Iran's nuke program

[MKSheppard]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/conte ... 10031.html

Inspectors find signs in Iran of advanced nuclear program

Los Angeles Times
Wednesday, June 2, 2004

WASHINGTON -- International inspectors have found new evidence that Iran engaged in a more ambitious program than it had admitted to develop advanced machines for producing material that could be used in nuclear weapons, according to a report obtained Tuesday.

Discoveries by the International Atomic Energy Agency contradicted previous claims by Iran that its scientists had made little attempt to manufacture sophisticated Pakistani-designed P-2 centrifuges.

Agency inspectors also found traces of weapons-grade uranium that indicated Iran imported nuclear-related components from a country other than Pakistan or has made more progress than previously known in developing its own ability to produce material capable of being used in nuclear weapons.

The latest in a yearlong series of critical reports on Iran's nuclear program by the agency said questions remained about the scope and intentions of Tehran's atomic activities, but it did not say evidence of a weapons program had been found.

Still, the findings seemed to ensure that pressure on Iran would not be eased at the agency's June 14 board meeting in Vienna, Austria. The report was prepared for the meeting and a copy was provided to the Los Angeles Times by a Western diplomat.

Washington has argued Tehran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program behind the facade of a civilian effort. Iranian officials have said consistently that the program is purely to generate electricity.

Agency Director Mohammed ElBaradei said it was not clear yet whether Iran's program was exclusively for peaceful purposes or had a military dimension. "We haven't seen concrete proof of a military program, so it's premature to make a judgment on that," he said, Reuters news agency reported.

The report was worded carefully to try to keep negotiations open with Tehran. The agency praised Tehran's cooperation but also said Iran had continued to change its story on key issues and withhold information.

Jon Wolfsthal, a nonproliferation expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, said after reviewing the report that it did not answer the question of Tehran's ultimate nuclear intentions.

"We have not gotten a clear picture of Iran's program," Wolfsthal said. "There are still major gaps."

The agency report focused on Iran's efforts to develop the sophisticated P-2 centrifuges from designs and components purchased from the black-market network run by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan. "Important information about the P-2 centrifuge program has frequently required repeated requests and in some cases continues to involve changing or contradictory information," the report said.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Which will soon go up in smoke if Israel gets its way.

[MKSheppard]

Which will soon go up in smoke if Israel gets its way.

Or we do.......7 CVBGs, 1 RN CVL

[Admiral Valdemar]

Which will soon go up in smoke if Israel gets its way.

Or we do.......7 CVBGs, 1 RN CVL

Aye, but I doubt we'd really want to open that can of worms what with Iraq.

[MKSheppard]

Aye, but I doubt we'd really want to open that can of worms what with Iraq.

Tell that to Tony and W.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Aye, but I doubt we'd really want to open that can of worms what with Iraq.

Tell that to Tony and W.

It may be Howard and Kerry by the time a choice is made.

[Plekhanov]

It may be Howard and Kerry by the time a choice is made.

Brown and Kerry seems more likely (hopefully) but even if Blair manages to stop Labour getting rid, he’s in no position to start any more wars. The “coalition of the willing” seems to be getting smaller all the time.

[Aaron]

Whats the big deal? If Iran wants nukes then let them have them. The USA is in no position to take the high ground on this. They have the largest stockpile of NBC weapons in the world, and are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in combat. The Iranians are probably only developing nuclear weapons to counter the Israeli's stockpile.

[MKSheppard]

The Iranians are probably only developing nuclear weapons to counter the Israeli's stockpile.

Please take a look at what the Iranian government consists of:

Fundie Islamic fuckhead hardliners. Do you really want Allau
Ackbar shitheels getting their hands on the Bomb?

[Plekhanov]

It’s not only Israel, Iran lives in a rough neighbourhood bordered by Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and of course Iraq you can understand why they might want the bomb.

[Axis Kast]

Whats the big deal? If Iran wants nukes then let them have them. The USA is in no position to take the high ground on this. They have the largest stockpile of NBC weapons in the world, and are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in combat. The Iranians are probably only developing nuclear weapons to counter the Israeli's stockpile.

Why permit the Iranian government to put its hands on a working atomic bomb – or, worse, nuclear-tipped missile – if we can potentially avert that scenario at acceptable cost?

Whether or not to tolerate an Iranian nuclear capability must be first and foremost a question of regional security, not a moral dilemma in which we throw good sense into the wind because we’d like to “play fair.” I, for one, will sleep better at night knowing that all Iran has for the United States are bad words rather than nuclear-backed threats.

As for the Israelis, I’m not concerned that their atomic energy program will end up putting material or experts in the hands of terrorists.

It’s not only Israel, Iran lives in a rough neighbourhood bordered by Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan and of course Iraq you can understand why they might want the bomb.

And the Iranians are going to successfully deter Afghani bandits or militiamen by threatening a government they don’t even recognize in the first place?

Don’t tell me Pakistan or Turkey are about to waste their time invading Iran. The Pakistanis are much more concerned about India, and Turkey isn’t going to sacrifice its hopes for modernization and Europeanization by pursuing a pointless conflict with Iran.

Turkmenestan can’t hold a candle to Iran. Nuclear weapons don’t even need to enter the equation.

As for Iraq, that’s really America’s province now. We’ve already discussed why that’s a problem above.

[Aaron]

Please take a look at what the Iranian government consists of:

Fundie Islamic fuckhead hardliners. Do you really want Allau
Ackbar shitheels getting their hands on the Bomb?

I have no problem with the Iranians getting nuclear weapons, regardless of their form of government. The Israeli's have them and their government consists of fundie's as well. Besides if Iran gets the BOMB they still have no way to deliver them against US interests, as it is they'd be hard pressed to hit Israel.

[Plekhanov]

As for the Israelis, I’m not concerned that their atomic energy program will end up putting material or experts in the hands of terrorists.

Israeli nukes are unlikely to end up in the hand s of Islamic terrorists but they are already in the hands of a fundamentalist nation with a history of constant military expansionism and aggression, they hardly have a reassuring track record.

And the Iranians are going to successfully deter Afghani bandits or militiamen by threatening a government they don’t even recognize in the first place?

Don’t tell me Pakistan or Turkey are about to waste their time invading Iran. The Pakistanis are much more concerned about India, and Turkey isn’t going to sacrifice its hopes for modernization and Europeanization by pursuing a pointless conflict with Iran.

Turkmenestan can’t hold a candle to Iran. Nuclear weapons don’t even need to enter the equation.

I’m not saying that any of the nations I listed is an imminent threat to Iran, simply that they are surrounded by somewhat unstable and potentially hostile powers one of which we know has already gone nuclear and that they have every reason to be concerned for their future security.

The Iranians recently fought a very long and brutal defensive war against (a US backed) Iraq they see the bomb as a guarantee that no one will invade them again, I don’t think there’s any intention of giving it to terrorists.

As for Iraq, that’s really America’s province now. We’ve already discussed why that’s a problem above.

I’m sure the Iranians are reassured that the nation that has been trying to destroy their republic since it’s creation is now occupying their old enemy.

[Axis Kast]

I have no problem with the Iranians getting nuclear weapons, regardless of their form of government. The Israeli's have them and their government consists of fundie's as well.

And yet, for all intents and purposes, the Israelis are our “fundies.” Ariel Sharon isn’t about to puff up his chest and threaten the nuclear destruction of targets in the United States or Coalition Iraq.

Besides if Iran gets the BOMB they still have no way to deliver them against US interests, as it is they'd be hard pressed to hit Israel.

The United States has interests in Iraq. We are the guarantors of their security at this point in time.

As for Israel, we don’t exactly want them disappearing in nuclear fire, either. We’ve already had this discussion, you and I. Guess who has to come galloping to the rescue then? I’d much rather garner Iranian hatred now and avoid a messier situation down the road.

Israeli nukes are unlikely to end up in the hand s of Islamic terrorists but they are already in the hands of a fundamentalist nation with a history of constant military expansionism and aggression, they hardly have a reassuring track record.

And the United States military worries about the fragility of Pakistan’s government on a daily basis. Your reasoning seems to be, “Well, if my home is robbed once, I don’t really need a security system.” But that’s ludicrous. Why would we wish to increase the threat of “rogue” scientists moving on to aid in another nation’s government, or let a nation with reason to dislike the United States as well as clear and noted ties to terrorist activities and anti-American operations gain the ultimate defensive shield?

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say we can’t afford the liability of moral politics.

I’m not saying that any of the nations I listed is an imminent threat to Iran, simply that they are surrounded by somewhat unstable and potentially hostile powers one of which we know has already gone nuclear and that they have every reason to be concerned for their future security.

Yes, but Iran's security problems are not my own, and I refuse to make them my own. You wring your hands over their predicaments all you like. Me, I doubt they're about to be invaded by Turkmenestan myself, but hey, maybe you called Ms. Cleo.

The Iranians recently fought a very long and brutal defensive war against (a US backed) Iraq they see the bomb as a guarantee that no one will invade them again, I don’t think there’s any intention of giving it to terrorists.

But if any one nation on this Earth were to arm terrorists, it'd be Iran. Even Pakistan hasn't gone as far as they have in terms of lunacty in government. And we already know that the participants in both Iran and Pakistan's programs can be described as "mercenary" at best.

I’m sure the Iranians are reassured that the nation that has been trying to destroy their republic since it’s creation is now occupying their old enemy.

Like I said before, I don't give a flying fuck about Iranian reassurance.

[Patrick Degan]

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say we can’t afford the liability of moral politics.

I do believe Mr. Hitler would've made much the same argument.

[tharkûn]

Israeli nukes are unlikely to end up in the hand s of Islamic terrorists but they are already in the hands of a fundamentalist nation with a history of constant military expansionism and aggression, they hardly have a reassuring track record.

Ahh the remarks of the ignorant. Israel is less fundementalist than the US and more likely on par with someplace like Ireland or Poland. Seriously the third most popular political party's entire freaking platform is secularism. Shinui's entire purpose in existance is to make the Israeli state more secular; in a nutshell they are a secular alternative to Shas as kingmakers in Israeli politics. Both Likud and Labour are not inherently religious, both may go to bed with religious politics, but the defining characteristics.

The only reason Israel has a crapload of religious laws on the books is because in recent years the margin in the Knesset was held by the religious blocs. Whenever Labour and Likud couldn't build a national unity government a simple majority government could be had by paying the whores who run Shas. After the Shas pulled a good bit of this crap, the many, many secular Israelis launched a new party that had a meteoric rise in popularity.

Yes Israel has more than its fair share of religious fundementalists, but they are damn rarely the government (normally it is one of the main parties paying the bedprice to rule with one or more religious parties); and they certainly don't have a fundementalist government today.

Really if Israel is a fundmentalist nation, the US, Poland, Ireland, and half of Canada are as well.

[Aaron]

And yet, for all intents and purposes, the Israelis are our “fundies.” Ariel Sharon isn’t about to puff up his chest and threaten the nuclear destruction of targets in the United States or Coalition Iraq.

But a fundie is a fundie, their unpredictable. Who knows what Israel's plan for the future includes, the only thing that we can guarentee is that they'll keep oppressing the Palestinians.

The United States has interests in Iraq. We are the guarantors of their security at this point in time.

The use of nuclear weapons by the Iranians on US interests in Iraq or against Israel would result in the desruction of Iran by the USA or Israel in retalation.

This is exactly what I’m talking about when I say we can’t afford the liability of moral politics.

You've established that you don't think that morality should enter in to politics. I won't argue the point with you, it'll just result in a circular arguement.

Yes, but Iran's security problems are not my own, and I refuse to make them my own. You wring your hands over their predicaments all you like. Me, I doubt they're about to be invaded by Turkmenestan myself, but hey, maybe you called Ms. Cleo.

There security concerns may become important to you if they use nuclear weapons in defense of their homeland or in retaliation against and Israeli or USA strike.

But if any one nation on this Earth were to arm terrorists, it'd be Iran. Even Pakistan hasn't gone as far as they have in terms of lunacty in government. And we already know that the participants in both Iran and Pakistan's programs can be described as "mercenary" at best.

They have indeed armed and backed terrorists in the past. But I think that supplying nuclear weapons would be an extreme even for them. If a nuclear weapon was used in a terrorist attack and it was traced back to Iran, then it would result in the detruction of their country in retaliation by the USA or Israel, depending on who the attack was directed against.

Like I said before, I don't give a flying fuck about Iranian reassurance.

Maybe you should, if the use nuclear weapons against the USA or Israel because their security concerns aren't met. That will open up an entirley new land for Israel and the USA to opress.

[Plekhanov]

Ahh the remarks of the ignorant. Israel is less fundementalist than the US and more likely on par with someplace like Ireland or Poland. Seriously the third most popular political party's entire freaking platform is secularism. Shinui's entire purpose in existance is to make the Israeli state more secular; in a nutshell they are a secular alternative to Shas as kingmakers in Israeli politics. Both Likud and Labour are not inherently religious, both may go to bed with religious politics, but the defining characteristics.

The only reason Israel has a crapload of religious laws on the books is because in recent years the margin in the Knesset was held by the religious blocs. Whenever Labour and Likud couldn't build a national unity government a simple majority government could be had by paying the whores who run Shas. After the Shas pulled a good bit of this crap, the many, many secular Israelis launched a new party that had a meteoric rise in popularity.

Yes Israel has more than its fair share of religious fundementalists, but they are damn rarely the government (normally it is one of the main parties paying the bedprice to rule with one or more religious parties); and they certainly don't have a fundementalist government today.

Really if Israel is a fundmentalist nation, the US, Poland, Ireland, and half of Canada are as well.

Israel is relatively secular but much of it’s population and the current government are fundamentalist Zionists which is in many ways worse than religious fundamentalism. Whilst religious fundies generally content themselves with persecuting minorities in their own countries Zionism is an expansionist movement the proponents of which have been fighting wars of aggression since 1948. I’m not at all happy to see a secular fundamentalist like Sharon with his finger on the button and as long as he has I can see why Iran and Israel’s other near neighbours would also want a deterrence to protect them from future Zionist aggression.

[Joe]

I’m not at all happy to see a secular fundamentalist like Sharon with his finger on the button and as long as he has I can see why Iran and Israel’s other near neighbours would also want a deterrence to protect them from future Zionist aggression.

What "aggression"? Israel doesn't have the power or resources to invade and occupy a country like Iran - the occupied territories take up the bulk of their manpower - and they're not going to turn the entire world violently against them by launching nukes at Iran.

[MKSheppard]

Fucking hell, Kast, Deegan, whatever, SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I don't want to see another thread head down the
shitter because of a Kast battle against everyone.

[Axis Kast]

But a fundie is a fundie, their unpredictable. Who knows what Israel's plan for the future includes, the only thing that we can guarentee is that they'll keep oppressing the Palestinians.

Frankly, I doubt Israel is planning any wars of aggression. The largest military action they could possibly take inside the next decade – unprovoked – would be an assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities prior to fission. Even if invaded, I doubt they’d seize any new territory given the over-taxed state of their military as is. And the Palestinians have no relationship to the nuclear balance in the Middle East, save that perhaps one or two loonies might be handed dirty material by Iranian agents.

The use of nuclear weapons by the Iranians on US interests in Iraq or against Israel would result in the desruction of Iran by the USA or Israel in retalation.

How about the dispersion of fissile material by unaffiliated scientists or fundamentalist personnel?

You’ve also got to understand that a retaliatory strike on anyone by Israel would result in a wave of terrorism against them. That wouldn’t deter their counter-attack, but it would create huge problems for the United States – aside from financing reconstruction (if anything’s left to reconstruct, that is).

And that’s not even touching upon the fact that a nuclear Iran would have greater conventional flexibility as well; we’d think more heavily about the types of punishment we could promise in response to specific Iranian actions in the future.

They have indeed armed and backed terrorists in the past. But I think that supplying nuclear weapons would be an extreme even for them. If a nuclear weapon was used in a terrorist attack and it was traced back to Iran, then it would result in the detruction of their country in retaliation by the USA or Israel, depending on who the attack was directed against.

And what if they couldn’t stop it? Russia’s problems after the Soviet Union’s collapse proved false the insistence of men such as Stephen Walt that atomic weapons were so valuable they’d never be left unguarded or improperly stored.

Maybe you should, if the use nuclear weapons against the USA or Israel because their security concerns aren't met. That will open up an entirley new land for Israel and the USA to opress.

And my point is that we don’t have to deal with that matter if we deny them the bomb in the first place.

[Vympel]

Russia?s problems after the Soviet Union?s collapse proved false the insistence of men such as Stephen Walt that atomic weapons were so valuable they?d never be left unguarded or improperly stored.

I've yet to see a concrete instance of Soviet nuclear weaponry being left unguarded and improperly stored? Contrary to the insistence of writer's of bad technothrillers and their movie adaptations, there hasn't been a single instance of 'missing' nuclear weaponry out of the former CIS. The only remotely reported instance has been this poorly-sourced, newsmax-esque paranoia about 'suitcase' bombs.

[MKSheppard]

Just fucking lock this thread. Kast can't keep his fucking pie hole shut.

[Plekhanov]

What "aggression"? Israel doesn't have the power or resources to invade and occupy a country like Iran - the occupied territories take up the bulk of their manpower - and they're not going to turn the entire world violently against them by launching nukes at Iran.

An all out invasion of Iran by Israel is extremely unlikely, unprovoked attacks (but not nuclear) less so, a nuclear deterrence would do a lot to guarantee Iran’s safety in this respect. As previously mentioned Iran has reasons other than Israel to seek the bomb one is it’s general neighbourhood and another the constant hostility from the US and the openly stated desire of the current administration to overthrow the Iranian government.

Citizens of Jordan, Syria and the Lebanon have good reason to fear Israel aggression & whilst it currently has its hand full in Palestine who’s to say what it might do in 10, 20, 30 years?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Russia?s problems after the Soviet Union?s collapse proved false the insistence of men such as Stephen Walt that atomic weapons were so valuable they?d never be left unguarded or improperly stored.

I've yet to see a concrete instance of Soviet nuclear weaponry being left unguarded and improperly stored? Contrary to the insistence of writer's of bad technothrillers and their movie adaptations, there hasn't been a single instance of 'missing' nuclear weaponry out of the former CIS. The only remotely reported instance has been this poorly-sourced, newsmax-esque paranoia about 'suitcase' bombs.

Which are expensive paperweights by now anyway.