and have great troubles if not face defeat, in the military game, if it comes to such. And the western leaders manage to get this defeat, even when they have more negative material on the Iranians, than the Iranians have on the west.



Anyway, great fun! And great interactive even though I’m not sure if my decisions made an impact.

We'll soon see ~:)

[Vladimir]

What it ultimately comes down to is a worse case scenario. It’s been proven that the Iranian leadership wishes us harm now they’re on the path to nuclear weapons. If I’m going to error it will be on the side of protecting my life and that of my friends and family. That’s all any leader can do. It all comes down to the intel :dunce: .

We seem to be having some communication difficulties in regards to the enrichment, etc.

I’ll use the same (probably flawed) analogy I use when I’m at the opposite end of a religious discussion: Compare what happens if I’m wrong to what happens if you’re wrong.

[Rodion Romanovich]

My worst case scenario, where everything goes wrong, is still less likely and less dangerous than the worst case scenario in your suggestion, in my opinion. You leave only one option: war over and over again until the Iranians accept your demands, which requires constant availability of huge military reserves for at least 50 years, maybe 100 years, or even more, or threaten the security and protection against nuclear attacks.

[Vladimir]

Just wanted to borrow something from Lemur that expresses my thoughts on Iran:


I suspect this is the case. We have a situation where every major group believes that it will get to run the death camps. They have a long history of winner-take-all, and zero experience of compromise. At the moment, from their perspective we are either getting in the way of their righteous cleansing of the infidels, their neighbors.

I understand your concern but my goal is a stable government that isn't overtly hostile to the West, even if it is imperfect. That would ease everyone's concerns.

Unfortunately the word "comprehensive" has become synonymous with "inaction".

[rory_20_uk]

What it ultimately comes down to is a worse case scenario. It’s been proven that the Iranian leadership wishes us harm now they’re on the path to nuclear weapons. If I’m going to error it will be on the side of protecting my life and that of my friends and family. That’s all any leader can do. It all comes down to the intel :dunce: .

We seem to be having some communication difficulties in regards to the enrichment, etc.

I’ll use the same (probably flawed) analogy I use when I’m at the opposite end of a religious discussion: Compare what happens if I’m wrong to what happens if you’re wrong.

Proven? Where? By who? And so killing everyone that might possibly be a threat is the way to go in the future, is it?

So if you're right... erm, unless the leaders of Iran decide to loose all grip on reality NOTHING happens (remember the Cold War?) If you're wrong millions are possibly killed.

~:smoking: