Fan lined up?check.Excrement ready to hit? check

[poboy]

By Christian Oliver

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iranians will hear "good news" on Tehran's nuclear programme on Tuesday night, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, and Iranian media said this would mean Iran had enriched uranium for use in fuelling atomic reactors.

Such an announcement would mark a serious setback to U.N. Security Council efforts to have Iran suspend enrichment work. It could escalate a confrontation with Western powers leading to consideration of sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

The Council has demanded Iran shelve enrichment activity, which the West suspects is a preliminary step towards making nuclear bombs, and on March 29 asked the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to report on its compliance in 30 days.

http://tinyurl.com/gvx85


EDIT: Shortened URL

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Their best case--they get off one shot.

[newyorklady]

sanctions don't do anything and the u.s. is spread so thin right now, iran is taking advantage of this and knows that nothing will happen to them. scary.

[Nords]

Iranians will hear "good news" on Tehran's nuclear programme on Tuesday night, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said, and Iranian media said this would mean Iran had enriched uranium for use in fuelling atomic reactors.

How many press releases does it take to make a nuclear weapon?

[sgeeeee]

Most of the US intelligence indicates that Iran is probably a decade or more away from being able to produce a nuclear weapon. But the accuracy of this prediction is questioned by a lot of people I know who are seeing the government briefings. This administration has really poluted the intelligence community. A lot of people do not trust the information.

Bomb development is becomming a form of blackmail. Countries want to convince the US that they have nuclear bomb capability so they can negotiate a settlement of mega-cash to stop the development effort. Bad intelligence damages our ability to negotiate effectively. Is Iraq really 10 years away? Or have they gained access to some ex-Soviet materials? Did they manage to hire an expert from some other country that we don't know about?

When your Defense Secretary and Executive branch demands to hear the story that they want to hear, they eliminate the messages that are true but politically undesirable. This may help you with internal political victories, but when you have to deal with the rest of the world, you are handicapped by your own bad intelligence.

[BUM]

Originally Posted by Nords

How many press releases does it take to make a nuclear weapon?

Exactly! US diplomacy is in overdrive here. Our weapon is promises and US dollars. Maybe a Wallyworld in Tehran.

[bpp]

Ok, I'm stupid, but fundamentally, doesn't any country, even Iran, have the right to develop nuclear power if it wants? Doesn't it even have the right to develop nuclear weapons if it wants?

Yeah, if they use them, their enemies have the right to turn around and turn them into glass, but... Aren't they, in principle, in the right for the time being?

Bpp, under the influence of shochu, but seriously wondering.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by bpp

Doesn't it even have the right to develop nuclear weapons if it wants?

And if a tree falls in a forest, and there are no ears to hear it............

I'm with BPP. Sure, we don't want bad guys to have nukes, but I haven't understood our moral justification for preventing other countries from developing them.

Current Policy: "No one should have nukes 'cept us."

Reasonable Policy: "We have nukes, but we just don't think you should have them, and we're not going to let you develop them."

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I think theres an aspect of the policy that involves keeping the nukes away from people who have previously taken our citizens hostage and scream "death to america" and "death to israel" a lot.

[Rustic23]

Is there a moral justification for you to keep your neighbor from having a 1,000 lbs of C4, or a nuke weapon or any other product that could destroy your house? No. Not a moral justification. Lots of other justification but not a moral one. Morality has nothing to do with it. Besides, who decides what is ‘moral’?

Isn’t the real question, ‘Is it in our best interest to allow countries that are unfriendly to us to acquire the means to destroy us?

If your answer is Yes, then what should we do? If you answer is No, it is OK, then dig a whole.

[Nords]

Originally Posted by bpp

Ok, I'm stupid, but fundamentally, doesn't any country, even Iran, have the right to develop nuclear power if it wants?* Doesn't it even have the right to develop nuclear weapons if it wants?
Yeah, if they use them, their enemies have the right to turn around and turn them into glass, but...* Aren't they, in principle, in the right for the time being?

I can't disagree with your logic. *If I was in Iran and I'd decided that a nuclear weapon was the only way to distract motivate my nation's fervor then I'd want to be able to develop a nuclear weapon to keep my borders secure too.

But apparently the nuclear club doesn't see this as a logical situation.

This month's issue of the U.S. Naval Institute's PROCEEDINGS magazine comments that Iran is probably planning to centrifuge their U-235/238 mix, which takes a tremendous amount of real estate, equipment, & time. *(Of course the plans for Oak Ridge may still be on the Internet if the Iranians need them.) *Then Iran has a problem with delivery equipment since their warheads may be too big for their missiles. *A fissile fizzle (har!) would be considered embarrassing or downright dangerous to their defensive stance so there's some pressure on Iran to make sure they get it right before they test. *Of course North Korea is also ready to trade their "expert assistance" & Taepo Dongs for oil, so that's not insurmountable. *

The same issue mentioned that Israel is buying German submarines to produce one of the Gulf's largest forces. They're rumored to have a HARPOON or even TOMAHAWK long-range cruise-missile capability of up to several hundred miles.

So if I was Iran I wouldn't be worrying about Dubya. *I'd be worrying about Israel and my own "regime change" citizenry.

[samclem]

How is US policy different from Trombone Als "reasonable policy"? Iran is as free as any sovereign nation to develop any weapons it wants, and to deal with the consequences of their decision. Iran lied to the world about the program n the past, were caught, and admitted they were buildng a bomb. Now, they say their program is designed strctly for peaceful nuclear power production-does anyone believe that? Heck, they'd probaby have a hard time finding a spot to put a nuclear power plant--what with the excavation hole filling up with oil everytime they dig.

I think a lot of folks, in retrospect, are very happy that the Israelis set the Iraqi program back a decade with their limted military action (even the Saudis gave the strike after-the-fact kudos).

[eridanus]

What is one way a country can prevent a hostile invasion (er, sorry, "liberation") by superior land forces?

[REWahoo]

Question:

Originally Posted by eridanus

What is one way a country can prevent a hostile invasion (er, sorry, "liberation") by superior land forces?

Answer:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny

[Don't take] our citizens hostage and scream "death to america" and "death to israel" a lot.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

the new yorker
annals of national security
the iran plans
by semour m. hersh

Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

http://tinyurl.com/hyfsf

Originally Posted by Ed_The_Gypsy

Their best case--they get off one shot.

worst case: that one shot hits tel aviv.

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny

I think theres an aspect of the policy that involves keeping the nukes away from people who have previously taken our citizens hostage and scream "death to america" and "death to israel" a lot.

also rumor is they tend to be a bit suicidal.

maybe it's just a matter of the democratization of war. what's a little nukie between friends?

[Rustic23]

What strikes me in the Hersh article is the sources.
A high ranking Official
A civilian contractor with contact in the Pentagon
A friend of a friend that knows someone who use to baby sit for the Sec of Def. and so on.

I don’t doubt he talked to a great number of folks. I don’t really doubt that there are plans to bomb Iran. Lets face it there are plans to bomb and nuke all sorts of places. (As a high ranking military officer I actually read one) footnote I was a 2nd Lt. That does not mean we carried any of them out.

What I don’t know after reading this article is weather Mr. Hearsh put together the conversations he wanted to, in order to support his pre conceived idea of the administration or weather this is a well researched documentary. Heck, just by reading this forum I could quote, Naval Intelligence personal, high ranking officers, learned economist, high ranking government officials and who know what else. It does not mean any of us are doing anything more than giving an opinion based on preconceived conception.

[lazygood4nothinbum]

i agree with all that. i'd add though that i don't think any journalist ever completely divorces from their own convictions even as objective as they like to see themselves. the art of telling "news" stories is often simply a matter of finding someone else's words to say it as you see it.

[eridanus]

REWahoo, that's one way but it's obviously not the way North Korea or Iran has chosen.

The CIA put the Shah in power, which caused the anti-US backlash and revolution 25 years later. We reap what we sow.

That's not to say that crazy fundies wouldn't have arisen anyway but the US certainly increased the region's instability during the cold war.