How to deal with Iran

[Biggles]

Oh, FFS...

That'll have to wait 'til Saturday.

Likewise - but I am not going to specify which Saturday.

I am sure such an option exists but I doubt if it is in the practical and usable pile.

Iran is well advanced down the nuclear road. It will be well nigh impossible to un-invent their knowledge on matters nuclear as they have now succeeded in completing the fuel cycle. Bombs are basically just fuel enrichment gone mad.

George Bush did cite Iran not having nuclear knowledge as one of three things he did not want to see. I think he will have to pass on that one. It is not clear how one can legitimately prevent Iran from proceeding with civilian nuclear power stations.

However, war/attack at this stage seems unlikely. Iran would have to do something fairly drastic to incur that kind of attention. Diplomacy and some sort of verification of their civilian programme seems the only way forward albeit perhaps not as reassuring as one would like.

[Biggles]

What happened?

Edit: Oh! my post has decided to appear

[j2k4]

What happened?

Edit: Oh! my post has decided to appear

And an excellent post it is.

Would that I practiced brevity to such superb effect...

[cpt_azad]

Oh, FFS...

That'll have to wait 'til Saturday.

Well I shall await your response on that unspecified Saturday.

[ahctlucabbuS]

The fact that just about any nuclear scenario you can imagine has been gamed to a fare-thee-well by nerds whose work lives are separated by rows upon rows of Herman Miller walls in the basement of the Pentagon should provide fodder for any number of columns Hersh might wish to write, I think.

That a substantial part of our defense budget has been spent paying these people to use their imaginations in aid of a degree of preparedness we hope is never necessary seems to have compelled Mr. Hersh to cast into imminent reality a script that surely exists, but only on the hard-drive of a DOD computor somewhere.

I have heard he next plans to publish his "findings" relative to North Korea as well.

If you read the article (granted, I've yet to find the time for the second half) you'll see that his case is based on more than nerds in the dark corners of penatagon. I would say that his article makes a valid point regarding the possibility of nuclear arms beeing used, a point which should not be dismissed solely on the grounds of what Bush consider necessary to publicly announce.

I fail to see why iran cant have nuclear weapons if they want... isnt it a tad hypocritical for america to be considering using one of its thousands of nukes to stop another country even beginning to have the technology to possibly make one of its own several years from now?

Yes. However, it would be detrimental to any treaties with the aim of reducing and ultimately disposing of ( ) nuclear arms. Both iran developing it, and the US using it...

[muchspl3]

lots of words in this thread, so I sum up what I think in one pic:

[cpt_azad]

If you read the article (granted, I've yet to find the time for the second half) you'll see that his case is based on more than nerds in the dark corners of penatagon. I would say that his article makes a valid point regarding the possibility of nuclear arms beeing used, a point which should not be dismissed solely on the grounds of what Bush consider necessary to publicly announce.

Amen.

[vidcc]

Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches



Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."

The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180.

source

I found this a gave little bit of perspective to the enrichment announcement. The fact that they have started to enrich uranium is not good news but possibly the announcement has been blown out of proportion.

The part of the article I quoted is what gave the perspective, the rest of the article is subjective opinion and I am not so sure I would care to rely on it.

[cpt_azad]

Iran Can Now Make glowing Mickey Mouse Watches



Despite all the sloppy and inaccurate headlines about Iran "going nuclear," the fact is that all President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday was that it had enriched uranium to a measely 3.5 percent, using a bank of 180 centrifuges hooked up so that they "cascade."

The ability to slightly enrich uranium is not the same as the ability to build a bomb. For the latter, you need at least 80% enrichment, which in turn would require about 16,000 small centrifuges hooked up to cascade. Iran does not have 16,000 centrifuges. It seems to have 180.

source

I found this a gave little bit of perspective to the enrichment announcement. The fact that they have started to enrich uranium is not good news but possibly the announcement has been blown out of proportion.

The part of the article I quoted is what gave the perspective, the rest of the article is subjective opinion and I am not so sure I would care to rely on it.

I'm pretty sure it's 90%, not 80% to make a bomb. It would have to be highly concentrated anyway, or so logic would say.

[Smith]

Dropping nuclear bombs is just plain wrong, not only will you kill many innocent people but it will do a number on the environment.

Remember Hiroshima? Remember the after effects? You drop a nuclear bomb, you become the terrorist. Bush has no buisness even THINKING about doing something this drastic..