IraN, not IraQ!

[Rekaar.]

A deterrent to what? The US? The only reason the US is thinking about Iran in military terms at all is because of their nuclear aspirations not because they have an absence of them ffs =p

[noel]

A deterrent to what? The US? The only reason the US is thinking about Iran in military terms at all is because of their nuclear aspirations not because they have an absence of them ffs =p

That's not really the whole truth, though it's part of it. They're also thinking about Iran because of state sponsored terrorism. Fortunately for the Bush administration, Iran is also working to develop nuclear weapons, which will pull on the emotions of the US citizens even more than the terrorism thing.

I'm fully down with kicking ass on terrorists, but if Afganistan, where the Taliban is still not completely out of power, is an example of how we're going to take the fight to the terrorists, I'd like to see a different strategy employed.

[Hoarmurath]

Speaking of Afghanistan...

Here's a quote from <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 2952">this page</a>:

The United States said it expected Afghanistan's illicit poppy crop to jump by an alarming 239 percent over last year with a corresponding potential rise of nearly 75 percent in opium production.

Oops.

The Taliban licked hairy balls (figuratively speaking, of course), but they put the brakes on much of Afghanistan's opium business. I always felt like we had a great opportunity to shut it down the rest of the way, but it looks like we've blown it.

[Acies]

You know what makes a human being decent? Fear.

Now, let's take North Korea and put them in Iraq's position. Let's say they MADE some mega-ton nuclear weapons and had the ICBM's to reach the United States. Would we invade like we did? I think everyone knows the answer to that.

I can't blame middle eastern countries for wanting nukes at this time, because possession of one (or some) would take them off a list of potential targets for our country, the United States. However, they can't be allowed to have them. If they can show the world (Not the U.S.) that they can have nukes and not use them, then they can have their doomsday toys.

Though before I believe for one second that Iran has a nuclear program, I would expect to see concrete PROOF (not bullshit satellite photo's of somethng that "may" be a bio-weapons facility, etc.) that it exists. Right now, I do not trust my President or any body that would so eagerly push for war.

[Atokal]

Though before I believe for one second that Iran has a nuclear program, I would expect to see concrete PROOF (not bullshit satellite photo's of somethng that "may" be a bio-weapons facility, etc.) that it exists. Right now, I do not trust my President or any body that would so eagerly push for war.

Iran admits violating Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Iran has admitted violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by enriching uranium without the authorization of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

An IAEA report distributed to the agency's 35-member board of governors asserted that Iran has admitted to several violations of the NPT. They include a secret uranium enrichment program that has been operating since 1985.

During the summer of 2003, an IAEA team had found traces of enriched uranium, but Iran said the material came from an unnamed country, Middle East Newsline reported.

"Iran has now acknowledged that it has been developing, for 18 years, a uranium centrifuge program, and, for 12 years, a laser enrichment program," the report said. "In that context Iran has admitted that it produced small amounts of LEU [low-enriched uranium], using both centrifuge and laser enrichment processes and a small amount of plutonium."

The use of centrifuges and lasers are regarded as the leading methods for producing fissile material for both nuclear power plants or weapons. Iran has maintained that its uranium enrichment was for civilian purposes.

After months of denial, Iran told the agency that the Islamic republic enriched uranium at the Kalaye Electric Co. facility in 1999 and 2000.

The IAEA report determined that the agency could not conclude that Iran's secret nuclear program was meant for the assembly of atomic bombs. But the agency did not rule out such a goal over the next few years as Iran continues to build its nuclear infrastructure.

"It will take some time before the agency is able to conclude that Iran's nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes," the report said.

The report raised concerns over Iran's nuclear program but did not determine that Teheran had violated the NPT. The agency said Iran had pursued a policy of concealment until October 2003. But the agency stressed that the amount of nuclear material found fell far short of what was required for the assembly of a bomb.

"While most of the breaches identified to date have involved limited quantities of nuclear material, they have dealt with the most sensitive aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment and reprocessing," the report said.

Western diplomatic sources said the 29-page report appears to fall short of the expectations of the United States, which had sought an IAEA determination that Iran had failed to cooperate with the agency. Such a move would have resulted in the issue being relayed to the United Nations Security Council.

"In the end, the Board will have to judge when it meets on November 20th about what to do next and whether Iran has complied," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said on Monday.

Dude they admitted it themselves.

[Acies]

Then we should stop them, by exhausting all means before even considering invasion or war. We have spooks and spec ops, we need to fucking utilize them (as a much more efficent way of handling said situation).

Of course, if America does start invading ala Iraq, I will know why. Do me a favor. Do a google for: Peak Oil.

Edit: And again, them wanting a nuclear power plant does not equate that they have nuclear weaponry or want it. We should focus more on ICBM delivery methods and snoopers for possible transportation of a nuclear explosve device.

[Rekaar.]

I've got no interest in ICBMs. Those aren't a threat to us. The warheads have very sophisticated delivery systems in this day and age. I call them uhauls.

[Acies]

I've got no interest in ICBMs. Those aren't a threat to us. The warheads have very sophisticated delivery systems in this day and age. I call them uhauls.

I agree Rek. The thought of a major U.S. city disappearing in a fireball scares the shit out of me. Still, I do not believe that pre-emptively invading and destroying a nation because they possibly could do such a thing is right.

Again, remember to google for peak oil!

[vn_Tanc]

The thought of a major U.S. city disappearing in a fireball scares the shit out of me

That would take an H-Bomb not a piddly little fission device.
Honestly, 20 years ago we lived with the notion that ALL our cities could be incinerated in nuclear fire with no more than 4 minutes notice and now your country justifies the same amount of defence spending as back then because someone might sneak a single small nuke in somewhere*?

I just thought I'd offer a little perspective.

* = Granted, being on the receiving end of this would suck but what are the odds? 40-100k deaths in all likelihood out of a population of what**?

** = seriously I'm not trying to make light of the consequences of such an atrocity.

[Aabidano]

Again, remember to google for peak oil!

That's why I'm hording sunlight, when the oil runs out I'll be rich!!!

[VariaVespasa]

The thought of a major U.S. city disappearing in a fireball scares the shit out of me

That would take an H-Bomb not a piddly little fission device.
Honestly, 20 years ago we lived with the notion that ALL our cities could be incinerated in nuclear fire with no more than 4 minutes notice and now your country justifies the same amount of defence spending as back then because someone might sneak a single small nuke in somewhere*?

I just thought I'd offer a little perspective.

* = Granted, being on the receiving end of this would suck but what are the odds? 40-100k deaths in all likelihood out of a population of what**?

** = seriously I'm not trying to make light of the consequences of such an atrocity.

If you can get in a Hiroshima-sized bomb (very small by todays standards) to a major city center the toll would be more like 2-300 thousand, perhaps a bit more, given the population density in certain cities.

*Hugs*
Varia

[vn_Tanc]

a Hiroshima-sized bomb (very small by todays standards)

Small yes, but by far the majority of nuclear weapons "out there" are of this "tactical" size. A lot of ICMBs packed multiple warheads of this type of yield rather than large scale multi-megaton fusion ones.

[Atokal]

The thought of a major U.S. city disappearing in a fireball scares the shit out of me

That would take an H-Bomb not a piddly little fission device.
Honestly, 20 years ago we lived with the notion that ALL our cities could be incinerated in nuclear fire with no more than 4 minutes notice and now your country justifies the same amount of defence spending as back then because someone might sneak a single small nuke in somewhere*?

I just thought I'd offer a little perspective.

* = Granted, being on the receiving end of this would suck but what are the odds? 40-100k deaths in all likelihood out of a population of what**?

** = seriously I'm not trying to make light of the consequences of such an atrocity.

Just what are you trying to say? That 40 - 100K deaths are acceptable if that is what it means to not take an aggressive posture?

Kind of a fatalistic approach to this issue, don't do anything until something is done to you. Bottom line is someone has to curtail the number of countries getting nuclear weapons and/or delivery systems.

In the immortal words of Captain Jack Sparrow "Take what you can (nuclear facilities) and give nothing back.

[Akaran_D]

Actually, the result of even a single metro area evaporating would be devesating to the economy. Remember the way of the stock market when the WTCs hit? Scale that by a few thousand.

[vn_Tanc]

Just what are you trying to say? That 40 - 100K deaths are acceptable if that is what it means to not take an aggressive posture?

Nope not in the slightest. All I'm saying is that given the scale of threats we've all lived with in recent living memory it doesn't stand very high up the list. OK maybe second but a very distant second to worldwide nuclear holocaust.

Kind of a fatalistic approach to this issue, don't do anything until something is done to you. Bottom line is someone has to curtail the number of countries getting nuclear weapons and/or delivery systems.

You've taken what I said and run off in a crazy direction with it.
Anyway, two superpowers operating a MAD system for 40 years worked so is there not an argument to be made for more proliferation not less? If everyone had them nobody would fight?

The problem here comes back to asymmetric warfare. The US has the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenal but who would you fire it at if someone parked a nuke in one of your cities?

I've said more than once I think US policy is fanning the flames of islamic fundamentalism instead of starving it of air.