Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Developments  
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 832 times:

Just thought I'd post a few interesting articles regarding developments about the Iranian nuclear issue:

Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-03-08-07-16-28
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran threatened the United States with "harm and pain" Wednesday for its role in hauling Tehran before the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear program.

Israel will have to act on Iran if UN can't
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar..._US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-ISRAEL.xml&rpc=22
BERLIN (Reuters) - If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/03/07/AR2006030700739.html
Cheney yesterday:The Iranian regime needs to know that if it stays on its present course, the international community is prepared to impose meaningful consequences. For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. (Applause.) And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 821 times:

Well, a precedent has already been made where you dont need rock solid proof to be able to attack a sovereign nation, so I fully expect someone to attack Iran.

But I still personally want irrefutable proof of an Iranian weapons program, not just concerns, before I will support such action.

Iran has full rights under the NPT to carry out the actions its currently in the processes of doing. If those rights are to be decided on a 'if we like you' basis, then whats the benefits of signing the NPT?


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 782 times:

Something is going to go down. It's not very often that the US, Russia and the U.N. all agree on the same thing at the same time.

User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 777 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
But I still personally want irrefutable proof of an Iranian weapons program, not just concerns, before I will support such action.

What do you think constitutes irrefutable proof? I'm not being argumentative, just curious.

I think it is clearly in the world community's best interest to not allow a nuclear armed Iran.

Assuming that the IAEA et al, are not allowed full and complete access to Iranian nuclear facilities, on what basis can or should a decision be made?



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 766 times:

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 3):
What do you think constitutes irrefutable proof? I'm not being argumentative, just curious.

Im not a nuclear expert, so I couldnt tell you. However, all of the current evidence put forward has been refuted (the 'smoking gun' of weapons grade uranium traces were found to come from contaminated Pakistan supplied equipment and matched Pakistan provided samples).

I think, after the Iraq debacle, the evidence would have to be a lot stronger in my eyes.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 3):
I think it is clearly in the world community's best interest to not allow a nuclear armed Iran.

I agree totally, but the way in which its gone about is what I have issues about. There seems to be no option left open for Iran that doesnt leave it reliant on another country for fuel, and that is something Iran must avoid at all costs to remain independant. If they become reliant on other countries for usable fuel, it gives other countries another item to withhold when they want to.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 3):
Assuming that the IAEA et al, are not allowed full and complete access to Iranian nuclear facilities, on what basis can or should a decision be made?

The inspection regime demanded by the west and the IAEA is far beyond that required under the terms of the NPT and Iran has gone far past its NPT obligations in terms of these inspections, so using refusals as a means to make a UNSC referal is quite absurd since Iran is under no such obligations.

Theres no way you can make a decision with no evidence, but Iran is under no obligation to help you gather that evidence, and indeed asking them to prove a negative is practically impossible (hey, they could be *hiding* their weapons program! Get them to prove they arent!).

I personally think the answer is simple - offer the Iranians the technology to build a reactor that doesnt rely on fuel produced in the same manner as weapons grade material. Such reactors exist (pebble bed reactor for one), but noone that has the technology can export it to Iran because of international sanctions. Lift those sanctions, allow the export of this technology and it removes entirely the fear that weapons grade material may be being produced.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 761 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 1):
Well, a precedent has already been made where you dont need rock solid proof to be able to attack a sovereign nation, so I fully expect someone to attack Iran.

In this case, that's not even a valid point, as the nation in question-Iran-has openly said it wants nuclear capability, and has threatened more than one nation. What more do you want, before you condemn them?


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 755 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):

In this case, that's not even a valid point, as the nation in question-Iran-has openly said it wants nuclear capability, and has threatened more than one nation. What more do you want, before you condemn them?

Proof. Evidence. They have also said they arent developing weapons.


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 746 times:

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 5):
In this case, that's not even a valid point, as the nation in question-Iran-has openly said it wants nuclear capability,



Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 6):
Proof. Evidence. They have also said they arent developing weapons.

The nuclear capability alone is not the problem. Iran has the right to peacefully use nuclear power, no one denies that.
But we don't need a "smoking gun" either, since the possibility alone to build nukes is plenty to further destabilise the Middle East.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 737 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7):
But we don't need a "smoking gun" either, since the possibility alone to build nukes is plenty to further destabilise the Middle East.

Then give them the tech to build reactors that dont rely on the same processes as weapons. Until you seperate the weapons potential from the peaceful process, you cant answer the question.


User currently offline11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1725 posts, RR: 10
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 729 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 7):
But we don't need a "smoking gun" either, since the possibility alone to build nukes is plenty to further destabilise the Middle East.

It seems to me that we probably should be looking at some level of certainty between those two extremes. If we're going to go on a mere possibility, there are half a dozen, or more, nasty little autocratic countries in the middle east that meet that criteria. On the other hand, if we wait for truly irrefutable proof, that would likely take the form of a completed weapons program.

I would also add that I'm looking to Europe to solve this problem one way or the other. Europeans were not particularly pleased with the US decision to go into Iraq. I understand that and agree with it for the most part. I think it is therefore incumbant on the EU to deal with this next "WMD crisis" either through diplomacy, or if that doesn't work, military action.

It's not appropriate for Europe to complain about what the US does if they themselves are not prepared to step up and deal with the problem.



WhaleJets Rule!
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7966 posts, RR: 12
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 714 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 8):
Then give them the tech to build reactors that dont rely on the same processes as weapons

This is a technology they have had for years and no one took offence.
One of the problems, as I understand it, is that Tehran claims they want to be independent from foreign countries, hence the nuclear program that involves all parts including enrichment. However, Iran apparently does not possess enough uranium ore to use nuclear power independently, anyway (but plenty to build bombs). This makes it difficult to understand why the government spends millions on an enrichment plant instead of simply importing enriched uranium. Add to this that the plant is not only being build underground but also much bigger than needed to install centrifuges sufficient to enrich U235 to 3%, it seems obvious that they have other things on their minds.
There are other hints as well. Iran can have nuclear technology but must not have the capability to enrich uranium to more than 3 or 4 percent U235. and the heavy water reactor is of course suspect, too. The decision to build heavy water reactors to produce electrical power is financially unwise - unless you want to use the plutonium the reactor produces for bombs.

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
If we're going to go on a mere possibility, there are half a dozen, or more, nasty little autocratic countries in the middle east that meet that criteria

Not sure. Which are they, which other country has a thousand centrifuges to enrich uranium?

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
I think it is therefore incumbant on the EU to deal with this next "WMD crisis" either through diplomacy, or if that doesn't work, military action.

I don't understand the logic behind that. Why can't Europe and the USA act in concert this time?

Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 9):
It's not appropriate for Europe to complain about what the US

What complaint?



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineBMIFlyer From UK - England, joined Feb 2004, 8810 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 712 times:

Quoting Boeing nut (Reply 2):
It's not very often that the US, Russia and the U.N. all agree on the same thing at the same time.

 checkmark 

Exactly, Iran is playing a dangerous game, and I believe it will lose....


Lee



Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
User currently offlineAerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 689 times:

Just once I'd like to have one year -- just one -- where I don't have to read about (1) War, actual or possible, associated with (2) Any country whose English name begins with the letters "I", "R", and "A".

In the last two and a half decades, the greatest single global hotspot has been the Middle East, whether before or after the Cold War. (If it's not a Soviet proxy (Egypt or Iraq) in conflict with an American ally (Israel), it's hard feelings and constant tension between Iraq and Iran, with America backing Iraq against Iran.) I mean, if it wasn't for the Middle East, wouldn't the world be a lot less tense?

And I say this knowing that the Koreas are still technically in a state of war, and that China considers Taiwan a renegade province.

Why can't the people in power in the Middle East see the futility of this never-ending conflict?

If Iran wants to challenge most of the entire rest of the world, I would think that it would probably lose. In face of such odds, what is the rational thing to do?

[Edited 2006-03-09 01:01:41]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Latest Developments In Iran: What Now? posted Tue Apr 11 2006 19:27:07 by Aleksandar
President Bush Invited To Iran ... posted Fri Sep 28 2007 16:11:42 by AGM100
California To Divest From Iran posted Tue Sep 25 2007 03:46:39 by RJpieces
France: Prepare For War With Iran posted Mon Sep 17 2007 18:56:15 by MaverickM11
Iran Accuses Canada Of Human Rights Violations posted Fri Sep 14 2007 22:04:50 by TheCol
Would Americans Accept An Iran Invasion? posted Thu Sep 13 2007 06:10:03 by AC773
Iran's Ahmadinejad: Israel Can't Continue To Exist posted Thu Sep 13 2007 05:00:42 by Falcon84
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan posted Wed Sep 12 2007 18:01:35 by RJpieces
Ahmadinejad "Doubts" Iran Armed Taliban. posted Tue Aug 14 2007 18:45:01 by Cumulonimbus
Would You Go To Iran? posted Fri Jul 20 2007 06:21:59 by Speedbird747BA