Are we going to WAR with Iran now too?

[robertthebard]

In reading through Micah's article, another question pops to mind; If Iran were really running these plants for the purpose of generating power, why are none of the funtioning reactors generating power? One of the articles I posted earlier made reference to that, but it escaped me at the time. Another question would be why Iran simply hasn't seceeded from the treaty. For somebody with nothing to hide, they sure seem to be hiding a lot. At any rate, that last is a supposition on my part. I've never been invited to go to Iran to investigate, and I wouldn't know what I was looking for if I did go. Just a point to ponder.

Edit: We crossposted, evidently, but I want to address one point you tried to make, Man; Israel has never bombed any Iranian Nuclear facilities.

[ 02-13-2007, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: robertthebard ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by robertthebard: http://www.mrc.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp Even if you want to take the Liberal view that, "these aren't the WMD's we were looking for", the fact that they were found at all is significant.

Oh noes, we found the bombs we gave them to use on Iran and that they instead used on Kurds!!

Whatever. Iraqi WMDs were a fabricated lie. The trailers to produce WMDs that Colin Powell showed the UN were crappy RV's. They did not have what we were told they had.

[Micah Foehammer]

Originally posted by Man Who Fights Like Woman: Probably because centrifuges take forever.

No they don't. Did you just choose to ignore the data I posted because it doesn't fit your ideas? With the 920 centrifuges currently purchased and operational, and the additional 3000 planned as of last year, the Iranians have the capability of producing enough fissionable bomb material for 5 warheads per year. And that's if they don't expand their capability. And it certainly doesn't apply to cascaded centrifuge's of which Iran has at least two 164 centrifuge chains up and operational.

You say that like it's damning evidence. If you had bothered to read the link Robert dropped in the thread earlier (also acting as if it was damning evidence), you would have noticed that the IAEA inspectors didn't find any violations of the treaty. Apparently they don't find those infractions to be too bad, or they probably would have made note of it and found them in violation.

I read RTB's link. Just so you remember, the USA is not alone in it's stance against the Iranian Nuclear program. Germany, France, and lately Russia and China have ALL approved sanctions thru the UN. And the arab world is not happy either. Apparently it's NOT just the US that thinks there might be something to be concerned about here.

Probably because the last time they did this the Israelis bombed the sites before they could be brought online.

Actually that was only a single reactor, it was in Osirak, Iraq and not Iran and it's HIGHLY unlikely the Israelis would be give overfly rights from the countries necessary to do another strike. Plus we're talking MULTIPLE targets here.

The difference is this: In the midst of this controversy (re: Osirak), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came under fire from individuals and from governments who complained that the Vienna-based UN agency had failed to alert the world to developments at Osiraq. IAEA officials denied these charges and reaffirmed their position on the Iraqi reactor, that is, that no weapons had been manufactured at Osiraq and that Iraqi officials had regularly cooperated with agency inspectors.

Compare that with this: "However, in some of the harshest language issued thus far, the Board deplored the fact that Iran’s cooperation with the Agency has not been “as full, timely, and proactive as it should have been,” thereby stating that Tehran has not exhibited full compliance. In particular, the resolution notes the postponement of Agency inspections originally scheduled in March until mid-April, thereby delaying the process of environmental sampling and analysis. While the resolution does not find Iran in non-compliance, which would necessitate handing the matter over to the UN Security Council, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei stated at the Board meeting that, “it is essential for the integrity and credibility of the inspection process that we are able to bring these issues to a close within the next few months.”

On 24 September, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Board of Governors found Iran to be in non-compliance with its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) safeguard obligations in light of Iran's many failures to fully comply with these obligations. The resolution is a significant step in the long lasting Iranian nuclear issue before the IAEA since it for the first time stated Iran's non-compliance. Past resolutions[1] simply affirmed that Iran was in breach with its obligations but never positively stated its non-compliance.

Iran announced that it would resume producing centrifuges used for enriching uranium, and broke a number of seals that the IAEA had placed on equipment relevant to the construction and testing of centrifuges.

I would guess they're large facilities and have multiple departments. It's kind of like asking "Why is NASA designing a rocket AND studying objects in space? Are they trying to find targets for their new weapon?"

Are you kidding? You don't see ANYTHING the least bit troublesome about the Iranians having ballistic missile research, nuclear programs AND chemical weapon study centers in close proximity? Are you THAT blind?

I'm glad you have so much faith.

I've never been dissapointed yet ... and the latest replies are just more of the same.

It must not seem that way to the experts.

Which experts are those? For pete's sake, the IAEA says that Iran isn't in full compliance. http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_48a.html Are you going to ignore any opinion that doesn't agree with your's?

And they have been sitting idle since 2000, especially with all this saber-rattling going on.

No. They apparently tried to acquire some JA-7 jet fighters from china, but these are nothing more than mig-23's which are not much a match for the USAF. There is no evidence that the sales were completed. The point was that the bulk of the Iranian Air Force has been poorly maintained and cannibalized for spare parts and is not a realistic threat to the US. The Iraqi Armed Forces HAD the largest military in the region and it was cut to shreds in less than two weeks.

The Iranians have had access to much more advanced systems from the Russians, and have the benefit of not having been under sanctions for over a decade.

No, they have purchased some outdated SAM systems as well as some more modern S_300 systems but without fighter cover they are dead meat.

QUOTE]Glad to see you think an attack would also be a calamity. It seems we do, in fact, agree to some degree. [/QUOTE]

Yes, but not on whether there is an actual NEED to do something. On THAT point, you just want to ignore what most people seem to think is a REAL threat.

Read this and tell me again that you think Iran has nothing to hide.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_54a.html

I repeat this again - if IRAN is not attempting to build a nuclear weapon's program, then WHY is it going to such great lengths to hide what it is doing and enlisting the aid of Pakistan's nuclear WEAPON's guru? The US and several other European countries have all offered to assist Iran in a PEACEFUL nuclear energy program. Those offers have been rebuffed.

Like TL said, I'm simply posting this for my own point of view. I don't expect anyone to change their point of view as this isn't a real discussion, and it never has been. It's simply an exercise in everyone getting their two cents in.

[robertthebard]

Yep, nothing to see here, move along. At least, that is what Iran hopes will happen. I wonder what the UN would order if it's discovered that Iran is indeed working towards nuclear weapons. I am more than a little concerned about all these research facilities being in the same areas as ballistic missile testing facilities. I guess if they are close together, they don't have to move them very far to implement them.

[Iron Greasel]

All this talk about nukes makes me want to play Civilization again. [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

Informative stuff Micah, thanks.

It's a refreshing change of pace to see facts being used to make an argument instead of truthiness.

[Callum]

To steer this in a slightly different direction, because I'm curious, and we aren't actually getting anywhere here, why DO the 8 countries that have nuclear weapons still ahve them?

I can clearly understand stopping Iran from building them, they're terrible things. But why haven't the other countries that have them not been forced to destory them? Is it simply that they won't, because they are afraid that without them, the countries that do have them will suddenly attack them?

If Iran is building WMDs, then they should be stopped, but does it not seem slightly hypocritical that the country doing it is the one with the most nuclear weapons?

[robertthebard]

As you can see from the links, while the US is very vocal about it, we are not "the country doing it". It's the UN and the trickle down, or maybe avalanche is a better word. I believe it's to do with the fact that people in power believe, much as I do, that if they have them, they will use them to further the agenda that their president has been harping on. That's my best guess, anyway, for what it's worth.

[Callum]

But the US is the main part of the UN invasion force is it not?

So basically, we think that President Bush will use the nukes for better use than President Ahmadinejad? Or the US Government is more responsible than the Irani Government? OK.

Seems to me the UN would do well to get rid of the nukes it knows about, not those it suspects might be made.

[Bozos of Bones]

Nukes are the very thing that kept us alive for the past 30+ years, purely because they exist. If it weren't for the MAD scenario, the cold war would have boiled in a matter of months, and full-scale war would have ensued. Strategic nuclear weapons were, and still are a great deterrent of attack.
Why the US doesn't want any more countries with nukes is rather obvious: they don't want competition.