Iran: We ain't stopping...

[Falkenhayn]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4241527.stm

Iran 'to retaliate if US attacks'

The US believes Iran is years away from developing nuclear arms
Iran's top nuclear negotiator says Iran will retaliate and accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear technology if attacked by the US or Israel.
Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.

Both the US and Israel have said it would be unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear programme will be used to generate electricity.

The US has refused to rule out a military strike on Iran, but has said it will try to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means.

Enrichment activities

Mr Rohani, secretary-general of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said Iran's ability to produce nuclear parts had made it "invulnerable" to attack since it could simply rebuild whatever was destroyed.

"If such an attack takes place then of course we will retaliate and we will definitely accelerate our activities to complete our fuel cycle and make nuclear fuel," he said.


Uranium enrichment is Iran's right

Hassan Rohani
Iranian nuclear negotiator
"But I do not think the United States itself will take such a risk," he added. "They know our capabilities for retaliating against such attacks."

Mr Rohani said that not even the offer of lifting US sanctions or security guarantees from Washington would be enough to make Iran abandon its enrichment programme.

"Uranium enrichment is Iran's right," he said.

On Sunday, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said intelligence estimates indicated Iran was some years away from developing nuclear arms.

Iran has agreed to suspend all its enrichment activities during negotiations with Britain, France and Germany.

The US is not taking part in negotiations, and wants Iran to be referred to the UN Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions.

The European countries would like to use a package of incentives to induce Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, but Tehran has said it is disappointed with what is on offer so far.

It says it can only continue talks for a matter of months, not years.

Enriched uranium can be used to produce nuclear power, but the technology behind it can also be used to develop weapons-grade nuclear material.

[Darth Wong]

Why can't they use a heavy water-moderated reactor design which does not require enriched fuel?

[Xenophobe3691]

Why can't they use a heavy water-moderated reactor design which does not require enriched fuel?

Because they're lying through their teeth and actually want nuclear weapons?

[MKSheppard]

Why can't they use a heavy water-moderated reactor design which does not require enriched fuel?

Or more to the point, why do they even need massive bunkers that are the size of a factory, literally, with 3 meters of concrete ceiling, and 75 feet of dirt on top of the concrete?

[Stormbringer]

Why can't they use a heavy water-moderated reactor design which does not require enriched fuel?

Or more to the point, why do they even need massive bunkers that are the size of a factory, literally, with 3 meters of concrete ceiling, and 75 feet of dirt on top of the concrete?

To force us to make an artificial sunrise over the place?


But seriously, all this threatening doesn't really go over well for them. The extremely belligerent and bellicose reaction of theirs only goes to prove they aren't peaceful. That they consider it a retaliation to go through with their nuclear program isn't going to calm the US nor win Europe's trust. If anything it seems like it will harden hearts against them and convince the world community beyond a shadow of doubt (if any exists at all) that they aim to have nuclear weapons. And with the wrong (right?) rhetoric convince the world community that they are actually crazy enough to use them.

But I find that all to the good since it might just mean something is done about it before they wind up as another nuclear insane asylum like North Korea.

[Alan Bolte]

If I was Iran, I'd sure as hell put my new nuclear plant inside such a shelter even if I wasn't making bombs, which I'm sure they're planning on. No need to waste capital on a power plant only to have it easily killed by an airstrike. Admittedly, that's extra money for the bunker, but I suppose it would be worth it.
I predict Iran will start sending out press releases to rival NK's insanity before they manage to make some bombs. Not that they aren't headed in that direction already.

[Rogue 9]

Hassan Rohani told Reuters news agency there was nothing the West could do that would persuade Tehran to scrap its nuclear programme.

I beg to differ.

http://renegade.frozenflame.org/My%20Pi ... vic166.jpg

http://renegade.frozenflame.org/My%20Pi ... gbu-28.jpg

The reduction of the program's facilities into junkyards is quite a persuasive reason to stop, since it's hard to work inside a bomb crater.

Massive images stricken. Masturbate to the B2 at home, Rouge, don't do it in my forum.
-Your Friendly Neighborhood Rampant AI

[HemlockGrey]

Rogue, could you please show a little common courtesy? Those huge pics are fucking up the formatting on my laptop.

[Stofsk]

Rogue, could you please show a little common courtesy? Those huge pics are fucking up the formatting on my laptop.

Not to mention that we've seen them before.

Ok we get it: B2 bombers are awesome. You don't need to beat us over the head with it.

[Durandal]

Rogue, stop posting fucking massive pictures all over threads. I've had enough of your wanking over the B2.

[Rogue 9]

Rogue, stop posting fucking massive pictures all over threads. I've had enough of your wanking over the B2.

Two threads hardly qualifies as "all over," but point taken.

[CJvR]

Why can't they use a heavy water-moderated reactor design which does not require enriched fuel?

Because then they could not build bombs, which is the obvious purpose of this latest insanity.

[Vympel]

I just can't work up the effort to actually care about this. Proliferation is bad, mmkay, but the whole "Islamic country getting nukes, run for the hills!" smacks of overblown paranoia to me (those crazy Ayatollahs are going to nuke us! etc etc). Want to stop them, fine, but you won't find me giving two shits about it either way.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'd like to hear what our resident contrarian has to say on this matter whom has readily defended Iran's nuclear quest in the past.




And there we have it.

[The Kernel]

I think we can agree that Iran is indeed working on nuclear weapons. Not surprising, if I was in charge over there, I'd be looking for a deterrent too, preferably sooner (while the US is still tied up in Iraq) then later (when the US military is capable of mounting a major offensive against Iran).

I'm not really interested in debating the wisdom of allowing Iran to have nukes, but we've only created this problem for ourselves with the invasion of Iraq and the very public critiques of the Iran's regime (calling leaders a despot on CNN is not the best way to start a negotiation) so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the impossible situation we are in right now.

Looking forward, about the only thing we can do right now is accept the fact that another nuclear power is likely to emerge in the Middle East. Short of a full scale attack on Iran and the tension that this is likely to create (think destabalizing the entire region) there is little else we can do.

Interestingly enough, Iran is in the perfect position right now. If we don't attack, then they have their nuclear detterent. If we do, then they lose the strategic importance of a few nuclear facilities, but they gain a massive propaganda weapon that will stabalize the Iranian regime for decades. They win no matter what action we take.

[Vympel]

I'd like to hear what our resident contrarian has to say on this matter whom has readily defended Iran's nuclear quest in the past.




And there we have it.

Who's our resident contrarian?

[Ghost Rider]

I'd like to hear what our resident contrarian has to say on this matter whom has readily defended Iran's nuclear quest in the past.




And there we have it.

Who's our resident contrarian?

The only person who called himself such.

BoredShirtless.

[Darth Wong]

I'd like to hear what our resident contrarian has to say on this matter whom has readily defended Iran's nuclear quest in the past.




And there we have it.

Who's our resident contrarian?

The only person who called himself such.

BoredShirtless.

Actually, I slapped the label "contrarian" on him, to which he promptly (and rather amusingly) denied that he was a contrarian.

[Joe]

Maybe his saying he wasn't a contrarian was him just being...contrarian. Irony?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Who's our resident contrarian?

The only person who called himself such.

BoredShirtless.

Actually, I slapped the label "contrarian" on him, to which he promptly (and rather amusingly) denied that he was a contrarian.

Which proved your point, the same way this exchange goes. "Stop arguing!" "I am NOT arguing!" "We are arguing right now!" "No we're not!"

"But it's just for electricity!"

[Darth Servo]

Actually, I slapped the label "contrarian" on him, to which he promptly (and rather amusingly) denied that he was a contrarian.

"you deny everything"

BoredShirtless: "I do not"

[Axis Kast]

I'm not really interested in debating the wisdom of allowing Iran to have nukes, but we've only created this problem for ourselves with the invasion of Iraq and the very public critiques of the Iran's regime (calling leaders a despot on CNN is not the best way to start a negotiation) so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the impossible situation we are in right now.

This indicates that you feel, had we not invaded Iraq or mentioned out loud that Iran was A Very Bad Place(TM), they might not have chosen to pursue nuclear weapons. Do you really believe that?

I just can't work up the effort to actually care about this. Proliferation is bad, mmkay, but the whole "Islamic country getting nukes, run for the hills!" smacks of overblown paranoia to me (those crazy Ayatollahs are going to nuke us! etc etc). Want to stop them, fine, but you won't find me giving two shits about it either way.

The problem is that the currently unstable political situation in Iran has the capacity to turn into a political free-for-all within the next several years - meaning that there could be a situation in which part of the same military charged with protecting the weapons might also be set off the hook, so to speak. Who knows what would happen if some rogue element of the military, which sympathized with al-Qaeda or other terror groups, decided to exchange fissile material or technology?

[Chmee]

I'm not really interested in debating the wisdom of allowing Iran to have nukes, but we've only created this problem for ourselves with the invasion of Iraq and the very public critiques of the Iran's regime (calling leaders a despot on CNN is not the best way to start a negotiation) so I have a hard time feeling much sympathy for the impossible situation we are in right now.

This indicates that you feel, had we not invaded Iraq or mentioned out loud that Iran was A Very Bad Place(TM), they might not have chosen to pursue nuclear weapons. Do you really believe that?

I just can't work up the effort to actually care about this. Proliferation is bad, mmkay, but the whole "Islamic country getting nukes, run for the hills!" smacks of overblown paranoia to me (those crazy Ayatollahs are going to nuke us! etc etc). Want to stop them, fine, but you won't find me giving two shits about it either way.

The problem is that the currently unstable political situation in Iran has the capacity to turn into a political free-for-all within the next several years - meaning that there could be a situation in which part of the same military charged with protecting the weapons might also be set off the hook, so to speak. Who knows what would happen if some rogue element of the military, which sympathized with al-Qaeda or other terror groups, decided to exchange fissile material or technology?

Now all you have to do is decide whether the possibility that another state will someday be poorly led and possess dangerous weapons is sufficient cause to ignore the U.N. Charter (that we drafted) and commit an act of war upon that state, just because we can with so little fear of immediate reprisal.

[Axis Kast]

Now all you have to do is decide whether the possibility that another state will someday be poorly led and possess dangerous weapons is sufficient cause to ignore the U.N. Charter (that we drafted) and commit an act of war upon that state, just because we can with so little fear of immediate reprisal.

And that, my friend, is a problem that underlies the realist theory of international relations in the modern era.

I have three points, in regard to your statement.

First, I did not add a value judgement to my observation regarding the efficacy of a preventative (conventional) strike. I'd have to see cost/benefit analysis from somebody better versed on the military side of things in order to make a better conclusion, although I don't deny that, as of this moment, I think it's an option that ought to be looked into.

Second, if attacking Iran really can be done with impunity, we should do it. Our response to North Korea already proved that we won't dare tangle with a nuclear-armed state. The lesson for future proliferators is clear.

Third, I don't give two shits about international law. International opinion is one of the elements of the cost/benefit analysis of any strike. It is not, however, the be-all/end-all determinant of what is valid or correct in my worldview, as you doubtless know. We drafted the U.N. Charter not in the airy hope for a better world, but because it was a chance to force other nations to bend over for the rest of time.

[Chmee]

Now all you have to do is decide whether the possibility that another state will someday be poorly led and possess dangerous weapons is sufficient cause to ignore the U.N. Charter (that we drafted) and commit an act of war upon that state, just because we can with so little fear of immediate reprisal.

And that, my friend, is a problem that underlies the realist theory of international relations in the modern era.

I have three points, in regard to your statement.

First, I did not add a value judgement to my observation regarding the efficacy of a preventative (conventional) strike. I'd have to see cost/benefit analysis from somebody better versed on the military side of things in order to make a better conclusion, although I don't deny that, as of this moment, I think it's an option that ought to be looked into.

Second, if attacking Iran really can be done with impunity, we should do it. Our response to North Korea already proved that we won't dare tangle with a nuclear-armed state. The lesson for future proliferators is clear.

Third, I don't give two shits about international law. International opinion is one of the elements of the cost/benefit analysis of any strike. It is not, however, the be-all/end-all determinant of what is valid or correct in my worldview, as you doubtless know. We drafted the U.N. Charter not in the airy hope for a better world, but because it was a chance to force other nations to bend over for the rest of time.

Well ... an interesting interpretation of the Charter. I'd argue that the purpose of the Charter is just what it says it is -- to prevent world war. And the Charter's view of how to do that (which incidentally was America's view back then) is that you do it by collectively deterring states from taking unilateral military action against other states. The Charter is philosophically pretty simple: aggression bad, negotiation good.

Does the Charter cherish international law? Not really, and nor do I. The law is only a means. What I cherish is the end, which is international ORDER. What the Charter presumes is that a world governed by the principle 'Nations willl take military action whenever they feel it suits their security needs and have the ability to do so' is a fundamentally unstable world. If your definition of 'self-defense' is that flexible, then there's no longer any Charter, you're just at the pre-U.N. model of 'might makes right.'

What the Charter recognized is that memories are long, and power is fleeting. Eventually, the people you bombed when you could do so with impunity are in a position to do it back to you, and that's how you get to world wars.

When our means of 'diplomacy' is just bombing the living crap out of people who never bombed us in the first place, I'm concerned that their lesson will not be 'oh let's give up and quit trying to have nasty weapons,' but 'let's give up on nukes and focus on some really nasty bioweapon to hit those warmongering infidels with!'

The Charter is very forgiving on self defense ... attack when you must to prevent an attack on your nation. But we're pushing that horizon of 'when you must' into such a hypothetical zone these days, it seems to render it meaningless.