In some deal struck with the Europeans (as to bypass the u.s., well not completely, as Great Brittain is some sort of proxy) http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/14/iran.nuclear/index.html ...For the time being I suppose, knowing that an american president in his second term doesn't have to worry about re-election, millitary intervention could be just around the corner ..... Personally I think the iranians want to sit out the next 4 years and keep low-profile, but by no means I think they have given up on their "peacefull" nuclear program.
The CIA should get Israel to invade all the Muslim nations in the Middle East, then the US could tell Israel to fuck off, and we'd appear to be saving the Mid East from Israel, and all would be good.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. Regardless, I'll admit that this is better than I expected. I think painting the picture that the Bush administration has some sort of hard-on for direct action against Iran is a bit of a stretch though. There is absolutely nothing to gain and much to be lost by doing so, and the only way I could see them (or anybody) justifying the effort would be if they were about to obtain a nuclear capability. That said, I'm still wary of the Russian reactor at Bushehr. Iran claims this reactor is for power generation only, which is false. While different from the RBMK design that caused the Chernobyl fire, the VVER-1000 they are building owes its herritage to Soviet reactors that were fully integrated into weapons stockpiling (Chernobyl's reactors and others like it were Plutonium breeders that produced electrical power on the side in order to augment the Soviet weapons program). It will not be difficult to have the Bushehr reactor produce somewhere between 250kg and 1000kg of Plutonium annually, which is enough for anywhere from 12-40 crude implosion weapon cores (provided they don't waste too much in milling and fabrication). If they fully develop their fuel cycle they will be able to separate Pu-240 and Pu-239, both of which are fuels for implosion weapons. So far, Iran has given me all the technological implication not only of a weapons prorgam, but of mid-scale stockpiling even though they have ratified the Non-proliferation treaty. The NPT is easily obviated, as evidenced by the suspected Israeli program that's probably been around for years. Given the caveat by them that this is a "temporary solution", it's probably not reasonable to assume we're 100% in the clear just yet. The next five or so years will give a much clearer indicator of Iran's intent, beyond placation of the powers that be. Iran was originally going to build a German designed reactor in the late 1970s, but the 1979 coup ended that program. If the EU can pursuade them to stop building the VVER and go back to a descendant of the orginal german reactor, and the EU retains custody of the fuel cycle it will be using, then it will be clear that they do not intend to foster a rogue weapons program. Therefore, I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility of having to level both the reactor buildings at Bushehr just yet. After a continued refusal to return to the pursuit of a complete fuel cycle lasting at least half of a decade, we'll all probably be convinced otherwise.
What's wrong with Iran having nukes? Who has done more killing over the last 50 years? Americans or Persians? Who bombed Japanese civilians with a nuke? I mean come one here . . . talk about a double standard
Calling it a double standard is somewhat correct, but I don't particularly see anything wrong with it. I call it the "insane leadership" clause. Look back on history - The US has held a monopoly on nuclear weapons for at least four years longer than anybody else on the planet, and has performed custodial duties in a responsible manner. We've turned down more opportunities to use nuclear than can be easily counted. Same goes for the Russians, Chinese, British, and French. We used them twice at the dawn of the atomic age. They broke the news to the world that we had entered a new era. And since then? Nothing. Not a damn thing. We (and others) have kept our swords sheathed even when drawing them was completely justified tactically. We get a lot of street cred for that. Rogue nations with pugnacious leadership like Iran and North Korea haven't exactly done much to earn the world's confidence yet, so it's no mystery why NOBODY trusts them with a nuclear capability. Not only will they confirm or deny that they have one, but you also have petulent little shits like Kim Jong Il threatening to turn Australia and the US into a sea of fire. If I was screaming and frothing about wanting to kill you, I sincerely doubt you'd be willing to trust me close to you with a machete. Also, your argument about Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a fallacy of statistics of small numbers. Two at inception is, specifically, not indicative of a trend. Not to mention that, if you seriously disagree with their use (or at least on Hiroshima, because Nagasaki is somewhat debateable), you either haven't read the casualty predictions for an opposed amphibious assault, or you have little regard for the value of human life.
I mean come one here . . . talk about a double standard it's called "i don't want my insane enemy to be as powerful as me" the nurses at the insane asylum have syringes with morphine to subdue the patients... hey.. to give everyone a fair chance, how about we give the nutbags morphine-filled syringes so they'll have an equal chance against the nurses! that'll make it completely fair. damn you Israel, you got what you wanted again.... looks like somebody's got an obsession... The CIA should get Israel to invade all the Muslim nations in the Middle East ... another one Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! it's funny. i've checked http://www.arabnews.com 's website (Saudi gov't mouthpiece) a few days ago, there was not a single article on the main page about Saudi or other pan-arab matters. there are usually 8 headlines, and all of them were about the "Palestinians". sure, Yasser Arafat al-Masri dying is big news, but the thing is, on a regular day, 2-3 of their headlines are about "Palestine" -- it goes far to show how obsessed the Arab governments are about "Palestine" and what a wonderful effective tool it is to destract every foreigner and zombie-subject from the shit-hole situation Arab countries are in. why invest in economy or education? let's get nuclear weapons to piss Israel off! oh, the logic!
All I have to say about Iran and what they have stated is this: announcing an intention and actually complying are two seperate things, just take a look at the fiasco with North Korea. I do not believe that Iran will give up their program, and Europe will be happy to ignore the future warning signs.
"Rogue nations with pugnacious leadership like Iran and North Korea haven't exactly done much to earn the world's confidence yet, so it's no mystery why NOBODY trusts them with a nuclear capability." I agree with this in part but what about Israel? Not only did they create nuclear weapons behind the worlds back, but they are one of the most promient country's pushing to stop everyone else from having weapons, even going as far as interfering with foriegn affairs. This is a double standard at its worst, no wonder Iran wants the bomb, with Israel in my neighbourhood I would too!
I agree with you. Israel is a rogue nation just like Iran and North Korea, because like them, they have not confirmed a nuclear capability but are widely suspected of having or being in pursuit of one.
It really is just as simple as it seems; the more nations that have nukes, the better the odds they will be used. How likely do you think it is that the U.S. might have a revolution where warring factions might end up with control of nukes? Now how likely do you think such a scenario is for Iran? How about Pakistan? I don't like that Israel (probably) has a nuclear capability. But Iran having one makes the situation less secure, not more. The U.S. has to assure Iran that they don't need a weapon to prevent our invading them. This seems like a bit of good news in dark times to me.
