Why does anyone care if Iran has nuclear bombs?

[dsm]

I didn't know I was stating something incredible, which part do you need a source for?

I'm not saying it was incredible -- just that I was unaware of "a system of facilities through-out Iran" and wondered where to start looking to find out about that.

 

[Grammatron]

I'm not saying it was incredible -- just that I was unaware of "a system of facilities through-out Iran" and wondered where to start looking to find out about that.

Well I heard it phrased that way on CNN's Capital Gang. It made sense to me and I recall Iran saying they were hiding it to prevent Israel or USA or whoever from destroying it. I'll try to do some research and see what's available about it.

 

[Grammatron]

I probably should have searched before posting the last post

Here's some interesting information I found.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke-fac.htm

 

[Number Six]

Yes, we're being softened up by the powers that be for an attack on Iran. I bet it comes right before the Presidential election in November.

I hereby bet anyone that wants to that the US will not attack Iran in 2005. To keep things reasonable and easy to follow my offer extends until the end of January at which time any bets can be considered finalized. Any takers? We could make it a monetary bet, with the loser donating the money to the JREF if you so desire.

BTW, I wonder if any of the losing bettors in the other thread followed through and made the donations to the JREF. (The bets were the the US would invade Iran before the November 2004 elections.)

 

[dsm]

I'm still wondering what people think of this report. If we are being softened up for an attack on Iran, it appears that US will be going it even more alone than it did in Iraq.

 

[Grammatron]

I'm still wondering what people think of this report. If we are being softened up for an attack on Iran, it appears that US will be going it even more alone than it did in Iraq.

I don't see US attacking Iran, unless it did something first.

 

[Peskanov]

"History offers no parallel to those thirteen days of October 1962, when the United
States and the Soviet Union paused on the nuclear precipice ... Given the odds on
disaster--which President Kennedy estimated at "between one out of three and
even"--our escape seems miraculous.
Graham T. Allison, 1971"

LucyR, in 1962, during the Cuban missiles crisis, two submarine captains had to disobey Moscow orders to avoid launching nuclear warheads. Both of them faced militar trial when they returned.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/cuba/reuters.htm

What do you make of this?
To be fair, nuclear bombs are nasty, but some of the weapons being developed makes a joke of them. Bio-engineering and nanotechnology will make country-killing weapons at the cost of peanuts. It will take 30,50 years or maybe 100, but there is no limit to the amount of power of bugs like viruses.
A baby playing with a loaded gun, that's the "mutually assured destruction" concept.

 

[Camillus]

I wonder what would have been the repercussions if Iraq had used them on Iran.

The use by Iraq of chemical weapons against Iran is well documented.

There were, AFAIK, very few reprecussions at the time.

 

[Ed]

Source?



I know some fundamentalist Muslims who would not use nuclear bombs.

Let the explinations begin:

RAFSANJANI SAYS MUSLIMS SHOULD USE NUCLEAR WEAPON AGAINST ISRAEL

TEHRAN 14 Dec. (IPS) One of Iran’s most influential ruling cleric called Friday on the Muslim states to use nuclear weapon against Israel, assuring them that while such an attack would annihilate Israel, it would cost them "damages only".

"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.

Analysts said not only Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s speech was the strongest against Israel, but also this is the first time that a prominent leader of the Islamic Republic openly suggests the use of nuclear weapon against the Jewish State.

"It seems that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is forgetting that due to the present intertwinement of Israel and Palestine, the destruction of the Jewish State would also means the mass killing of Palestinian population as well", observed one Iranian commentator.

While Israel is believed to possess between 100 to 200 nuclear war heads, the Islamic Republic and Iraq are known to be working hard to produce their own atomic weapons with help from Russia and North Korea, Pakistan, also a Muslim state, has already a certain number of nuclear bomb.

In a lengthy speech to mark the so-called "International Qods (Jerusalem) Day" celebrated in Iran only, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani, who, as the Chairman of the Assembly to Discern the Interests of the State, is the Islamic Republic’s number two man after Ayatollah Ali Khameneh’i, said since Israel was an emanation of Western colonialism therefore "in future it will be the interests of colonialism that will determine existence or non-existence of Israel".

Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani made the unprecedented threat as, following new suicide operations inside Israel and against Israeli settlements by Palestinian extremists in PA-controlled zones, responded by Israel’s heaviest bombarding of Palestinian cities, police, communication and radio-television installations, killing and wounding more than 200 people on both sides, resulted in the halting of all contacts between Israel and the PA of Mr. Yaser Arafat.

He said since Israel is the product of Western colonialism, "the continued existence of Israel depends on interests of arrogance and colonialism and as long as the base is helpful for colonialism, it is going to keep it.

Hashemi-Rafsanjani advised Western states not to pin their hopes on Israel's violence because it will be "very dangerous".

"We are not willing to see security in the world is harmed", he said, warning against the "eruption of the Third World War.

"War of the pious and martyrdom seeking forces against peaks of colonialism will be highly dangerous and might fan flames of the World War III", the former Iranian president said, backing firmly suicide operations against Israel.

Quoted by the official news agency IRNA, Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani said weakening of Palestinian Jihad is "unlikely", as the Palestinians have come to the conclusion that talks would be effective only "in light of struggle and self-sacrifice- the two key elements that gave way to beginning of the second Intifada".
Iranian analysts and commentators outside Iran immediately reacted to Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s statement, expressing fear that it might trigger an international backlash against Iran itself, giving Israel, the United States and other Western and even Arab nations to further isolate Iran as a source of threat to regional security.
"Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world", Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani warned, blaming on the United States and Britain the "creation of the fabricated entity" in the heart of Arab and Muslim world.

"The man who considers himself as the most able politician in the Islamic Republic utters such nonsense and empty threats at a very time that the hard line and extremist government of Israel under Mr. Ariel Sharon is looking for justification of its repressive policy against Palestinians", said Mr. Ahmad Salamatian, a veteran political analyst based in Paris.

"At a time that the right wing Israeli government is claiming that the very existence of Israel and the Jews are threatened and uses this pretext as an instrument to advance its policy of repression in Palestine, such statements and ushering such dangerous menaces by one of Iran’s top officials is nothing but bringing water to Israel’s propaganda mill, providing it with more justifications explaining its present maximalist policy", he told the Persian service of Radio France Internationale.

Though Mr. Salamatian is of the opinion that Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s words are part of both his own show and the ongoing internal tensions between conservatives and reformers, however, he also agrees with other Iranian analysts that his "untimely" menace could backfire, becoming a justification for threats against Iran, at a time that the United States and its allies are determined to continue the fight against international terrorism.

"One of Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s main characteristics in Iranian politics during the past twenty years is that in order to preserve his own position, he is ready to set fire to all the Caesareas for one handkerchief, including, in the present case, providing Israel with enough pretext to attack Iran", he noted, adding: "for the time being and what is important for Mr. Sharon is that this kind of statements are open invitation for more violence, an encouragement to extremists on either side of the Israel-Palestine conflict".

Observing that despite the fact that Israel is believed to have more than one hundred atomic warheads and the necessary technology to transport them to the very heart of Iran and elsewhere, but no Israeli official nor any newspaper have ever raised the slightest possibility of an atomic threat, "even in defence of their very existence", Mr. Salamatian wondered the reasons behind Mr. Hashemi-Rafsanjani’s declaration, which he said should be taken seriously "considering the rank of the man who pronounced it". ENDS RAFSANJANI NUKE THREATS 141201
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

This was from 12/01, BTW.

 

[Ed]

Let the explinations begin:



This was from 12/01, BTW.

I am curious to hear responses to this explication of Islamic Brotherhood. I suspect we will hear:

- He does not speak for anyone
- Bush ... (fill in blank)
- The US ... (fill in blank)

The pint is that if a Western leader, not part of the Islamic protected pet class, said such a thing I cannot imagine the uproar.

These folks are dangerious particularly because of the dolts that back and fill for them.

 

[varwoche]

Demon, that's all good and well but Israel can't pull it off. There's no 1 reactor that they can blow up like in Iraq, there's a system of facilities through-out Iran. Most of them are hidde and in population centers. It would require a long-term campaign that US might pull off but at too great a cost, IMHO.

Based on what's been reported about Iran's multiple facilities, this sounds right. Not to mention, a draft would have to be instituted.

If the Bush administration is taken at face value about wmd in Iraq (a mistake), and about Iran's program (a threat), we are left with these facts / conclusions:

-- Consistently over time, Iran has sponsored terrorism to a far greater extent than Iraq.

-- Iran is an Islamic theocracy in harmony with Islamists; Iraq was not.

-- Iran has a nuclear program. On present course (according to Bush admin) they will soon have nukes. Iraq had nothing.

-- Iraq wmd fiasco hurt US credibility to a significant extent, and makes it much harder to gain internation support for military action.

Unless the US is able to pressure a diplomatic solution, this will be yet one more failed rationale for the Iraq war, and a dire one at that.

 

[Kerberos]

I am curious to hear responses to this explication of Islamic Brotherhood.

Frankly I don't believe him, tough talk is one thing, inviting a nuclear retaliation against your country is another. Don't get me wrong, the thought of a nuclear armed Iran isn't exactly pleasant to me, but I doubt that the first thing Iran would do on getting nukes would be to scream "Allahu Akbar" and nuke Israel.

I suspect we will hear:
- He does not speak for anyone

True, he doesn't speak for everybody, he doesn't even speak for everybody in Iran. Do you disagree with that?

The pint is that if a Western leader, not part of the Islamic protected pet class, said such a thing I cannot imagine the uproar.

And you can't think of any other reason than that he's a Muslim that people care less about what he says than if he had been a western leader? None at all?

 

[LucyR]

The use by Iraq of chemical weapons against Iran is well documented.

There were, AFAIK, very few reprecussions at the time.

You misunderstood. I was referring to the use of nuclear weapons. The poster made the remark that there were no repercussions for Iraq for using chemical weapons. I was wondering what the repercussions would have been for nuclear weapons.

 

[dsm]

I don't see US attacking Iran, unless it did something first.

Isn't that what we thought about Iraq when Bush began his first term?

But more interestingly, with the British lining up against a Iranian attack, doesn't this cut the wind out of diplomatic overtures towards Iran. The Iranian government can now control the situation because the fear of US reprisals is much less ("they're overextended on Iraq and no one will join them in a coalition against us"). In other words, although the British are trying to push the Bush administration to not repeat the Iraq situation, isn't this really raising the threat of another war?

 

[Ed]

Frankly I don't believe him, tough talk is one thing, inviting a nuclear retaliation against your country is another. Don't get me wrong, the thought of a nuclear armed Iran isn't exactly pleasant to me, but I doubt that the first thing Iran would do on getting nukes would be to scream "Allahu Akbar" and nuke Israel.


True, he doesn't speak for everybody, he doesn't even speak for everybody in Iran. Do you disagree with that?


And you can't think of any other reason than that he's a Muslim that people care less about what he says than if he had been a western leader? None at all?

Actually, I really can't think of any other reasons. The guy is the major nut in a theocracy. Why would he not be taken seriously? As far as apeaking for other Iranians, it hardly matters if the relioious nuts control the Army, right?

 

[demon]

dsm:
"Then what do you make of this?"

While I'm sure Blair's government has no appetite for jumping on the liberate Iran bandwagon, I see Straw's "dossier" as being largely for public consumption only.
If real men do decide to go to Tehran, I'd imagine Britain would play the same sort of role as during the Vietnam war - public disassociation but private support. If there's a covert war to be fought, I'm sure Blair would put our intelligence services and the SAS at the US's disposal.
It's just not in the history of our foreign policy to seriously oppose US plans.

 

[gnome]

The concept of MAD works, but it relies on all the members of the nuclear club having rational leadership. The larger that club gets, the less likely that will hold true.

 

[jay gw]

The US is not the world policeman, if Iran does violate the agreement(s) they've signed, then the United Nations is the one to punish them. There are several options available, if it ever comes to that.

They may not listen if Bush and company are belligerent and let ridiculous stories like "Todays news....the US special forces are running around ILLEGALLY in sovereign nations" pass without denials and apologies.

I find it pretty funny that all the people who mock the UN's effectiveness are the same ones that believe America is more effective. Here's a reminder: the UN was SUCCESSFUL at keeping weapons out of Iraq, and the United States FAILED to analyze the situation correctly in any way.

Who's laughing now?

 

[dsm]

The concept of MAD works, but it relies on all the members of the nuclear club having rational leadership. The larger that club gets, the less likely that will hold true.

Yeah, but who will be the first to pull the trigger? The irrational ones because, well, they're irrational or the rational ones out of fear that the irrational ones will go first?

 

[Jocko]

The US is not the world policeman...

*snicker*

...if Iran does violate the agreement(s) they've signed, then the United Nations is the one to punish them. There are several options available, if it ever comes to that.

*double snicker*

They may not listen if Bush and company are belligerent and let ridiculous stories like "Todays news....the US special forces are running around ILLEGALLY in sovereign nations" pass without denials and apologies.

*hearty guffaw*

I find it pretty funny that all the people who mock the UN's effectiveness are the same ones that believe America is more effective. Here's a reminder: the UN was SUCCESSFUL at keeping weapons out of Iraq, and the United States FAILED to analyze the situation correctly in any way.

Take a look at the UN's own intelligence, if that's what you really believe. Look at Blix's testimony. And then tell me again how good the UN is at keeping its shoes on the correct feet, let alone managing Hussein.

Who's laughing now?

I know I am.

Are you still in college by any chance? Just wondering.