Iran has Bomb-grade Uranium
 

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6839865
Page 2
They have bomb-grade uranium and I have little doubt that they would be afraid to use it if threatened. I don't know if we'd be the ones hit, but Israel is probably right in their crosshairs. They wouldn't even have to get it all the way here, a suicide attack with a small bomb on a powered boat against our fleet in the gulf is also a worrying prospect. There's also the possiblity that they could hit Iraq's new government or an occupied city like Fallujah. The list of targets is practically endless, and a few radicals in the military could decide to strike, as I doubt they have the same precautions that we do here in the US, which have also been proven to be not fully effective.

The WMD's are right there. Maybe this time there is a case for military action. If we don't do it, I don't think I can fault Israel for concluding that they should to based on our precedent. Let's hope that the UN grows some balls and puts its collective foot down before they get an operational nuke. There's no end in sight for US membership in the UN, so I think we should make a big deal about it.

...

Or maybe this opposition group has built up their credibility and fed us a false report in the hope that we'll do something about the current Iranian government.

Pretty serious shit. Did you hear about Russia nationalizing its resources and preparing to test two new missile systems?

Evidently, the taste of capitalism wasn't too sweet and didn't last long.

Best part about the Russian nuke plans.....the Bush administration is officially "unconcerned".
Just as they have shown a lack of concern towards Iran....glad to see we have our priorities straight.

Hmmmm.

Sounds familiar. WMD's anyone?
Next stop on the Global domination world tour, Iran. Get your t-shirts at the door.

Seriously, would anyone here be upset if the Israelis went in and took out Iran's bomb plants?

(yes, it's a real question)

We saddly have an affirmative on that question from other threads. Some people who shall rename nameless even think Iran has a better military then Iraq did and would somehow be a real fight. They refused to give any sources for this, so I had to look on my own, and discovered quite the contrary.

I've been saying for some time that we should turn Israel loose on the whole Middle East, not like Arabs or Israeli's have any love lost.

it is interesting that this story is surfacing now, at the moment the e.u. had managed to negociate an agreement with iran designed to short circuit un sanctions (which was the american plan on the matter). i am not sure of the linkage, but i wonder if the story is part of a jockeying for position on the part of the administration in that context. because i wonder if this e.u. success is seen as writing on the wall for the american diplomatic position in general. sooner or later, the consequences of bush's goofball foriegn policy would have to start turning up--maybe the administration see this as the first of these.

No one, and I mean no one, is afraid of the EU. It's hard to have diplomatic power when you dont have the threat of military actions behind it.

I predict the EU negotiations will be just as effective as the U.S. negotiations were with North Korea.

What utter paranoid bollocks. First you state that they wouldn't hesitate retaliation with nuclear weapons, then you leap straight to the rabid conclusion that Israel is "in their crosshairs" - Yes they are developing nuclear arms - In case you haven't noticed, nuclear arms were invented over 50 years ago and are already held by a number of countries around the world, including the hot-headed, politically unstable, untrustworthy, unilateral, aggressive and self-serving one known as the USA. Against this sort of threat, wouldn't you want some kind of deterrant too?

Yes, I'd be outraged.

Seriously, please - seriously, try and explain what motives a country like Iran (or any country) might possibly have in actually being the first to use a nuclear device when the consequences would be so devastating? Perhaps they are all mad over there? Is it the sun? All that sand? Camel hairs in the atmosphere? Or is it because they are all shady Muslims? Or perhaps you need to sit and realise for a moment that people around the world are all exactly the same and worry about the same small things that you and I worry about. i.e. Getting fed, falling in love, having and caring for your children etc.

Do you really think military action (read thousands of civillian deaths and dangerously increasing levels of global insecurity) is a sensible option?

it does not appear that the bushequation of diplomacy and crude military power is the only logic at work in the world. that iran chose to negociate with teh e.u. is interesting. that the e.u. reached an agreement with iran yesterday that bypassed the entire american logic of situation management is interesting.

i think you are underestimating the e.u.--but to consider the matter, you have to move away from the bushlogic and think about it this agreement as such. give it a try. you'll maybe see what i mean.

i think the americans should worry about the e.u. becoming a more important diplomatic partner for navigating situations like this than the u.s. is....while i do not know any more than you do how things will unfold in the longer run (and you do not know) it seems that this could well be what i said it was--the first index of the reconfiguration of diplomatic power relations in a post-american dominated global context.

What a nuclear weapon in a country like Iran means, is that a country Like US, UK and France can't go barging in to enforce their foreign policy.

There's an article today that quotes Powell as saying that the Iranians will be trying to mate a missile with a warhead, but that is years away.

So the fact is, with a nuke, they won't be shooting it into Tel Aviv anytime soon, but any large ground troop formation can expect to need 1billion sunblock if they want to feel safe attacking Iran as the nearest and weakest of the axis of evil.
And the international community could not be expected to condemn a nation state using a nuke on its own turf to repel invaders, unlike bio or chem weapons seeing as the US/NATO/EU has them by the bucketload.

I think the better question would be, "Would anyone be surprised if the Israeli's went in and took out Iran's bomb plant's?

Well as stated on CNN by a high level Iranian official, Iran has no interest in attacking Israel, that comments of such are permeated by Israel to grow support for a preemptive strike, that Iran is more than willing to commence talks with the U.S regarding several matters including weapons (mainly due to war in Iraq--not wanting the same) and that if Iran is attacked by Israel, they will counterstrike.

Perhaps it's time for the collective world to start ridding the mideast of WMD before these all important people fuck it up for everyone else on the planet. Then the rest of the world can follow suit.

I'm going to take Iran's word, a country that is overlord to Hezbollah, that they won't attack Israel. Would you like a pudding pop with that nice white shirt of yours'?

To me, Iran's word is as equally good as Israel's word. Not that what either side says means much in terms of sincerity. If anybody actually believes any of the rhetoric that goes on supplied by any government, then some rose colored glasses should accompany the pudding pop.

If Israel attacks Iran because of it's intelligence (Mossad intel that had 100% proof of Iraqs WMD) so be it. If Iran strikes back, so be it. Let the games begin. Let's have a nuclear WWIII to determine who is the most important people in the world, the fucking Jews or the fucking Arabs.

I wouldn't be upset, they did it to Iraq, and they can do it again for all I care.

Last time Israel showed restraint with it's neighbors, 17 scuds landed in their back yard. The threat from Iran is real, even if youdon't admit it or acknowledge it.

The threat is real and the danger is real. Yes, many governments have wmds, but that doesn't mean I want the Iranian government to have nukes. I don't know how the current administration could have stopped this by now or how it can stop it in the future without military action. I don't see how the EU can stop it with negotiation. I don't know how Isreal could have any impact unless militarily. It is a dangerous shitstorm where the internal politics probably hold out our best hope. Long live the opposition.

Mojo please.

How did Israel showing restraint cause 17 scuds to be targetted at them?
Why was Israel targetted?
Iraq needed allies, and by trying to draw Israel into battle, there was always the possibility that the other Arab nations would have taken the opportunity to attack Israel in response - the whole point was to polarise the region and get as many people joining in as possible, that would have caused the Coalition problems and rapidly increased the cost of a foreign war. Thankfully Israel sat on its hands.

If anything it was the fact that Iraq knew that Israel was spoiling for a fight for which it was targetted, it certainly was not Israel's famous restraint.

Iran is on record, along with some other arab countries, as saying that Israel has no right to survive as a nation state and that Israel should be destroyed by any means necessary.
Now, you can take that any way you want to but I'm betting that if Iran actually has a nuke on a missile capable of striking Israel and Iran, along with other arab nations like syria and lebanon for example, decide that now's the time to re-enact the 7 day war that they are less worried now about being struck with a nuke from Israel because retaliation with a nuke can happen.

What does that mean?

Why do you think the Arabian countries are not happy with Israel?

Does it matter the why? 5 wars in 50 years, it's established.

Of course it matters the why. A major factor for war having broken out over there 5 times in the last 50 years is because nobody stops to think about the why. Both on the Israeli's part and the Arabs.

On May 14, 1948 the "Palestinian" Jews finally declared their own State of Israel and became "Israelis." On the next day, seven neighboring Arab armies... Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen... invaded Israel. Most of the Arabs living within the boundaries of the newly declared "ISRAEL" were encouraged to leave by the invading Arab armies to facilitate the slaughter of the Jews and were promised to be given all Jewish property after the victorious Arab armies won the war. The truth is that 70% of the Arab Palestinians who left in 1948 – perhaps 300,000 to 400,000 of them – never saw an Israeli soldier! They did not flee because they feared Jewish thugs, but because of a rational and reasonable calculus: the Jews will be exterminated; we will get out of the way while that messy and dangerous business goes forward, and we will return afterwards to reclaim our homes, and to inherit those nice Jewish properties as well. They guessed wrong; and the Arab Palestinians are still tortured by the residual shame of their flight. Their shame is so great because in their eyes running from Jews was like running from women. So much for the blatant lie about Jews throwing out all the [Palestinian] Arabs!

The remaining 30% either (1) saw for themselves that these Jews would fight and die for their new nation and decided to pack up and leave or (2) were driven off the land as a normal consequence of war.

When the 19 month war ended, Israel survived despite a 1% loss of it's entire population! Those Arabs who did not flee became today's Israeli-Arab citizens. Those who fled became the seeds of the first wave of "Palestinian Arab refugees."

The Arab propagandists and apologists almost never mentioned that in 1948, five Arab countries launched a war against a one-day-old Israel. Instead he focused on the main consequence of that war: the creation of Arab refugees, stating that Israel "short of genocide" expelled 800,000 of them. This not only disagrees with UN estimates of a bit over 400,000 refugees but also ignores the fact that most of the Arabs/Palestinians were encouraged to leave by the Arab World itself!

The end result of the 1948-49 Israeli War of Independence was the creation of a Jewish State slightly larger than that which was proposed by the 1947 United Nations Resolution 181. What remained of that almost-created second Arab Palestinian State was gobbled up by (1) Egypt (occupying the Gaza Strip) and by (2) Trans-Jordan (occupying Judea-Samaria (a.k.a. the "West Bank" of the Jordan River) and Jerusalem. In the next year (1950) Trans-Jordan formally merged this West Bank territory into itself and granted all those "Palestinian" Arabs living there Jordanian citizenship. Since Trans-Jordan was then no longer confined to one side of the Jordan River, it renamed itself simply "Jordan." In the final analysis, the Arabs of Palestine ended up with nearly 85% of the original territory of Palestine... called Jordan but in reality their ARAB "Palestinian state! But that was still not 100% and thus the conflict between Arab and Jew for "Palestine" would continue through four more wars and continuous Arab terrorist attacks upon the Israeli citizenry. It continues to this very day.
From 1949-67 when all of Judea-Samaria [West Bank & Jerusalem] and Gaza ... were 100% under Arab [Jordanian & Egyptian] control, no effort was EVER made to create a second Palestinian State for the Arabs living there. Surely you do not expect Israel to now provide these same Arabs with their own country when their fellow Arabs failed to do so! And isn't it curious how Arafat and his PLO (formed in 1964) discovered their "ancient" identity and a need for "self-determination" and "human dignity" on this very same West Bank ONLY AFTER Israel regained this territory (three years later in 1967) following Jordan's attempt attempt to destroy Israel! Why was no request ever made upon King Hussein of Jordan by the Arabs living on the West Bank when he occupied it? Is it logical that the PLO was formed in 1964 to regain the lands they would lose three years later in 1967? This sort of logic makes sense only to those who who have not learned that the PLO was formed to DESTROY Israel. And that is STILL their goal! A cosmetic name change from PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) to PA (Palestinian Authority) does not change the stripes on THIS tiger!

There are a number of points worth making here:

The UN handling of the new Israeli state only happened after the British left due to escalating Jewish terrorism (bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 among others) and related escalating Arab violence.

The mandate declaring Israel was not agreed on by any of the directly affected parties i.e. The people who's land was being aquisitioned.

A huge population of displaced Europeans rapidly moved into a culturally sensitive location with the backing of the Allies/UN. Considering the issues people are making today over normal, controlled immigration, you can imagine how this might have appeared to the locals. Again, if this had happened in your home-town, how would you have felt?

It is of course, bound to cause conflict. Imagine the fuss if 1 million Arabs all decided to move into Las Vegas, with the support of all the US states except Nevada. How do you think the Nevadians would swallow that? Might there be some conflict?

The invasion of Israel after its inception was a logical thing to do, it would have been much easier (from the points of view of the surrounding nations) to nip Israel in the bud at the outset, rather than allow it to establish itself. That abortive attempt failed, and Israel remained.

Now conflict is conflict. Conflict against a vastly stronger (read better equipped by its allies) foe normally expresses itself as so-called terrorism. That's what terrorism is, you attack the weak parts of your enemy because the strong parts are too strong for you to do any damage.

The truth is that today, Israel is far too strong to seriously fear a millitary attack. Instead, it's neighbours fear Israel's further expansion.

We either make efforts to calm those tensions, or we consider the alternative which is for one side to win completely.

so you support the removal of Israel as a nation state?

no I just don't support anything that involves blindly escalating violence

[edit] To rephrase that somewhat - If you follow the escalation route, then there are two ultimate outcomes:
1) No more Jews
2) No more Arabs

If that's the way you want to go, then choose sides now. Until every last one of [chosen-enemy] is dead and gone, outrages will continue to be committed on either side.

The alternative is to eschew any form of escalation - in some respects this means that Iran holding a nuclear device is not a bad thing. The US and the USSR proved that fear of nuclear conflict is a great way to avoid direct confrontation. Of course it raises the stakes somewhat, but if Israel and its surrounding nations have to think twice before committing an atrocity (supported by very valid claims and counter-claims of genocide etc) then the whole nasty boil of a situation might calm down some.

Ok, your claim of nuclear deterrent makes sense ONLY if a land war is not really possible, as in the case of the US vs USSR back then. The problem here is that Iran and other arab states DO have land forces(although having the US in Iraq now stops Iran) and now Iran has a deterent to Israels use of nuclear arms should it come close to destruction in a land war.

I don't think a 'winnable' land-war has been possible for the last 10 years. Israel is far richer than its neighbours (due amongst other things, to its almost unparralelled trade links with the western world) and as such has a far superior millitary as well as having backing from the US.

For there to be any real threat of a land-based war, ALL of the neighboring nations would have to form a strong alliance and attack at once. (Yes that happened before, but against a much weaker target)

One of the goals of Al Kaida, is to bring the Arab nations together in a united front against Israel.

How best to achieve this goal?
By polarising the World's nations into Muslim vs Judeo/Christian camps.

How to do this?
By provoking the West (Israel + Allies) into ever more aggressive acts of pro-active defence that the Arab world feels threatened enough to forget historic rivalries and join together united against the Western threat.

I make it a point to refrain from...taking the bait you so liberally place in front of others. In this instance, I will bite. My worry (and susequent fear of underestimation) stems from the current , and obvious problems in a war against a country 1/3 the size of Iran, with far less than half the polpulation. I find it relatively disturbing that some find the use of force, an "easy" answer, and do not fully consider the possible implications of this mentality. Or at least I would hope it is a lack of consideration, versus an outright disrespect for the soldiers who will inevitably die should we decide on this sort of action.
The military forces availible to Iran do indeed pale in comparison to our own....as did Iraqs. Iraq obviously did not have, either the weapons, or the will to use anything resembling a WMD. I myself, do not have the confidence to proclaim the same in the case of Iran. The assumption that Iran would be an easy kill....frankly...scares me to no end, as I seem to remember a similar statement in the recent past....that was obviously in error.

If indeed , you feel the need to be critical of my opinion in the future....you are free to express yourself directly....I have not been nameless for some time.

So let me see if I can boil this down.

-Iran has vowed to destroy Israel.
-Iran took over the American embassey and held Americans for 444 days.
-Iran has sponsored terrorists and sheltered them.
-Iran with nukes is OK because American might attack them and surely wouldn't attack Israel because Israel has nukes.

It's amazing how some are so quick to concede nukes to Iran.

I´ve heard this tune before. Iraqi insiders (ones being paid large sums of cash and green immigration flags) swearing to the prescence of Saddam´s WMD´s. It´s the windup to the massive media blitz to be followed by yet another invasion. Israel? Isn´t it about time to worry about America? Israeli interests are dictating US policy. They got quite a few WMD´s themselves and would probably be much less hesitant about using them. Iran are arming themselves? Hell yeah, they´ve seen what happens to countries that don´t. Things are gonna get real bad, real soon and the blind unquestioning ignorance of the Fox news viewing public is going to recieve a major wake up call. Iran with WMD´s. In Israel they call it defense.

the only problem with your argument is that while Iran (add Iraq before the war, syria, lebanon, and before the peace agreement egypt) openly says they do not recognize Israels right to survive, Israel is not spouting that Iran has no right to survive. Nor is America saying it.

Many far right wing Americans seem very happy to wave flags and quote the amendments to the constitution proclaiming the right to bear arms, citing that they foresee a time of oppression by government, yet the same folks denounce the larger scale of a nation arming itself due to the threat of the US foregin policy. Odd.

This post screams of Ignorance. Point one, Israel never signed a nuclear proliferation treaty, Iran did. Secondly you have Iran, a country that openly funds and aids terrorists, publically saying on many occasions that they would not hesitate to nuke Israel. This isn't about Israel dictacting American Foreign Policy, because that's not the reality. This is about regional stability, in a region where we have several long term vested interests. Israel plays in a lot because they have been a long time ALLY. The bottom line is Iran is a wild card in the deck, a country run by ignorant radicals who think they are doing Allah's bidding. Take a guess at what happens when they have a new weapon with the ability to destroy the evil zionists.

**Also the tune about Iraqi insiders. Read the Jordian defectee who called Saddam on hidden anthrax and got clipped later for it.

Of course not. We´re talking about the masters of media manipulation and spin. It really boils down to actions not words. Israel and America always have many expert inside opinions to back up their story of the week. Do you think Sharon will ever recognize Palestines right to survive or come straight out and say he is systematically wiping out the Palestinian people in order to steal their land for Jewish settlers? Smoke and mirrors. Israel wants the land and water, U.S. wants total control of middle east oil production. Period.
A country run by ignorant radicals who think they´re doing God´s bidding? A country where we have vested interests? Regional stability? (thats a real good one) Israel our long time ALLIES in what? The bottom line is the USA is the fucking wild card. This is the reality. I think you just underlined every word of my ignorant post.

I'm sure glad this would never happen here in the States.

Well this country isn't run by religious radicals. When we have an overlord council barring people's canidcy for office, along with a religious cleric with the final word come talk. It's baffling that you would even attempt to make the comparison.

Yes, we are indeed a country that would never, ever use nuclear weapons to wipe out entire cities, aren't we?

Not making a judgment of the quote, or even expressing an opinion, but this is a very loaded statement.

oh yeah, America isn´t run by religious radicals and they sure don´t need any religious clerics around seeing how GW was personally called on by his pal God. He´s got a hotline right to the big guy. Religious clerics might not be privy to the same divine interpretation. Are you for real or just playing the part?

I thought we were talking about religious radicals. Now you're changing it to nukes.This comparison is equally wrong to your first religious one. America using nuclear weapons, in the context of a legal and morally justifiable war, to save loss of it's own sovereign pending a major invasion and proloning of a World War, is Extremely different then a country using nukes based on it's radical and racist agenda through terroristic means.

There is no comparison to religious influence in American and political life, to that of a totalitarian theocratic regime. None.

Using WMD to wipe out civilian populations isn't terrorism?

Po-tay-to, puh-ta-to

Bullshit. The right wing religious front that supposedly propelled Bush into power for another 4 years of high moral principles are the supposed majority of the country. The president has stated his personal belief that he was chosen directly by god to change the world. Radical religious belief is rapidly becoming a major factor in US politics. The new church of George version will probably become very apparent with the new Supreme court.
Abortion, prayer in schools, marriage laws. Totalitarian theocratic regime. I bet you looked that up.

No, you have failed to understand lebell. Let me try a similar argument to call it quits, and then I'll try again.

-The United States Vowed Iraqi 'Regime Change'
-The United States has Killed More than 444 civillians during it's 'Liberation of Iraq'
-Israel was born out of Zionist terrorism
-Why would American attack Israel? (I really don't understand what you mean by that sentence)

Blah blah, you've soaked up all the nationalistic propaganda. Try and see things objectively. There are no good-guys/bad-guys in this picture, this isn't a movie, it's real life - everyone is out for themselves. Like I said before terrorism is warfare conducted by people with few resources against people with lots of resources. The opposite of terrorism I suppose would be carpet bombing, cruise missiles and other brute displays of technological millitary force.

Now decide whether you would prefer to see dead Arabs or dead people of European origin. If you prefer thousands more of the former, and a good few hundred of the latter, then carry on putting the pressure on a worried and increasingly desparate race of people. If the Arab nations begin to suspect that we really are picking them off one by one, it would make sense for them to leage together and then we'd be in for some real trouble.

If you prefer that the minimum number of people are killed needlessly, then doesn't it make sense to take steps to defuse an explosive situation?

Getting ready to do an Iraq 2 on Iran because of a vague and dimly percieved potential threat is both paranoid and is itself the kind of stance that could be percieved as threatening. Like I said before, this is what the Bin Ladin people want the west to do. Why are you so keen to play into their hands?

The West is more than capable of restoring peace and democracy to the region using the most powerful weapons in her arsenal, diplomacy and capitalist economics. How many people want to become freedom fighters if the alternative is a good job, a wife and a meal at the end of the day washed down with a lovely glass of Coke-a-Cola?

How many governments are liable to launch a nuclear weapon and be assured a swift and mighty response due to an irrational hatred of Jews? (No-one has explained the reasons why these fanatics want to destroy Israel, are they all just crazy people?)

Seriously, explain to me the mindset that would willingly destroy ones own country for the sake of taking out an Israeli city? Nuclear weapons are not offensive weapons, they are deterrant weapons, and it would be an act of extreme and dangerous stupidity for a government to believe otherwise.

Israel was born out of Zionist terrorism.... can you explain??

Much of the same tactics used by the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah, were first used by Israelis to get a Jewish state established, and it worked, which unfortunately created a monster that is now known as today by the Middle East Crisis.

Iran's government has stated that if they feel that their nuclear program is threatened, that they are willing to take preemptive action against our forces in the Persian Gulf.

Yes, if I was an Iranian official, I'd be shitting my pants and trying to kiss Bush's ass right now to save my people. Unfortunately, these people are motivated by religious extremism and fanaticism and have more faith in the concept of martyrdom than I do.

First, I don't appreciate your insinuation that I'm prejudiced against Muslims or Arabs. Once again, the leaders are fanatics who believe that the US is the "Great Satan" and that it is the will of God that we should all be killed. Another reiteration: they have threatened a first strike if they feel that their nuclear program is threatened. They also don't see any difference between the US and Israel. They (still talking abuot fanatical leaders) believe that Israel should be destroyed at any cost. Religious fanaticism and the belief that taking the other guy out wtih you will get you 72 virgins in the afterlife can lead people to do some pretty bad stuff. I'm not saying that Israel should not be held accountable for their wrongdoings, but right now I'm concerned with a nation that is run by radicals who hate us and have nukes.

I realise that everyone around the world is worrying about the same things, and I would really like to see us all settle down and worry only about those, but as

No. I don't think there are any sensible, plausible options left. I'm as displeaased with the Iraq situation as anyone. It's hard to describe what it's like to see a news report come on, and see the kid who I sat next to in high school English class (it was actually him, no hyperbole or metaphors here) jump behind a wall as enemy fire sets off an explosion less than 20 feet from him.

Saved around 300,000 US lives and around 1 million Japanese lives.

So I guess you could call it humane.

Didn't answer the question. Because of course we all know the answer.

Only on the internet could the destruction of 2 cities and the killing of more than half a million lives be called humane.

I'll go out on a limb and say, it's not. Doubtless that it saved more lives than it killed. One million Japanese lives in my opinion is a conservative estimate, because the psychological makeup of the Japanese people is highly based on honor and I would say that 70% of them would have fought to the death in the event of an invasion from the south by the U.S. and an invasion from the north by the USSR, rather than live under the rule of "gaijin", so we convinced 'em that we're not shittin around and the leaders caved. The conditions of surrender by the Japanese before the bombs were dropped still allowed Tojo to influence the Emperor and would have left the military intact. After the bomb is a different story, because they finally gave in to total surrender, and now Japan is the major tech center of the world. Go figure. Most of the Japanese don't even talk about WWII, because they see it as their ancestors shaming them, even their textbooks have a very passing reference to WWII, and the Japanese Americans that were interred won't accept any sort of "reparations" for their unfortunate and illegal imprisonment, because they see it as blood money resulting from being shamed by their brethren/ancestors. However, we can debate this time and time again, going back and forth about whether it was the right decision, with you bringing up the quote by Ike about the dropping of the bombs being necessary, etc. etc. When in fact, it's totally pointless to do so, because it's history, I really debated even posting the above. We're not gonna change anything by arguing about something that already happened. These are my final words on the topic of the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I will say however that the rhetoric being issued by the Iranian officials is despairingly similar to that of Nationalist Japan and its allies. If Israel goes in and destroys all of their nuclear plants and sends Mossad teams in to destroy nuclear weapons, I will be totally fine with it, because the possesion of nukes by Iran is a dangerous precept in the MidEast, and I would prefer it if Israel handled it like the big boys they are, rather than us babying them all the time.

The whole point of the US being in Iraq right now was the prevention of "terrorists" from obtaining WMD and unleashing them in US cities. This is what the US did in WW2. Talk about the pot and the kettle...

CT:
OK. I'm now stepping into this discussion in my capacity as a military historian.
During WW2, all sides used what would be considered WMD; most commonly the carpet-bombing of industrialized cities with incindiary bombs. The Germans torched Coventry, and the British got Dresden. The Japanese burned, raped, sacked, and genocided their way across coastal China and Korea; the US used atomic bombs of H. and N. Seeing that neither side posessed precision-guided weapons, this was the best they could do in a Strateigic sense. You destroy the enemy's ability to make war, and you have destroyed the enemy.

However, pre-invasion casualty estimates were:
Allied Military: 1-1.5 Million.
Japanese Military: 2-2.25 Million.
Japanese CIVILLAIN: 5.5-6.5 MILLION.
The thing was, the plan for the invasion of the Home Islands called for a 14-day CHEMICAL attack in order to soften the islands up and prevent the kind of mass-scale irregular resistance that we WOULD HAVE faced from the Japanese civillians. Look up the "Last Ditch" Arisaka rifles sometime; it should give you a good idea of the scale we're talking about here.
Source: "The Bodygaurd of Lies" by B. H. Liddell Hart.
So as you can see; the use of the A-bombs to force Japan's surrender was actually a lifeSAVING measure, for both sides.

Secondly, Japan posessed nuclear materials and the potential to produce "dirty nukes" and even a low-yeild nuclear bomb. There is even some evidence to suggest that such a weapon was tested in the northern Japanese islands only 72 hours before Hiroshima was bombed.
Source: "World War Two Magazein, August 1999"
The "dirty bomb" was actually a plan to use submarine-launched highspeed airplanes to scatter radioactive material over cities on the US west coast. The carrier submarines were 3/4 completed and test flights of the airplanes were being carried out when Japan surrendered.
Source: "Japanese Submarines of WW2" produced by The History Channel.

Sorry if this is a threadjack, but the ill-informed America-bashing which always surrounds the A-bomb discussion always irritates me.

People do like to roam in a thread (see the spurious claim above that the US is a terrorist nation by the use of nukes in WW2), but the only person that even answered me did it by asking his own questions (which) I'll have to get back to later.

Question:

Is anyone going to deny that Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the earth?

Is anyone going to claim that Israel has vowed to wipe Iran off the face of the earth?

I don't think the US could handle a simultaneous war with Iran while we still have our hands full with Iraq. We may have the military might, but the public won't tolerate it.

Oh I am quite informed about most of these matters, as I have a particular interest in all military matters particularly those regarding WW2. I stated above that we can argue all day about whether or not killing half a million civilians was necessary. I think that other measures might have proved equally effective. However, that is another thread. I merely pointed out that the US has used WMD on civilian populations in its past. I never said it was the only nation to do so. Merely that it is an act that we today associate with terrorists and any civilized people would condemn. I fully understand that (to some people) when we do perform these acts it is righteous, yet if others do the same it is terrorism.

And please tell me how this is "ill-informed America-bashing." I merely stated fact, if that displeases you, well... think about that.

An interesting side note: on the Hitler (sorry, History) channel right now is a program comparing the movie Tora! Tora! Tora! with the historical attack on Pearl Harbor. During this program they mentioned the fact that Japan preemptively attacked the US (partially) as a result of the US embargo on Japan. I couldn't help but think of the US' preemptive attack on Iraq. I found it rather synchronous with this discussion.

You obviously know little of America's past. This, among other actions, qualifies us.

Not I.

I've never heard of this happening.

To think that Bush's religious influence even compares to the the fanaticism of fundametalist countries is a complete delusion. They aren't even close in scale.

Ok, that's very noble of you, however, you then go on to say:
and:
Both of which are blatantly prejudiced (and largely false) things to say.
The issues over there are not due to religious fanaticism (though religion is a very convenient flag that both sides hold up to identify themselves) but to do with people having their homes bulldozed by a foreign population that arrived against their will 50 years ago, and in return to do with having your friends and families blown up while they sit at a cafe enjoying a sunday afternoon.

They only hate us because we fail to understand their predicament. We so easily fall into the trap of calling them religious fundamentalists and using those terms to explain their actions, but, having met a number of 'religious fanatics', or 'fundamentalist extremists' I know that while some of the things they say do sound a little odd sometimes, they are motivated by exactly the same things that motivate us. They don't hate us, but what they do hate is how events on the world stage are spun in the West's favour - it is a conflict, don't imagine that there is any moral high-ground.

There are of course those who's families have been killed by actions of 'Pre-Emptive Defense' or 'Counter Terrorism', or just driven from their homes by people of European origin, and perhaps it's understandable for them to hate us. If you take away their jobs and their future too, then it doesn't take much of a leap before suggesting they perform an act of grotesque revenge. All that virgin crap is the same sort of thing as the American Army's claim that all the dead soldiers are Great and Noble Heros. The truth of the matter is that soldiers are two a penny, and you have to fill them full of high-falluting psychological bullshit otherwise they wouldn't risk their lives for the crappy pay-packets they get. So Virgins, or Great Heros - Both run into the line of their own death - who's the fanatic?

Finally, imagine for a moment that you grew up in Iran instead of wherever it was that you actually grew up. Now try to imagine how you would see the situation.

Ahhh religion... such a wonderful thing, eh?

Your assumption is incorrect.

As to other actions, I am not addressing other actions, I addressed your claim that our use of nuclear weapons to end WW2 qualified us as a terrorist nation.

This I state again is spurious.

This issue has been argued before in this forum, so I shan't go into depth, but at best you can claim that the war was about to end and that the Japanese were suing for peace, which I can refute by saying that the Japanese were arming civilians for a bloody last stand and that they still argued to keep fighting even after Hiroshima.

In any event, yours is the minority opinion among historians.

Just FYI: Israel has vowed to not let this nuclear program get to the point at which a nuke is possible.

Bull, one word: Hezbollah. Please tell me noone actualy believes that. Do I think the Irianian government would ever use nukes? No, you would have to be crazy to fire a nuke at another country, and I think they are smarter than that. Do I think that some material might in some mysterious way find itself in the hands of a Hezbollah cell? Yes. Would Hezbollah hesitate to use it? No, and you would have to be kidding yourself to think otherwise. I think Isreal should wait and see how the EU Iran agreement turns out. If Iran does not stop pursuing nukes then it would be in Isreal's best interest to act. Not so much to try and control Iran, but to try and prevent Hezbollah from obtaining weapons grade material.

I'm guessing that was the whole point of Iran building nuclear weapons--hand's-off diplomacy.

The thing with any Nuclear industry, everything has to be carefully checked and audited. Exact records of Uranium entering and exiting the plant need to be kept for safety reasons, and these records need to be made available to the outside world. Likewise, and especially for weapons-grade material - in fact it's the sort of information that all nuclear powers should be forced to make public by some international body (if this doesn't already happen)- If it were managed correctly, it would be an added control against misuse and the possibility of a non-governmental organisation getting their hands on dangerous material.

If such a bomb were to go off, it should be quick and straightforward matter to determine from where it came. And the consequences would be severe.

That works great so long as that particular country doesn't try to hide it's participation in such an action.

In otherwords, how hard would it be to alter some records and mix in a few different isotopes to cloak such an action with plausible deniability just before a nuke wipes out Tel Aviv?

If it is done properly, it would be very hard to do just that - every gram of uranium/plutonium needs to be accounted for, for very valid safety reasons, circumventing these checks would need to involve so many people that it would be very hard to do without the truth leaking out.

How about we just uninvent the stuff?

I am actually very aware of what the safety reasons are as well as what the potential hazards are of uranium and plutonium production and bomb manufacture

No it would not be hard to do, not when it is state sanctioned.

Hell, I grew up not that terribly far from Rocky Flats (where H-bomb cores were made). There is still a horrible mess there with a lot of material going unaccounted for. (The couple of HUNDRED pounds of plutonium dust in the DUCT WORK is another story...)

This is BY ACCIDENT in the country that invented the bomb.

And you are saying that a state that wanted to purposefully keep 14.4 pounds (less with proper design) of bomb grade plutonium off the books couldn't do it?

This is assuming an Iranian nuclear reactor was run exactly the same as a western one.

Obviously, as we have seen in the past, playing with safety is not unkown at nuclear plants.

I agree that there is not much way you could saction it. There have been cases of missing material at US reactor sites, and we probably have the most strict rules regaurding acounting for the stuff. Thats not even concidering Russias problem with losing nuclear material. I just don't think simply regulating it will help. I think you have to make sure that a country like Iran is not capable of making bomb grade material, and if that means shutting down their entire program then so be it.

True, and it's caused the standards of control to rise - If any country were to operate any form of nuclear facility without these sorts of controls, there would be strong international pressure from all sides - not due to fears about bombs or terrorism, but on grounds for safety. The operation of a nuclear facility is by necessity an international operation, I doubt any state would be able to do it entirely on their own.

There is no reason to assume that an Iranian nuclear reactor would be run any differently than one in any other country. To run such a thing requires well educated, knowledgable personel, not, as some people seem to think, fanatical AK47 wielding madmen, intent on the destruction of Infidel usurpers.

I wonder how anyone got that idea...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl...isis/img/2.jpg

Nope, no madmen here.

There's one thing being a politician, quite another being a nuclear scientist. Any freak can become a politician, but in the case of Nuclear power, the scientists have control because without them, the politicians would have noting to polit over.

The nuclear scientist (physicist, really) has control over the politician???

No. Mao said it best when he said that power comes from the barrel of a gun.

He who controls the army controls the nuclear program, and it isn't the physicist who controls the army.

No, but Science is always the weakest link in the enforcement of political will. Mao killed all the educated people because he knew he wouldn't be able to control them - China is only now beginning to awaken from the shock that caused. Iran too may well have similar problems, since rationality and fundamentalism rarely go hand in hand - however, there is an educated middle class in Iran (possibly an educated middle class majority) who may well be in a position soon to overthrow the current religious government using the quiet, but relentless pressure of overwhelming public opinion. Pandering to the fanatic's wishes by threatening millitary action only keeps them in power for longer.

The army may well control the nuclear program, but the scientist will always leak the truth, and in the event of the use of a nuclear weapon, that is a truth that must never leak out. I just don't think it's possible.

Weighing these things up, I think it's far safer to play down the role of the Islamic fundamentalists, because that helps remove their power-base. Squaring up to them (when we as the west are have an obscene millitary advantage) just keeps the nut jobs in for longer.

If Israel had played a softer hand, and not posed as much of a percieved threat to its neighbours, the popularity of fundamentalism we see today would be much less.

Yes we all know scientists could never do anything evil, or persue a project without thinking of the consequences. There are no examples of this in our history. Scientists are a super breed of human able to dictate to the rulers what they will and will not do and have no fear for their families or ambition of thier own.

Paging Dr. Mengele, Dr. Mengele please report to the front desk...

Of course there is no hard and fast rule here, but I'd put far more trust in someone who has studied and worked towards finding the truths of the world than polititians and religious fundamentalists. The West is built on these ideals, and anyone capable of reaching the educational and technical ability of people at these levels is going to have a closer affinity with those truths than mere polititians.

Nationalism is dead, and if it's not, it ought to be. The Second World War was proof of the damage that nationalism causes, and I for one am not going to let it stand in the way of rational judgement.

There are better and more subtle ways of dealing with these kinds of issues, and like I keep on saying, displaying a threataning stance plays directly into the hands of the Osama Bin Ladins of this world.

If you don't trust the Muslims, then say so - The options are:
1) Treat the situation objectively and try to reach some kind of compromise
or
2) Adopt the final solution and wipe out those who pose any potential threat. We have the tools, we have the ability.

Personally I think option 1 is a lot easier for everyone concerned.

"There is a fine line between genius and insanity."
-- Oscar Levant

I wouldn't put all my faith in scientists. I mean what about the Russian scientists that were selling plutonium. Scientists are no more likely to resist the temptations of money and power than anyone else is.

Well I thank you for your compliment, I'll take genius every time ;)

However, if you meant the staff of the nuclear facilities (cough) then no, they don't need to be geniuses (genii?) or insane. If that is a problem, then perhaps we ought to start locking up the staff in all of our nuclear facilities as well.

I'm not putting all my faith anywhere, but for a government to pull off the kind of thing people are worried about here and for it to escape the repercussions is almost beyond implausible.

What does make me worriy is how easily some people will believe the nationalistic line (both in the West and elsewhere) and that seriously does worry me.