[hrothgar]

keylime, on Apr 11 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

To me this is very simple. The U.S. may idly stand by and do much of nothing, but Israel can't and won't.

There isn't going to be any strike by Israel...

The Israeli's can't hit Iran without passing over big chuncks of airspace that is controlled by the US. This means that the US would need to give ACTIVE support for any Israeli actions. Even if the Israelis tried to pretent that they were going it alone, the US would (rightfully) take the blame.

As US attack on Iran would have a devasting impact on our relations with many countries in the Middle East. Giving active support for an Israeli attack is one on the few things that I can think of that would be worse. If there is going to be an attack we'll do it ourselves. We aren't gonna outsource this to the Likud.

The Israelis will sit back and do nothing - just as they sat back and did nothing during Gulf War I and II. Its not that they don't have the means or the ability, rather they recognize that this would be stupid..

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Apr 11 2006, 08:45 AM, said:

mike777, on Apr 11 2006, 04:16 PM, said:

2) The issue of Iran still being 10 years away from nukes is very confusing. It took the USA 3-4 years starting from scratch with 1940's technology. I assume IRan  knows how to build a bomb and how the parts fit together. I thought freshman college kids know this stuff. All they need to do is buy, steal or make the parts and put it together I thought. 10 years what? are they taking long lunch breaks?

I hate to be so pedantic to drag $ in to the equation, however, I suspect that Iran is constrained by the amount of money that they can invest in a crash nuclear weapons program. There is a big difference between knowing how to build a gaseous diffusion system and have an operational factory churning out enriched uranium.

I just googled the cost of the Manhattan Project. From what I can tell, the cost of the Manhaattan project was roughly a third of the total US expenditure on tanks during the entire Second World War. When the US launched the Manhattan Project, we were marshalling the resources of an entire continent involved in a war of survival. Iran is a single country and a poor one at that. I readily agree that the world is substantially further along the technology curve. Balanced against this, no one is going to sell the Iranians the parts they need to get a nuke program off the ground. Equally significant, the Iranians are being forced to build all their factories in hardened underground bunkers. I suspect that this significantly increases costs.

With oil at 70$ they may have more money to spend on this stuff. I assume with all the PHD's in Iran they can build their own stuff if it costs too much on the open market or if no one will sell them the stuff they can still buy the parts. It cannot be that difficult, we built them in the 1940's! Ten years?

[mike777]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a landmark in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday, although he insisted his country does not aim to develop atomic weapons.

Aghazadeh said Iran plans to expand its enrichment program to be able to use 3,000 centrifuges by the end of the year.

The enrichment process is one of the most difficult steps in developing a nuclear program. It requires a complicated plumbing network of pipes connecting centrifuges that can operate flawless for months or years.

The process aims to produce a gas high with an increased percentage of uranium-235, the isotope needed for nuclear fission, which is much rarer than the more prevalent isotope uranium 238.

A gas made from raw uranium is pumped into a centrifuge, which spins, causing a small portion of the heavier uranium-238 to drop away. The gas then proceeds to other centrifuges — perhaps thousands of them — where the process is repeated, increasing the proportion of uranium-235.

The enrichment process can take years to produce a gas rich enough

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 11 2006, 10:10 PM, said:

With oil at 70$ they may have more money to spend on this stuff. I assume with all the PHD's in Iran they can build their own stuff if it costs too much on the open market or if no one will sell them the stuff they can still buy the parts. It cannot be that difficult, we built them in the 1940's! Ten years?

Please note: The US National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran states that Iran will not have enough uranium to produce a bomb until 2015. There is a BIG difference between small scale enrichment and an operational weapon.

This estimate was commisioned by Stephen Hadley and prepared by John "Death Squad" Negroponte.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5080101453.html

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Apr 11 2006, 04:19 PM, said:

mike777, on Apr 11 2006, 10:10 PM, said:

With oil at 70$ they may have more money to spend on this stuff. I assume with all the PHD's in Iran they can build their own stuff if it costs too much on the open market or if no one will sell them the stuff they can still buy the parts. It cannot be that difficult, we built them in the 1940's! Ten years?

Please note: The US National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran states that Iran will not have enough uranium to produce a bomb until 2015. There is a BIG difference between small scale enrichment and an operational weapon.

This estimate was commisioned by Stephen Hadley and prepared by John "Death Squad" Negroponte.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5080101453.html

Again I fail to see why that big of a difference, we did it in less than 3 years with 1940's technology. I wish they told us why it is going to take Iran 10 years when we did it in 3.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 12 2006, 01:13 AM, said:

Again I fail to see why that big of a difference, we did it in less than 3 years with 1940's technology. I wish they told us why it is going to take Iran 10 years when we did it in 3.

Maybe the US back in 1940 was willing/able to devote more resources than the Iranians can muster today?

The Newshour is having some extensive discussions on thsi topic right now. They are being careful to note that Iranians have announced that they have enriched Uranium to 3.5%. Apparantly you need to enrich Uranium to 90% for use in bombs.

[sceptic]

Quote

Unfortunately, once you decide that its OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons

what gives you the right (America not Richard, or whoever is "you") to decide if it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons?

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Apr 11 2006, 07:23 PM, said:

Quote

Unfortunately, once you decide that its OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons

what gives you the right (America not Richard, or whoever is "you") to decide if it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons?

i thought we'd settled this might makes right, obviously

[hrothgar]

sceptic, on Apr 12 2006, 03:23 AM, said:

Quote

Unfortunately, once you decide that its OK for some countries to have nuclear weapons

what gives you the right (America not Richard, or whoever is "you") to decide if it is ok for us to have nuclear weapons?

We're the chosen people of the Lord God almighty...

We're the only people on the planet with the intelligence, judgement, and forebearance to ensure that no one ever uses an atomic weapon in anger.

And if anyone disagrees we'll bomb you back to the stone age.

[pigpenz]

whats that old Groundhogs album from the 60's
Thank Christ for the Bomb

[luke warm]

recent article

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060412/pl_nm/...ear_iran_usa_dc

i notice the UN sent a 'strongly worded letter' to iran... that's very serious because the next step is an admonishment... if that doesn't get their attention, nothing will

and from the london times

http://www.timesonli...2131695,00.html

[hrothgar]

Interesting article in this month's Altantic

http://www.theatlant...05/fallows-iran

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Apr 12 2006, 06:21 PM, said:

Interesting article in this month's Altantic

http://www.theatlant...05/fallows-iran

very interesting reading... i wonder if there are strategic planners who (objectively, meaning with no dog in the fight) disagree

[pbleighton]

"i thought we'd settled this might makes right, obviously"

As was so conclusively proven on 9/11/2001.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 12 2006, 09:49 PM, said:

"i thought we'd settled this  might makes right, obviously"

As was so conclusively proven on 9/11/2001.

Peter

i think you're confusing terrorism with might... also, what has that got to do with preventing iran from obtaining nukes? btw, you left out the smiley i had in that post, probably an accident

the final chapter on that day has not been written

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on Apr 13 2006, 01:21 AM, said:

Interesting article in this month's Altantic

http://www.theatlant...05/fallows-iran

It's consistent with just about every expert opinion that I have heard or read in the media over here.

[pbleighton]

"i think you're confusing terrorism with might..."

No confusion here. The unprincipled use of lethal force...

"also, what has that got to do with preventing iran from obtaining nukes?"

I leave that as an exercise for the student

"btw, you left out the smiley i had in that post, probably an accident"

Ah, the evils of copy and paste.
Peter

[mike777]

Some notes from 2 long tv shows on Iran and Nukes last 2 days:
1) Top Democrats believe military option is worse than letting Iran have nukes.
2) Ind. Panel says same thing.
3) Iran wants Nukes for prestige, ego thingy....
4) If Iran gets them then Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, New Iraq will want them too, this is bad but we can do nothing.
5) All mad at Bush for not talking more with Iran, in fact mad at all USA governments last 25 years for not talking more on this issue.
6) They all say 5-10 years before they get Nukes but do not discuss why we and USSR did in it 3 years with 1940's technology.
7) They say sanctions may work but this just seems silly, Sanctions will fall apart in days or weeks I strongly believe.
8) Iran will just sell the oil to someone else at a cutrate, I think.
9) These panels seem to say blackmail us and the world and we will cave and pay up. Blackmail works!

[pbleighton]

"These panels seem to say blackmail us and the world and we will cave and pay up. Blackmail works! "

"Pay up?"

The panels are saying that there will be bad consequences for us if we attack another country. Not attacking is hardly "paying up".

Peter

[the saint]

Ahmedinejad was elected under the mandate that he was going to spread the wealth amongst he country. If anything, since he has come to power, the exact opposite has happened. The Revolutionary guard has become stronger and more influential (as beftting the President's background) and the wealth has certainly not made it to the poorer strata of Iranian society.

Thus, the best option appears to be to gently encourage populist revolt in the same way the Soviet Union collapsed. The key is to arm the Iranian people with all the information, not just that which their state provides them. Give them the choice and see if they will empower themselves.

There is already a lot of tension bubbling under the surface of Iranian society, heavily divided as it is on racial, religious and tribal divides. A lot of it is ruthlessly oppressed. It wouldn't take much to rouse some factions.