What should Iran do?

[nino_savatte]

I can't help but think that this description also fits Mumble-bum Bush and his gang of malignant crooks very nicely.

MsG

Absolutement!

 

[phildwyer]

To whom would a nuclear Iran be a threat? Obviously not the USA.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Shah has been dead a long time. It is insane to dismiss information from a source simply because they are against the Iranian government.

Wow, that's about the biggest joke I've seen on Urban for a long time, you trying to make a special case for this information when you've refused to listen to much less "loaded" information when it doesn't suit your purposes.

I hope you don't kiss your mother with that lying mouth of yours.

 

[ViolentPanda]

To whom would a nuclear Iran be a threat? Obviously not the USA.

The "whom" depends entirely on whether they do develop weapons (which is going to take a minimum of 5 to 10 years with their current tech). If they do then it becomes dependent on which types of missile and missile guidance technology they have access to if they wish to have airborne munitions that don't rely on expensive bombers, and on whether they can miniaturise to a great enough degree to give them "portable" munitions.

There also appears to be an assumption (at least in "the media") of a chain of factors that supposedly dictate that Iran would go after Israel with a nuke if they had one; that Iran aren't purely looking for a deterrent, that "the mullahs" will win out over the politicians (hasn't happened in Pakistan though), and that the Iranians aren't using this whole shebang as a rather large bargaining chip for some other purpose.

 

[Random]

Nuclear weapons got us 50 years of peace in Europe. I think it's time to give this option a chance to sort out the Middle East as well

 

[phildwyer]

Nuclear weapons got us 50 years of peace in Europe. I think it's time to give this option a chance to sort out the Middle East as well

That isn't as mad as it sounds. A nuclear-armed Iran and Israel would be in a situation of mutally assured destruction, like the USA and the USSR, and now India and Pakistan. Its not far-fetched to suggest that this would deter unilateral aggression. I'd have scoffed at the idea in the 80's, but since then we've seen just how violent and dangerous an unrestricted superpower can be. A massive disproportion in military capacity, such as currently exists in the middle east, is arguably more dangerous than parity.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nuclear weapons got us 50 years of peace in Europe. I think it's time to give this option a chance to sort out the Middle East as well

Which was why I mentioned the word "deterrent".

 

[TAE]

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran.

The word 'stalemate' is important. He is not talking about launching an attack against Israel, he's saying that Israel would no longer be able to threaten its neighbours, because the consequences of an Israeli attack would be far worse for Israel than for the other muslim countries.

Whether it's factually correct is another matter, but that's how I would interpret that statement.

 

[rogue yam]

What's your position on the Pahlavi family, RY?

The future is far more important to me than endless quibbling about the past.

 

[rogue yam]

To whom would a nuclear Iran be a threat? Obviously not the USA.

Israel by direct strike almost immediately. Much of Europe soon thereafter. The United States by terrorist infiltration. Very risky. Some will sit idly by and obfuscate. The United States will act. It is our culture.

 

[TAE]

Some will sit idly by and obfuscate. The United States will act. It is our culture.

Rolling-on-the-floor-laughing.

 

[gosub]

The "whom" depends entirely on whether they do develop weapons (which is going to take a minimum of 5 to 10 years with their current tech). If they do then it becomes dependent on which types of missile and missile guidance technology they have access to if they wish to have airborne munitions that don't rely on expensive bombers, and on whether they can miniaturise to a great enough degree to give them "portable" munitions.

There also appears to be an assumption (at least in "the media") of a chain of factors that supposedly dictate that Iran would go after Israel with a nuke if they had one; that Iran aren't purely looking for a deterrent, that "the mullahs" will win out over the politicians (hasn't happened in Pakistan though), and that the Iranians aren't using this whole shebang as a rather large bargaining chip for some other purpose.

Starting at the end first, i think it was Dr Strangelove who first pointed out that there is no point in having a deterent if you don't tell anyone about it, and Iran hasn't, a country with some of the largest oil and gas reserves is apparently going out on a limb in order to harness the atom to make electricity.

Your first point, well your just wrong Missile stuff starts getting "interesting" in 2001( about the same time as nuclear). The previous Ukranian administration has already supplied nuclear capable cruise missiles which apparently the Iranians needed in order to make pipelines and help with the machinization of their farm machinary. They have also been working with the North Koreans and Pakistan to develop other missiles.

 

[rogue yam]

Nuclear weapons got us 50 years of peace in Europe. I think it's time to give this option a chance to sort out the Middle East as well.

Iran isn't Europe. This is a country that deliberately sent waves of its own boys wading across minefields to clear them for subsequent waves of soldiers. If you are honest and wise, you'll take account of this and much more like it in responding to Iranian threats.

 

[Sirena]

Israel by direct strike almost immediately

This sort of paranoid presumption typifies the US/Israeli propaganda position.

How many countries has Iran attacked in (say) the last 50 years? And Israel? And the USA?

 

[TAE]

Iran isn't Europe.

The situation in central europe was not exactly sane either.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The future is far more important to me than endless quibbling about the past.

It is not quibbling RY and you know it. The family of the Shah would love to be back in power. We rid ourselves of a deranged and capricious monarch in the 17th Century and they (the Stuarts) plotted and fought and came back in the space of less then 50 years. The issue wasn't fully settled until the early 19th century.

Maybe you should look at some history and learn not to repeat the worst bits.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

Iran isn't Europe. This is a country that deliberately sent waves of its own boys wading across minefields to clear them for subsequent waves of soldiers. If you are honest and wise, you'll take account of this and much more like it in responding to Iranian threats.

No different to the way the British Generals behaved in WW1. Wave after wave of young men sent armed only with rifles against German machine guns.

I noticed your back and still bullshitting and not answering questions put to you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Starting at the end first, i think it was Dr Strangelove who first pointed out that there is no point in having a deterent if you don't tell anyone about it, and Iran hasn't, a country with some of the largest oil and gas reserves is apparently going out on a limb in order to harness the atom to make electricity.

Why haven't they told anyone about their deterrent? Because they don't have one yet, perhaps?
Also, isn't there an issue around powering desalinisation plants cheaply (I'll do some digging 'cos I'm sure I read something about this)?

Your first point, well your just wrong Missile stuff starts getting "interesting" in 2001( about the same time as nuclear). The previous Ukranian administration has already supplied nuclear capable cruise missiles which apparently the Iranians needed in order to make pipelines and help with the machinization of their farm machinary. They have also been working with the North Koreans and Pakistan to develop other missiles.

I'm "just wrong"? What, my time-frame?
Seems to me that whether they have cruise missiles with no payload (a cruise-type can be used with conventional as well as nuclear munitions) is beside the point, what matters is they haven't yet started producing fissionable material, which means they haven't started producing the missile payload, which means they don't have a deterrent, and whatever their technology, won't have in the short-term.
Having cruise-type missiles is irrelevant without the plutonium.

Understand?

 

[KeyboardJockey]

For the information of other posters I"ve pm's RY to ask him to come on here and defend his countries honour and answer questions put to him.

I do hope - not least for the image that I'm getting (not to mention posters and lurkers in the ME) of a certain type of American -- that he does answer my question as in large parts o the world the US is viewed as lower than a foetid turd on a stick and RY could help to restore some of the honour of the US which he is tarnishing with each touch of the keyboard.

Something for RY (sorry about multiple postings but I wnt to make sure he gets the message)

A white feather for cowardice.

 

[dylanredefined]

supposedly they have uranium so want nuclear power so can export gas and oil and industrialise so have something else when oil runs out ,but,
then again North korea has a nuke left alone
Iraq no wmds occupied by us in what 1month/2 months
If The US wanted to get to tehran by conventional means once it had the resources which would take less than 12yrs if they put their mind to it .
They could do it would be bloodier than iraq as the iranians would actually
be fighting for a government they belived in .But the result of a conventinal
war would be a foregone conclusion .Ok the resistance would be worse than iraq . And fortunaly America is a democracy so selling a war on Iran would take some doing but without a nukes your country is basically defenceless against the US military

 

[friedaweed]

Israel by direct strike almost immediately. Much of Europe soon thereafter. The United States by terrorist infiltration. Very risky. Some will sit idly by and obfuscate. The United States will act. It is our culture.

No way Einstein.

Have you been playing Risk with your college friends lately?

 

[gosub]

Why haven't they told anyone about their deterrent? Because they don't have one yet, perhaps?
Also, isn't there an issue around powering desalinisation plants cheaply (I'll do some digging 'cos I'm sure I read something about this)?

I'm "just wrong"? What, my time-frame?
Seems to me that whether they have cruise missiles with no payload (a cruise-type can be used with conventional as well as nuclear munitions) is beside the point, what matters is they haven't yet started producing fissionable material, which means they haven't started producing the missile payload, which means they don't have a deterrent, and whatever their technology, won't have in the short-term.
Having cruise-type missiles is irrelevant without the plutonium.


Understand?

Made more sense when reread and added expansion, though miniaturisation with nukes would never be a problem. Main point is that it looks like they already did their thinking on that and unlike plutonium enrichement wasn't stalled in 2003.


Be interested in the desalination stuff if you can find it, that NTI site (which is worth a look if trying to keep up with stuff (won't help if looking for a number of countries 'liberated' by US though -ffs worse than beetroot will it contaminate every thread?), anyway that NTI site has Iran looking at nuclear power from the fifties on which suprised me.
Still think its dodgy as fuck, though if had to put a constructive hat on would have to say they would be better ditching what they are doing and going down a pebble bed reactor route - that way should some uniformed design consultant working for person or persons unknown deside the place would look better without a roof the effects would be less disasterous.

 

[laptop]

miniaturisation with nukes would never be a problem.

Miniaturisation is the hard bit.

We could put together a team here that could build something the size of Little Boy:

...but something the size of the W80 (as fitted in Tomahawk cruise):

...this would really stretch us.

Unless someone has 32 Cray supercomputers in their basement they're not telling us about...

 

[laptop]

I feel a poll coming on: urban75 nuclear deterrent: yes or no?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

What you are not taking into account RY is that a lot of the stuff that the Iranian presidents words are mostly for internal consumption and anti Israelli sabre rattling is a good way for many ME leaders to get the crowds behind them.

But you'd think that they'd realize that their words would go beyond their borders, and that some, including the israelis, might not feel comfortable assuming it's all just internal propaganda.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I"m not dismissing it I'm suspicious of it.

Although the Shah has been dead for many years it would be silly to assume that the former boss class in Iran (and their US supporters) is not hankering after taking back control of Iran. .

The former boss clan in iran emigrated a couple of decades ago.

 

[laptop]

you'd think that they'd realize that their words would go beyond their borders, and that some, including the israelis, might not feel comfortable assuming it's all just internal propaganda.

Oh, I'm sure they do realise.

I've not worked out what they want.

It's possible that it's no more complicated than exposing the hypocrisy of the Current World Order - which, after all, guarantees them the right to a (civil) nuclear industry.

But I suspect they have cleverer things in mind.

And that their best chance of achieving these comes from USians (and their fellow-travellers) underestimating both their intelligence and their cunning.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Starting at the end first, i think it was Dr Strangelove who first pointed out that there is no point in having a deterent if you don't tell anyone about it, and Iran hasn't, a country with some of the largest oil and gas reserves is apparently going out on a limb in order to harness the atom to make electricity..

Isreael and South Africa denied their bombs for years, but they were still a deterrent.

Just because they deny it to the newspapers, doesn't mean that the real policymakers in the world aren't in the know.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I'd be prepared to bet that the Isreali bomb was developed right around the time that their neighbors stopped trying to attack them.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Oh, I'm sure they do realise.

I've not worked out what they want.

It's possible that it's no more complicated than exposing the hypocrisy of the Current World Order - which, after all, guarantees them the right to a (civil) nuclear industry.

But I suspect they have cleverer things in mind.

And that their best chance of achieving these comes from USians (and their fellow-travellers) underestimating both their intelligence and their cunning.

Or, the simple explanation: they're zealots.