Iran's Nuclear Plans

[Adak]

The Israeli PM challenged us (in his most recent UN address), to "draw a red line" where Iran must stop their effort to create more enriched Uranium, or face military attacks to force them to stop.

We've had several years of economic sanctions designed to stop this, but that clearly hasn't done the job. According to some, they'll have enough material for a nuclear bomb, by some time next year.

The Iranians say they will NOT be stopping their enrichment, and I believe them. Will they go on to make nuclear weapons? No one knows.

Despite smart bombs, there would be thousands killed if an attack was made. Mostly Iranians at or near the nuclear processing sites, but some civilians and military personnel on both sides, also.

Wouldn't that move both sides towards more war? Historically, it has had just that effect, on bombed countries.

Do you believe we should "draw a red line" as described in the UN speech by the Israeli PM, and if we do draw such a line, and it is crossed, what should we do then?

I realize "bomb them into the stone age", is one approach, but I'm looking for more sensible suggestions.

What do you think?

[Rhianne]

To be clear - do we think the Iranians have no right to defend themselves?

[xoxoxoBruce]

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

Agreed. We made an obligation to help protect Israel from attack, not support if they are going on the offensive.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Agreed. We made an obligation to help protect Israel from attack, not support if they are going on the offensive.

Although there are improved Minuteman anit-missile missiles in Israel, I believe there is no proven defense currently, against a nuclear attack. Could be aerial bombs or missiles, or even trucks, used for delivery of the nuclear bomb.

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

First, you are making the assumption that Iran will use the nuclear weapon on Israel. While there is a chance, both the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel do not believe they will.

Second, you are assuming we can eliminate Iran's nuclear program. We can't without a ground war.

Third, you are not addressing the consequences of attacking Iran. What will they, and the international community, do in response. If we attack on a highly speculative reason, we will get blamed for Iran's response. This is not good for US interests.

Because the Iranians have shown that they favor supporting terrorism, over several decades, now.

What about Pakistan?

We've seen that spending trillions of dollars on Green energy, has gotten us next to nothing for an adequate power supply. Truth is, wind and solar just don't have the "oomph!" that we need for our power supply. Windmills may look quite impressive, but their actual power output per windmill, averaged over a year, is much too small to serve our needs.

Same with solar. It's nice on a sunny day, but just not adequate by a long shot. And no, adding them together is not NEARLY enough. A drop in the bucket x 2 is not near enough.

The same thing was said about shale gas/oil extraction ten years ago. Technology improves rapidly and can completely change the energy scenario in a short amount of time. I know people researching on both and the fields are moving very quickly.

Realistically, wind and solar are not good macro-energy sources. They take up too much space compared to coal, oil, gas, and nuclear. However, they are very good micro-energy sources. This is the future I see with wind and solar.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Adak

snip--

You either remove the threat of such an attack, or you risk receiving it - period. At some point, you take the offensive, because it's your only defense.

This is by far the scariest idea in this thread.

If you believe it, and I think you do based on the context of your other statements, then by this logic, war is inevitable. Do you also believe this is true for other countries, say, Israel or Iran? Then war is inevitable, since the *removal of the threat of such an attack* will not come from the holders of such weapons.

The ONLY time voluntary disarmament has happened has been in the framework of the START treaties. And still, unimaginable destructive power still exists. If your position listed above is true, then how can we avoid war? Do you think Iran can be persuaded to stop their work that some find threatening? Where is the path to peace?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Rhianne

To be clear - do we think the Iranians have no right to defend themselves?

No one is threatening Iran, beyond their nuclear program. Iraq won't be going to war with them anytime soon, for sure. Iran has huge influence there. Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia, will not attack Iran either, EXCEPT over the nuclear enrichment program.

If the Iranians weren't so bellicose and threatening to wipe out <some nation>, then I don't believe Iran would have any problems going nuclear - including weaponry.

Lots of other countries have gone nuclear, and while we don't like the spread of nuclear weapons, we haven't gone to war over it.

I think we've expended too much blood and treasure on Israel already. Netanyahu reminds me of a playground instigator, it's about time to bitch slap him and tell him he's not calling the shots. Don't forget Israel is a military ally not a friend.

I'd have to say that Netanyahu is *responding* to the playground instigator - which is Iran. Being repeatedly told that you will be "wiped off the face of the earth, and oh by the way - we're enriching uranium", by Muslims, is bound to have that effect on anyone. Especially Israeli's, who have borne the brunt of years of Iranian sponsored terrorism.

The ONLY thing that REALLY irritates me about the Israeli's, is their insistence upon using spy's on us. I know it's common as a cloudy day for nations to spy on each other, but I'd dock them a million dollars of foreign aid for every spying incident against us - permanently. That is such a "biting the hand that feeds you" kind of thing, and a damn insult.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Adak

No one is threatening Iran, beyond their nuclear program. Iraq won't be going to war with them anytime soon, for sure. Iran has huge influence there. Israel, the US, and Saudi Arabia, will not attack Iran either, EXCEPT over the nuclear enrichment program.

And we need them because of those damn Canadians?

The ONLY thing that REALLY irritates me about the Israeli's, is their insistence upon using spy's on us. I know it's common as a cloudy day for nations to spy on each other, but I'd dock them a million dollars of foreign aid for every spying incident against us - permanently. That is such a "biting the hand that feeds you" kind of thing, and a damn insult.

Well that, and sinking the USS Liberty, killing 8 of our sailors.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Adak

Do you believe we should "draw a red line" as described in the UN speech by the Israeli PM, and if we do draw such a line, and it is crossed, what should we do then?

We should not publicly "draw a red line". That ties our hands if Iran calls our bluff and gives them time to prepare for an attack.

I realize "bomb them into the stone age", is one approach, but I'm looking for more sensible suggestions.

What do you think?

For right now, keep the status quo and be willing to make a deal with the Iranian regime. Our current sanctions are crippling the Iranian economy, especially the Revolutionary Guards, and many Iranians are VERY upset with the regime. We have people monitoring Iranian nuclear facilities so we will know if they make a run for the bomb. We are basically trying to break them before they get too close for comfort.

If Iran gets the bomb, there is a very small chance they will actually use it but may become much bolder in supporting their proxies throughout the world. As much as neoconservatives talk, the Iranian regime is a rational one. The CIA recognizes this and the Israeli equivalent recognizes this. If they get the bomb, they will likely act just as North Korea and Pakistan did, which BTW are much more unstable regimes, and protect it all costs. They will not give their special toy away. Remember, we don't trust politicians in this country. What makes us think that Iranian politicians are any more truthful?

However, Iran getting the bomb is against US national interests. I have confidence we will do something if they get too close but no one knows what we are planning. My top guesses are a bombing campaign against the nuclear facilities or a very nasty cyberwarfare campaign. BTW, we are at (cyber) war with Iran right now.

[ZenGum]

Israel is believed to have a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Bombing nuclear facilities could lead to ... consequences.

Why the heck should the west care so much? Oh yeah, oil. So instead of spending another trillion dollars on another middle-east war, spend a trillion dollars on converting our industry to solar-hydrogen power. We could, like, leave them alone. Forever.

[tw]

George Jr announced the axis of evil: countries that America would unilaterally attack with no justification. Then George Jr attacks Iraq. What do the other 'axis of evil' do? They better damn well better have nuclear weapons. So both nations divert major efforts into getting those weapons.

Also as a result of George Jr's threat: Ahmadinejad, a hard liner, is overwhelmingly elected (by over 60%) as president of Iran. So America got the 'axis of evil' it wanted. Welcome to inevitable consequences a decade later.

Nothing new. Actually quite predictable. These consequences were discussed what - maybe nine years ago in the Cellar?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Israel is believed to have a couple of hundred nuclear warheads.

Bombing nuclear facilities could lead to ... consequences.

Why the heck should the west care so much? Oh yeah, oil. So instead of spending another trillion dollars on another middle-east war, spend a trillion dollars on converting our industry to solar-hydrogen power. We could, like, leave them alone. Forever.

Because the Iranians have shown that they favor supporting terrorism, over several decades, now. The oil is important, with the Straits of Hormuz right in the Persian Gulf, and so easy to disrupt. With nuclear bombs and delivery systems, the belief is we'd be dragged into a nuclear war by Iran, within decades. Probably because they would try to wipe out Israel, but other Mid-Eastern countries (like Saudi Arabia), would be targets, as well.

We've seen that spending trillions of dollars on Green energy, has gotten us next to nothing for an adequate power supply. Truth is, wind and solar just don't have the "oomph!" that we need for our power supply. Windmills may look quite impressive, but their actual power output per windmill, averaged over a year, is much too small to serve our needs.

Same with solar. It's nice on a sunny day, but just not adequate by a long shot. And no, adding them together is not NEARLY enough. A drop in the bucket x 2 is not near enough.

[regular.joe]

I say we take them at their word, they are not developing nuclear weapons.

Then in a couple of years, if they should end up with nuclear weapons we crush their nuts in a vice. I'd bet we would get lots of support for using the vice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

IThen in a couple of years, if they should end up with nuclear weapons we crush their nuts in a vice.

More relevant is what is required to justify a war. Because those basic rules were violated, then Vietnam was a massive defeat. Because the US stayed out of WWII until those conditions were met, then the victory was massive. Becauase those rules were violated, the US wasted thousands of American soldiers and $trillions on Mission Accomplished for no gain.

Netanyahu is justifying war by violating basic concepts. His niave and extremist rhetoric also explained an Israeli disaster in their last Lebanon invasion. And explains a resulting disaster for Israel if he unilaterally "Pearl Harbors" Iran.

First requirement to justify war: a smoking gun. An attack on Iran can only be justified by a smoking gun such as the WTC or Pearl Harbor. Unilaterally attacking justified only by fear is what backwater dictatorships, wacko extremists, and losers do.