Sarkozy: France certain Iran working on nuclear arms

[TimothyC]

French president says, 'It is a certainty to all our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear (weapons) program' adds he will not 'shake the hand of someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map'

AFP
Published: 09.16.09, 07:34 / Israel News

French intelligence agencies are certain that Iran is hiding a nuclear weapons program, President Nicolas Sarkozy said Tuesday.

"We cannot let Iran acquire nuclear" weapons because it would also be a threat to Israel, Sarkozy said during a meeting at the Elysee presidential palace with lawmakers from his conservative UMP party.

"It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear (weapons) program," he said.

The French leader also said he would not "shake the hand of someone who wants to wipe Israel off the map", referring to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Also Tuesday, US President Barack Obama discussed with Sarkozy ways to bring Iran "into compliance" with UN resolutions on its nuclear program ahead of diplomatic talks, the White House said.

"The two leaders discussed the status of diplomatic efforts to bring Iran into compliance with its international obligations on its nuclear program," a statement said after Obama spoke by telephone Tuesday with Sarkozy.

France and the four other permanent members of the UN Security Council - Britain, China, Russia and the United States - as well as Germany will hold talks with Iran on its nuclear program on October 1.

The United States, the European Union and Israel fear that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear power program, but Tehran denies the charges and says the program is peaceful.

The United Nations Security Council has imposed three sets of sanctions against Iran over its refusal to freeze its uranium enrichment activities.

And Zero just killed the program to defend Europe with a missile shield.

[Nephtys]

EASTERN Europe. Which was about Russia, and has nothing to do with Iran. With something that the recipient countries weren't particularly fancying either. So?

[Garibaldi]

And Zero just killed the program to defend Europe with a missile shield.

Europe is already defended by an American missile shield, although actually I suppose it would be more accurate to describe it as a shield of missiles. Calling the Iranian nuclear program a threat to Israel is preposterous enough; calling it a threat to Europe is crossing well over the boundaries of the absurd.

EASTERN Europe. Which was about Russia, and has nothing to do with Iran. With something that the recipient countries weren't particularly fancying either. So?

The justification for the missile defense system was in fact that it would defend against Iran.

[TimothyC]

EASTERN Europe. Which was about Russia, and has nothing to do with Iran. With something that the recipient countries weren't particularly fancying either. So?

In Eastern Europe the System would have defended Europe and the US from missiles launched in Iran, and would have defended Europe from missiles launched in Russia.

And Zero just killed the program to defend Europe with a missile shield.

Europe is already defended by an American missile shield, although actually I suppose it would be more accurate to describe it as a shield of missiles.

Which doesn't mean squat if they don't fear a retaliatory strike.

[Garibaldi]

Which doesn't mean squat if they don't fear a retaliatory strike.

If you believe there is even a possibility of this you are verging on mental disability. Name one instance where the Iranian leadership has acted in such a way as to suggest they believe their state to be invincible.

[Simon_Jester]

To be sure, Ahmadinejad is a crazy, crazy man. But is he crazy enough to believe he can survive a direct hit from a nuclear warhead, like some bizarre Islamic version of Superman?

The various NATO democracies have had Joseph Stalin point nuclear warheads down their throats; I see no reason why we should consider Iran any more likely to do something murderous that invites a nuclear counterattack than he was.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Which doesn't mean squat if they don't fear a retaliatory strike.

MAD doesn't work, it never did. The US in the fifties had nuclear weapons primacy and during the whole point of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that the USSR only had a couple dozen ICBM's and their reliability was such that they expected only a handful of those would reach their target in the US, meanwhile in the counterexchange Europe and the Soviet Union would be devastated.

[Nephtys]

Which doesn't mean squat if they don't fear a retaliatory strike.

MAD doesn't work, it never did. The US in the fifties had nuclear weapons primacy and during the whole point of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that the USSR only had a couple dozen ICBM's and their reliability was such that they expected only a handful of those would reach their target in the US, meanwhile in the counterexchange Europe and the Soviet Union would be devastated.

General Ripper, your point is so obvious. OF course, the United States would only suffer perhaps 20-30 million dead tops, and be therefore the winner!

Thank goodness we won WW3 on such obvious, quantified analysis of the situation. Our health bar is still at about 70 percent, while they're at zero, therefore, TKO?

[Straha]

To be sure, Ahmadinejad is a crazy, crazy man. But is he crazy enough to believe he can survive a direct hit from a nuclear warhead, like some bizarre Islamic version of Superman?

Iran wont necessarily be hit by a Nuclear Warhead. Will the U.S. commit genocide against Iran, and possibly lose Hawaii and Los Angeles in the process, and then commit itself to a long-term war with them because Iran nuked Abu Dhabi? Would Israel be willing to risk war when it knows a handful of nukes launched against it could, actually, wipe it off the face of the map?

[Samuel]

Is the president the man who gives the launch order? I'd think the clergy wouldn't let such insane power out of their hands.

[Straha]

Is the president the man who gives the launch order? I'd think the clergy wouldn't let such insane power out of their hands.

He's not, the military is headed and controlled by the Supreme Leader.

[Nephtys]

To be sure, Ahmadinejad is a crazy, crazy man. But is he crazy enough to believe he can survive a direct hit from a nuclear warhead, like some bizarre Islamic version of Superman?

Iran wont necessarily be hit by a Nuclear Warhead. Will the U.S. commit genocide against Iran, and possibly lose Hawaii and Los Angeles in the process, and then commit itself to a long-term war with them because Iran nuked Abu Dhabi? Would Israel be willing to risk war when it knows a handful of nukes launched against it could, actually, wipe it off the face of the map?

I think you missed a step here.

Why would Hawaii or LA be destroyed?
Why would a war against Iran be 'long term' if they get nuked for committing the greatest international no-no for the last half century?

[Straha]

To be sure, Ahmadinejad is a crazy, crazy man. But is he crazy enough to believe he can survive a direct hit from a nuclear warhead, like some bizarre Islamic version of Superman?

Iran wont necessarily be hit by a Nuclear Warhead. Will the U.S. commit genocide against Iran, and possibly lose Hawaii and Los Angeles in the process, and then commit itself to a long-term war with them because Iran nuked Abu Dhabi? Would Israel be willing to risk war when it knows a handful of nukes launched against it could, actually, wipe it off the face of the map?

I think you missed a step here.

Why would Hawaii or LA be destroyed?

If the United States nukes Iran and Iran replies in kind to reachable targets. I'm not arguing that this is about to happen, mind you, just that it's where the situation is heading as it stands right now if Iran does follow through in developing a Nuclear Weapon.

Why would a war against Iran be 'long term' if they get nuked for committing the greatest international no-no for the last half century?

Suppose the United States nuked Tehran, right now. Ignoring the rest of the world do you think Iran would say "Oh well. We got nuked." and give up to whatever demands the United States made? Or do you think Iran would say "This means war." and fight back? If the U.S. nukes Iran, even in retaliation to what it did to another country, it's only starting a war that it has to prosecute to the end. And very few leaders are going to say that the end is worth the cost of millions of U.S. lives, and billions (if not Trillions) of dollars in damages.

[Nephtys]

Ah. I think we have a misunderstanding here on the specific scenario.

The US is not going to ever fire the first nuke, ever. Without literally the most amazingly dire of circumstances, of which I can't even think of at the moment. It's political suicide for the leadership for a generation, and would utterly, utterly destroy and international political capital for a long, long while.

I think the idea is, while it's very much preferred that Iran never gets nuclear capability, even if they do, it's more of a 'direct' problem for allies comfort (IE, Israel, or even vaguelypossibly Europe) more than an imminent, clear and present threat. But even then, if Iran sends a tracable nuke (via missile), then then they're going to be plastered, and the international community will do it as something necessary, so such a thing never happens again.

ESPECIALLY if it's Europe really. They'll be ground to dust without mercy incredibly quickly. Just think how Bush's gang could pile on Iraq using 9/11 fervor, and that's just a few rogue individuals with zero ties. A smoking gun of an atrocity worse by an order of magnitude would justify complete annihilation in most of the US population, and a good bit of the world too.

[Straha]

I'm tired and otherwise occupied. I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying but Iran doesn't see it in the same light as you do.

The US is not going to ever fire the first nuke, ever. Without literally the most amazingly dire of circumstances, of which I can't even think of at the moment. It's political suicide for the leadership for a generation, and would utterly, utterly destroy and international political capital for a long, long while.

The question isn't if it will fire the first nuke. It's if it will fire the second Nuke. If Iran nukes, and I pull this out at semi-random here, Abu Dhabi and declares/shows the capacity to nuke the U.S. if it directly intervenes will the U.S. intervene?

If the answer is yes the U.S. will have to fight a prolonged war with Iran and the president will have to be able to justify losing millions of American lives for the sake of dead Arabs. As long as s/he can't do that then Iran can act with semi-impunity. If the answer is no then the UAE, and America's other allies in the region, are going to be very nervous in the future.

ESPECIALLY if it's Europe really. They'll be ground to dust without mercy incredibly quickly. Just think how Bush's gang could pile on Iraq using 9/11 fervor, and that's just a few rogue individuals with zero ties. A smoking gun of an atrocity worse by an order of magnitude would justify complete annihilation in most of the US population, and a good bit of the world too.

Afghanistan couldn't strike back, Iran could. Do you think the the U.S. will declare itself willing to suffer the worst loss of Civilian life in its history for the sake of dead Europeans?

[Samuel]

Afghanistan couldn't strike back, Iran could. Do you think the the U.S. will declare itself willing to suffer the worst loss of Civilian life in its history for the sake of dead Europeans?

Yeah, it isn't like France or England have their own nuclear arsenal...

If Iran nukes, and I pull this out at semi-random here, Abu Dhabi and declares/shows the capacity to nuke the U.S. if it directly intervenes will the U.S. intervene?

Could we sneak in a boomer and do a decapitation strike?

[Seggybop]

If the answer is yes the U.S. will have to fight a prolonged war with Iran and the president will have to be able to justify losing millions of American lives for the sake of dead Arabs. As long as s/he can't do that then Iran can act with semi-impunity. If the answer is no then the UAE, and America's other allies in the region, are going to be very nervous in the future.

Against what would the US be fighting? The entirety of the Iranian armed forces should be exterminated in the initial retaliatory attack. This scenario would be a terrible situation all around with countless problems, but fighting against the Iranian military wouldn't be part of it.

[Straha]

Afghanistan couldn't strike back, Iran could. Do you think the the U.S. will declare itself willing to suffer the worst loss of Civilian life in its history for the sake of dead Europeans?

Yeah, it isn't like France or England have their own nuclear arsenal...

Alright. Do you think Gordon Brown is willing to risk London for dead Germans? Or Sarkozy? How about for dead Arabs?

This outlook is why Iran isn't ruffled by the threat of a retaliatory Nuclear strike. If it uses Nukes for local interests it doesn't think the west would be willing, or able, to interfere.

Against what would the US be fighting? The entirety of the Iranian armed forces should be exterminated in the initial retaliatory attack. This scenario would be a terrible situation all around with countless problems, but fighting against the Iranian military wouldn't be part of it.

Two problems with this, first the effective reserve of the Iranian armed forces, the Basiij, probably number in the millions. They're spread throughout the country and could cause all sorts of trouble regionally and in guerilla actions. Second let's concede the destruction of the Iranian military. What next?

To use the blatantly obvious analogy, the United States was able to crush the Iraqi armed forces in 2003 in no real time at all. But we can all see how that that was only a tiny fraction of the fight.

[Samuel]

Alright. Do you think Gordon Brown is willing to risk London for dead Germans? Or Sarkozy? How about for dead Arabs?

This outlook is why Iran isn't ruffled by the threat of a retaliatory Nuclear strike. If it uses Nukes for local interests it doesn't think the west would be willing, or able, to interfere.

If only they were in some sort of military alliance that required responce in case of an unprovoked attack... as for Arabs, we have been willing to spend lives to help them. The question is how many are we willing to spend.

To use the blatantly obvious analogy, the United States was able to crush the Iraqi armed forces in 2003 in no real time at all. But we can all see how that that was only a tiny fraction of the fight.

I can't compose a reply that wouldn't appear blatantly sociopathic. Suffice it to say that in the case of a nuclear exchange occupation will not be a concern.

[Straha]

Alright. Do you think Gordon Brown is willing to risk London for dead Germans? Or Sarkozy? How about for dead Arabs?

This outlook is why Iran isn't ruffled by the threat of a retaliatory Nuclear strike. If it uses Nukes for local interests it doesn't think the west would be willing, or able, to interfere.

If only they were in some sort of military alliance that required responce in case of an unprovoked attack... as for Arabs, we have been willing to spend lives to help them. The question is how many are we willing to spend.

Right. You're Gordon Brown. Iran has said that if you attack it they will nuke London. Iran then nukes Bahrain. Do you nuke Tehran? Will you start a very short series of actions which will end up with your country nuked, millions of citizens dead and your economy crippled?

How about if Iran nukes, say, Frankfurt (which I admit I pull out of my ass to make a point. Feel free to replace this with any other NATO city)?

To use the blatantly obvious analogy, the United States was able to crush the Iraqi armed forces in 2003 in no real time at all. But we can all see how that that was only a tiny fraction of the fight.

I can't compose a reply that wouldn't appear blatantly sociopathic. Suffice it to say that in the case of a nuclear exchange occupation will not be a concern.

Ah. So, you're saying standing U.S./NATO policy should be to kill millions of people in response to an attack elsewhere?

[Samuel]

How about if Iran nukes, say, Frankfurt (which I admit I pull out of my ass to make a point. Feel free to replace this with any other NATO city)?

That is the entire point of NATO. If you attack any one member you are at war with all of them.

Ah. So, you're saying standing U.S./NATO policy should be to kill millions of people in response to an attack elsewhere?

Iran attacks country x
US retaliates (embargo, threat of war, attack of nuclear silos, etc)
Iran nukes US
US obliterates Iran

Do you have any particular reason the US wouldn't follow this path? After all, if Iran responds to US retaliation with a nuclear strike, they will be obliterated. And the US cannot back down- to do so means that any state with nuclear weapons can use them upon their neighbors without fear of a responce.

If they are rational they will not nuke the US or our allies because if they do, they will die. It is a MAD scenario, except one side has clear superiority. They can hurt us, but we can destroy them. Their threat is a bluff because to use it makes its purpose suddenly useless- if they use it, we have no reason not to destroy them.

[Ritterin Sophia]

General Ripper, your point is so obvious. OF course, the United States would only suffer perhaps 20-30 million dead tops, and be therefore the winner!

Thank goodness we won WW3 on such obvious, quantified analysis of the situation. Our health bar is still at about 70 percent, while they're at zero, therefore, TKO?

We would have won, but that's not the point, he was arguing that taking away MAD would make us want to nuke someone, we didn't when we had the chance. Instead we followed the plan of George F Kennan, which posited that the Communist Bloc nations could be defeated without direct engagement through containment. I would never seriously suggest a nuclear strike when the same outcome can be achieved with less loss or resources.

Ah. So, you're saying standing U.S./NATO policy should be to kill millions of people in response to an attack elsewhere?

That's not at all what he's saying. What he's saying is that in a nuclear exchange between the US and Iran an occupation is counterproductive, it's a waste of resources since they're no longer able to wage any kind of stand-up war with anyone.

It is a MAD scenario, except one side has clear superiority. They can hurt us, but we can destroy them.

If by mad you mean insane, yes. If by MAD you mean Mutually Assured Destruction, then no, in such a scenario both nations are destroyed.

[Darth Yoshi]

The Iranian leadership isn't stupid. Being the first to launch a nuke is an invitation for everyone to step in and crush them into the dust. There's only one way to win a nuclear exchange, and that's to have enough nukes to wipe out the capabilities of everyone who could possibly strike back, the intel to find all those enemy assets, and the ability to get your nukes into a position where you can take them out before they respond. Iran will never be able to fulfill all of those requirements, and saber-rattling aside, they know that.

[Nephtys]

Straha, if any European nation is attacked with nuclear arms, the others and the US are going to pound the aggressor nation into dust. Because what? How can you hold the world hostage AFTER YOU'VE OPENED FIRE on the hostages? Their entire defense lies on having the ability to pull the trigger. A defense which disappears after you've turned yourself rightly into the world's pariah.

If a less well protected country is hit, such as the neutral nation of insignifigistan, I can imagine a conventional effort being launched to destroy the Iranian Government and military. If a country of even minor importance to the West is hit, I can see retaliatory nuclear strikes on their military assets.

And seriously as an aside, if any US cities is ever touched, 90 percent of the population will immediately clammor for the destruction of Iran, varying from the complete obliteration of their government, to outright genocide.

[Guardsman Bass]

Straha, why are you even assuming that Iran would even have a chance at hitting the US after nuking, say, Bahrain? The US easily has enough nukes to turn Iran into a glowing parking lot, and probably wipe out their arsenal of missiles in the process. They could do that in the retaliatory strike.