Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Iran Planning To Build 10 Nuclear Facilities  
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2159 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_sc/ml_iran_nuclear

According to News today, Iran announced that they are planning to build 10 New nuclear facilities. This coming after they were asked to stop work on a Nuclear facility that is currently being built.

Any thoughts?

Just as a side note, these facilities are said to be uranium enrichment plants.


"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJetsGo From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3083 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2148 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter):

Any thoughts?

Israel gets the:




Marine Corps Aviation, The Last To Let You Down!
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 2, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2137 times:



Quoting FuturePilot16 (Thread starter):
these facilities are said to be uranium enrichment plants

I get the feeling that the information about Iranian nuclear facilities has about the same quality as that about Iraq WMD. A grain of truth somewhere, but what is it and where is it? Wonder if Curveball is still gainfully "employed"?

We need a certain Canadian a.net member to work out what they might be doing with some hundreds of tonnes of uranium enriched probably to reactor grade, but probably no further. Then again, it could be just a press release to irritate you know who.

Then again, someone will probably remember that Iran could be helpful in solving problems in Iraq, Afghanistan and perhaps even Pakistan. Hmmmm.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2127 times:

The UN has already stated that all their efforts have been in vein. Unless a coup topples the Iranian regime, the only other alternative is military action.

Quoting JetsGo (Reply 1):

No, Israel should focus on defensive operations. They'll have their hands full with Iran's proxy goons (ie. Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah) when the shooting starts.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2116 times:



Quoting TheCol (Reply 3):
The UN has already stated that all their efforts have been in vein. Unless a coup topples the Iranian regime, the only other alternative is military action.

As KC135 said (before the original thread was deleted), it just makes more targets for B2's to take out. But I just get the feeling that Iran will stay defiant till the end. i don't really see the point of military action as of yet, hopefully they can work this out.



"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

Nice to see that two disastrous wars have not dented the appetites for more.

Don't you guys know when you are having your beards pulled? Why 10 plants, probably to make targeting close to impossible, although it will a long day before there really are 10 of anything.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 6, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2037 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 2):



Quoting Baroque (Reply 5):

Maybe we should go with what we know first. Since Iran has active nuclear facilities, and that they just attempted to arm their proxy forces, containment should be an immediate option on the table. I doubt anybody wants Iran to start exporting nuclear material anytime soon.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2031 times:



Quoting TheCol (Reply 6):
I doubt anybody wants Iran to start exporting nuclear material anytime soon.

What sort of materials do you have in mind? Are you suggesting that Hez wishes to build a nuclear power station? Or are we to be treated to another version of the terrors of a dirty bomb?

Wiki has it quite succinctly:
The term dirty bomb refers to a speculative radiological weapon which combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. Though an RDD would be designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, a bomb that uses conventional explosives would likely have more immediate lethal effect than the radioactive material. At levels created from most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal.[1] Recent analysis of the Chernobyl disaster fallout confirms this, showing that the effect on many people in the surrounding area, although not those in close proximity, was almost negligible.[2]

Since a dirty bomb is unlikely to cause many deaths, many do not consider this to be a weapon of mass destruction.[3] Its purpose would presumably be to create psychological, not physical, harm through ignorance, mass panic, and terror. For this reason dirty bombs are sometimes called "weapons of mass disruption". Additionally, containment and decontamination of thousands of victims, as well as decontamination of the affected area might require considerable time and expense, rendering areas partly unusable and causing economic damage.


Not of course the Cheney version but, well let us not let reality stand in the way of a good scare campaign.

There is no evidence that I know of that Iran has gone beyond reactor grade enrichment. Do you know more? Do share.

I am guessing the answer to "do you know when you are having your beards pulled" is "Certainly not, we are too busy pulling them ourselves".


User currently offlineCpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 2006 times:

Iran leadership is playing a very dangerous game, that could be the last one they play.

I hope caution prevails and they back down.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (4 years 9 months 3 days ago) and read 2000 times:



Quoting Cpd (Reply 9):
Iran leadership is playing a very dangerous game

Probably, but which game did you have in mind?

For starters they do not seem to be in breach of the NPT

http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2008/01/iran-and-the-un.html
Iran, the NPT and the UN Security Council

We often hear from certain elements that Iran had "violated the NPT" by not reporting the importation of centrifuges components. This is of course nonsense, because it confuses a breach safeguards agreements for failure to report otherwise legal activities (a relatively common occurance) with a violation of the NPT.

I think this bit of expert testimony presented to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the British Parliament should clarify this point, yet again:

17. In the list of behaviours, Iran's failure to report to the IAEA in a timely manner its enrichment, processing and reprocessing activities using nuclear material, in the 1980s and 1990s, and the way Iran has acquired centrifuge technology through non-state procurement networks for almost twenty years, has added to the suspicions and provided circumstantial evidence to those states who have been accusing Iran of developing nuclear weapons. The technological options that would be available to Iran to use the civilian nuclear capability for use in a military programme are as follow. First, Iran could master the enrichment and other related nuclear technologies for the current overt civilian enrichment programme and build a parallel covert programme to enrich uranium for military use. Second, Iran would have the right under Article X.1of the NPT to withdraw from the treaty after providing three months notice for such a withdrawal, and then to convert its civilian enrichment facilities, which has been legitimately developed under Article IV of the NPT, to a military one. Arguably, such an option is currently available to a number of other non-nuclear weapon states such as Brazil, Germany, Japan and Netherlands.

18. However, the above suspicions and circumstantial evidence of the type argued by some states against Iran, do not fall under the international legal obligations that Iran has signed in the 1970 and 1974 in respects of the NPT and its associated IAEA safeguards measures. Under the terms of the NPT, like the other non-nuclear weapon states, Iran has to fulfil two fundamental obligations. The first obligation relates to Article II of the NPT, which requires from the non-nuclear weapon states not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons. The second obligation relates to Article III of the NPT, which requires from the non-nuclear weapon states to accept safeguards, implemented by the IAEA, to prevent the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to weapons.

19. There has never been a specific enforcement mechanism in relation to implementation of Article II of the NPT obligations.


Rather amusingly Iran accuses the US of breaching the NPT.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...4127&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
The agency obtained four documents prepared for the meeting by Iran which all point to the fact that Teheran is trying hard to deflect attention from its nuclear program by blaming the United States for breaching the NPT because of discriminating policies in favor of its allies.

Here is a comment on the nature of some journalism relating to the issue

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/me...9/09/iran-nuclear-metro-journalism

Really? Iran? Defiant on nuclear weapons? The Iranian regime is proudly, publicly and defiantly committed only to nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons. You could argue -- without a shred of evidence -- that the Iranians are secretly building a nuclear bomb, and should not therefore be trusted with a uranium enrichment programme, but you can't then pretend that they would be bragging about it at the United Nations. The reality is that as long ago as 2003 the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed in a fatwa that "the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam" and that "the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons".

In the penultimate paragraph of the article, Radnedge chooses flatly to contradict his own inflammatory claim from the opening paragraph by actually quoting from the official Iranian statement at the UN yesterday: "Our commitment to non-proliferation remains intact."

Which is it, Aidan? Is (non-nuclear) Iran committed to "non-proliferation", or is it in "defiance"?


So that is all very clear.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6799 posts, RR: 34
Reply 10, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1957 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
Probably, but which game did you have in mind?

For starters they do not seem to be in breach of the NPT

Oh, I'm sure breaking some arbitrary paper rule that won't be enforced anyhow really has the them scared. They laugh at the NPT, as with anyone who tells them they can't do it.

Ultimately, it won't be diplomacy that stops them.


User currently offlineTheCol From Canada, joined Jan 2007, 2039 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1934 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):

The research in that article is widely disputed. The overall scope of the gradual health effects, lethal or not, is not completely understood.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
What sort of materials do you have in mind?

Any nuclear materials, development information, and conventional weapons.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 7):
Are you suggesting that Hez wishes to build a nuclear power
station?

I hear that Syria seems to have an interest in nuclear R&D.



No matter how random things may appear, there's always a plan.
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 12, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1916 times:



Quoting Slider (Reply 11):
Ultimately, it won't be diplomacy that stops them.

Stops them from what? However irritating Ahmad and his bosses are, can you not see that dancing around on the thin ice of very little evidence leaves you open to making a similar gross error that has cost you about 1 to 3 trillion dollars in Iraq? Some say you cannot afford a health system, odd how you CAN afford to try for an even more expensive war than the last two.

I dislike the regime in Iran, but I try to let rationality rule over outright ravings that have little or no backing in fact. Iran will never build these 10 facilities, it just wants you to think they will.

Shot down any more Airbuses lately?


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2389 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (4 years 9 months 2 days ago) and read 1898 times:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Stops them from what? However irritating Ahmad and his bosses are, can you not see that dancing around on the thin ice of very little evidence leaves you open to making a similar gross error that has cost you about 1 to 3 trillion dollars in Iraq? Some say you cannot afford a health system, odd how you CAN afford to try for an even more expensive war than the last two.

Except a war against Iran would not mean an invasion like in Iraq, but more like a bombardement of the nuclear facilities, which is not nearly as expensive.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Shot down any more Airbuses lately?

Taken any more tourists as hostages claiming they are spies lately?

[Edited 2009-12-01 04:15:43]

User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 14, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1880 times:



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 14):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Shot down any more Airbuses lately?

Taken any more tourists as hostages claiming they are spies lately?

Yes they just took another ?15 I think. You see so is yer mother is not really a way to progress.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 14):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 13):

Stops them from what? However irritating Ahmad and his bosses are, can you not see that dancing around on the thin ice of very little evidence leaves you open to making a similar gross error that has cost you about 1 to 3 trillion dollars in Iraq? Some say you cannot afford a health system, odd how you CAN afford to try for an even more expensive war than the last two.

Except a war against Iran would not mean an invasion like in Iraq, but more like a bombardement of the nuclear facilities, which is not nearly as expensive.

Oh wow, how wrong is that. If the Iranians have not bomb proofed their installations by now, they are stupid as well as mad. It is one thing to think they are mad, but rather dumb to assume they are also stupid. So bombing them will just make the Iranians decide they really do need nuclear weapons and not seriously inconvenience the current programs, whatever they are, the worst problems would be loss of power supplies. Thinking bombing would be effective is about as sensible as thinking the Iraqis would welcome US troops with garlands of flowers.

On the other side, let us see what the costs would be.

1. Direct removal of 5.4% of world oil production.

2. Removal of another 15 to 20% of supply as the Straits of Hormuz are closed.

3. Crude oil at about 200 to 300 barrel.

4. Attacks on whoever bombs the nuclear facilities.

Iran would have much of its transport crippled, but so would the US and the Iranian regime would become more popular while the US regime would get itself close to a rebellion.

The Iranian regime thrives on outside stress and the US is vulnerable to outside stress.

In summary, "not as expensive"? Porbably true because likely much, much more expensive. And that does not count the disaster when US troops in Iraq are caught in the uprising of Shia militias there and problems in W Afghanistan.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8133 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1874 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 10):
The reality is that as long ago as 2003 the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed in a fatwa that "the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam" and that "the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons".

Your posts are always interesting but you lost me on inclusion of this quote. Khamenei has shown time and again that tenets of Islam are only adhered to when they suit the purposes of the theocratic state. Murder in the streets of neighbors and fellow citizens by the government would certainly also seem to be forbidden under Islam - so these words and other claims should mean absolutely nothing to any astute observer.

In short, that statement, ostensibly, is a bald-faced lie.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
On the other side, let us see what the costs would be.

1. Direct removal of 5.4% of world oil production.

2. Removal of another 15 to 20% of supply as the Straits of Hormuz are closed.

3. Crude oil at about 200 to 300 barrel.

4. Attacks on whoever bombs the nuclear facilities.

This is undeniably of paramount concern. One would expect active contingency preparations among the other gulf states that both a) sell to the US, Asia, and western Europe and b) dislike Iran and any portent of disruption on the Straits to protect their interests, primarily that of a stability without any wild swings due to Iran falling off market radar. Your points are correct, but don't think KSA and others won't be consulted with prior.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2389 posts, RR: 21
Reply 16, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1870 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
Yes they just took another ?15 I think. You see so is yer mother is not really a way to progress.

???

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
Oh wow, how wrong is that. If the Iranians have not bomb proofed their installations by now, they are stupid as well as mad.

Obviously they haven't when some of them can be seen from space  Wink

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
On the other side, let us see what the costs would be.

Homemade statistics are always a great tool to get your point across.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
The Iranian regime thrives on outside stress and the US is vulnerable to outside stress.

If you think UN sanctions is a way of 'thriving' then sure.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
In summary, "not as expensive"? Porbably true because likely much, much more expensive.

I disagree. Better find some better sources than little statistics of yours.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 17, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1859 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 16):
In short, that statement, ostensibly, is a bald-faced lie.

Well it might well be, but it is just possible that is what Khameini actually thought. You are certainly right that the tenets of Islam have been butchered as badly as his people were. Iran lost so many of its best and brightest at the time of his accession. I often wonder what happened to two Iranian friends I had when working in Kansas in 1977 who were violently anti Shah but could not believe that the alternatives had their drawbacks too!!

It remains a possibility that they do not intend to develop nuclear weapons. I think that they could have developed them long before now had they really been intent on that course. Believing him is certainly a risk, but so is assuming that the statement about nukes was also a lie. This is because the costs of preventing Iran from taking that course will not be small. It seems reasonable to think that one thing the Iranians have worked out is that they are not likely to be a nuclear target before they themselves have nukes, but if they were to develop their own nukes, all the rules of MAD would apply. Except that this time they would be inviting US, Russian and Chinese retaliation.

So you are right to point out that the Ayatollah had a strange view of the tenets of Islam, but that view is likely to have been tempered in relation to nukes by an understanding of the MAD doctrine.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 17):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
In summary, "not as expensive"? Probably true because likely much, much more expensive.

I disagree. Better find some better sources than little statistics of yours.

You don't like BP stats, complain to them.

Oil hit USD145 in part at the thought of an attack on Iran, you doubt it would go to 200 on the actuality?

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 17):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 15):
The Iranian regime thrives on outside stress and the US is vulnerable to outside stress.

If you think UN sanctions is a way of 'thriving' then sure.

Maybe you do not understand the way in which a regime that is basically very (VERY) unpopular (that of Iran) can use external threats to its own benefit. To that extent they thrive, although their populations may suffer. We know from the recent elections that they are hardly a representative democracy, so there is no point in assuming the rep dem rules apply. They do not.

By contrast a regime like that of Obama which is basically popular, will suffer from stress generated externally. It might be contrary to what you might hope, but that is the reality. Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2389 posts, RR: 21
Reply 18, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1857 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
You don't like BP stats, complain to them.

Oil hit USD145 in part at the thought of an attack on Iran, you doubt it would go to 200 on the actuality?

I don't know. You might be right, but compared to a nuclear bomb hitting Israel or parts of Europe, it is probably unfortunately the better choice.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Maybe you do not understand the way in which a regime that is basically very (VERY) unpopular (that of Iran)

Yes I know this. It seems very unpopular in the cities of Iran, but on the countryside, I think they actually support the regime.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
By contrast a regime like that of Obama which is basically popular, will suffer from stress generated externally. It might be contrary to what you might hope, but that is the reality. Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.

Yes that might be true, but a regime like the current one is very unpredictable if they get their hands on nuclear bombs I would imagine.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1849 times:



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 19):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
By contrast a regime like that of Obama which is basically popular, will suffer from stress generated externally. It might be contrary to what you might hope, but that is the reality. Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.

Yes that might be true, but a regime like the current one is very unpredictable if they get their hands on nuclear bombs I would imagine.

We can certainly agree that the current regime is unpredictable. But they likely have a basic understanding that if they use a nuclear weapon, they will get a large number posted through their front doors by return. While the hyperbole about turning Iran into a glass surfaced parking lot is over the top, I think they well understand that would be a disaster from which they will not emerge.

In this respect they might just be more reasonable than some of the Christian movements who may think this would bring on the rapture.

It is a general worry about the extent (or rather the lack of it) to which the leadership of Iran are in touch with the real world. That is one reason why engagement with Iran is a far safer course, but following on Aaron's comments, their overall lack of rationality makes such engagement difficult.


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2389 posts, RR: 21
Reply 20, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1844 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
We can certainly agree that the current regime is unpredictable. But they likely have a basic understanding that if they use a nuclear weapon, they will get a large number posted through their front doors by return.

Do you really think the West would nuke them back? I am not so sure actually. If it kills a lot of civilians I doubt there would be enough support for such an action. You might be right though.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1839 times:



Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 21):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 20):
We can certainly agree that the current regime is unpredictable. But they likely have a basic understanding that if they use a nuclear weapon, they will get a large number posted through their front doors by return.

Do you really think the West would nuke them back? I am not so sure actually. If it kills a lot of civilians I doubt there would be enough support for such an action. You might be right though.

The chances of them not are very small. Not sure how the discussions would go, but somewhere someone would say, "Well if we don't use them now, when WILL we use them?"

And Iran must expect that to happen. If not, why does the west, Russia and China maintain such large inventories. Iran would in some respects be the perfect target (as would be the UK) not too big and not too small. China would be least happy as that is where the fallout would go first.

But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran, I would like to know why you think that???? I cannot see why, but if there is a reason, that would change my view. If you assume MAD does apply, even development and certainly use of nukes by Iran is very problematical - for THEM that is!!! I mean both Qom and Tehran would be excellent targets. The mountains would even tend to contain the blasts.


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2389 posts, RR: 21
Reply 22, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1832 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
"Well if we don't use them now, when WILL we use them?"

haha, that doesn't sound like a reasonable argument. A better one would be: "If we don't act hard now, they will do it again and again"

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran

I don't know what you mean by 'MAD'.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1825 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Threatening an unpopular regime is one way to make it persist.

Cuba being one of the best, almost at-home examples for Washington to consider. Castro would have been turfed 40 years ago if the US had just taken a rational approach to his revolution -- perhaps by grovelling a little over their long-standing support for Batista and his mafia-mad henchmen and promising to make life easier, not more difficult, for the average Cuban. Castro might have even been someone they could have worked with. Huge lost opportunity there.

Here we are 50 years later, and little has changed in the State Department's approach to foreign policy, be it Cuba or Iran. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results?

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 23):
I don't know what you mean by 'MAD'.

Mutually assured destruction. Anyone who believes that the US would hold back in the event of an Iran-launched nuclear strike against anyone, particularly Israel, doesn't fully grasp the hawk mentality that still grips Washington whenever it believes someone else is getting uppity. 'Smite them' would be the operative foreign policy; questions to be asked later after the smoke clears.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2389 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (4 years 9 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1815 times:



Quoting Arrow (Reply 24):
y

Okay thank you for the explanation.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 22):
But if you think MAD would not apply to Iran, I would like to know why you think that?

To answer your question then, as I said, I am not sure, I don't claim that I know what the US would do, but I would just imagine that it would be a very unpopular decision among many people if there will be a lot of civilian casualties.


25 Baroque : Arrow has covered it. One could add, that the MAD doctrine probably stopped Russia and the US bombing each other during the cold war. Assuming you be
26 Connies4ever : Alan, Alan. You're trying to get me in trouble. Have been away attending a funeral for a close friend, so just now catching up. I agree that the qual
27 Baroque : Sorry to hear the reason for the delay in your reply, but yes I was doing my best to summon you out of the ether. But not to get you into trouble. Ju
28 Lxa333 : Obama is as weak as the average health of people over 100. and thats very weak. He keeps on getting played as a fool, Netanyahu made him look like the
29 Post contains links Baroque : Whatever that tirade might mean, what exactly does it have to do with Iran and 10 nuclear facilities? A moderate "what", one is tempted to ask??????!
30 FuturePilot16 : So because he doesn't believe in bombing Iran into oblivion (even though I do) he is weak? What exactly do you mean with the terminology "Weak"
31 TheCol : Iran isn't Cuba. We are dealing with a state that is funding, arming, and enabling proxy groups to subvert democracy throughout the region. In any ca
32 BarfBag : One of the primary reasons why the subcontinental nuclear war is farfetched is the lack of *mutual* threat perception. India simply does not consider
33 Post contains links Kaitak : More light shining from Planet Ahmedinejad: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20091202/tts-uk-iran-nuclear-ca02f96.html Mr. A. is now saying that as well as
34 Baroque : I know where you got your 90% of the way, but it is more rubbish. It is 22.2% of the way if enrichment work was linear, which IIRC it is not. So it i
35 TheCol : That's possible. Iran, however, currently supports terrorist organizations. The last thing we want is Iran doing it totally unchecked. Yes, but it's
36 Baroque : Who knows what they think, although if we had not been irritating them for more than 40 years we might know a bit more. However, if I were them, and
37 Connies4ever : Yes Yes fuel for the 2 Pressurized Water Reactors being completed at Bushehr Yes, unlikely though (my thought anyway)
38 Connies4ever : I should clarify re producing U235 -- most people tend to think of gaseous diffusion (Oak Ridge)-type plants. Electromagnetic separation is more compa
39 Radiopolitic : Heh. This reminds me when they ruled that caviar was halal just to make money off of it.
40 Post contains links Connies4ever : A little food for thought to possibly revive this thread: An important Iranian nuclear scientist, Shahran Amiri, seems to have gone 'off the radar' af
41 Baroque : Hmmm, mind you CNN must think Maggie T is still PM in the UK, unless there is another Iron Lady I have missed. Funny how plus ca change mais plus ca
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...
US To Build New Nuclear Weapons posted Wed Jun 14 2006 15:03:26 by RichardPrice
Finland Plans To Build A New Nuclear Reactor posted Fri May 24 2002 20:38:13 by OH-LZA
Iran To Build Car Designed Specially For Women posted Tue Oct 7 2008 16:47:52 by AirCatalonia
Iran Asks German Company To Build Transrapid Train posted Mon May 28 2007 22:57:29 by LHStarAlliance
Iran's Threat To US Is Financial, Not Nuclear posted Wed May 17 2006 17:07:45 by Ilikeyyc
Iran Vows To Block Nuclear Inspectors! posted Sat Dec 3 2005 20:10:56 by 9VSPO
Boyscout Attempts To Build A Nuclear Reactor posted Sun Jul 20 2003 16:24:43 by Bobrayner
US Esta To Introduce $10 Fee To "boost" Tourism posted Fri Sep 11 2009 05:46:49 by L410Turbolet
Nickelodeon To Build Theme Park In New Orleans posted Tue Aug 18 2009 10:59:51 by MSYtristar
Mexico To Build Wall To Keep US Citizens Out posted Wed Jul 8 2009 20:55:44 by Marcus