Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran Stops Uranium Enrichment

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iran Stops Uranium Enrichment

    Now, the process of Uranium enrichment (supersonic centrifuges) yields two distinct products: weapon-grade fissile material and reactor-grade material. Is that how it works? That's why suspected nuke manufacturers can always deflect criticism and claim they need the reactor fuel only and "have no choice" but produce weapon-grade material in the process.

    "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
    --Frederick II, King of Prussia

  • #2
    Why should/could Iran not have nuclear weapons ?

    LaPalice.
    Monsieur de La Palice est mort
    Mort devant Pavie.
    Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
    Il était encore en vie...

    Comment


    • #3
      'Stability of the region'. Also know as Western hegenomy.
      "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

      Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by LaPalice
        Why should/could Iran not have nuclear weapons ?

        LaPalice.
        Because Iran is a universaly acknowledged sponsor of global terrorism. What kind of question is that? You may as well ask why the Nazi SS dosn't have the right to operate gas chambers. "But they do pay their gas bill, MonsterZero, don't they??"
        Last edited by MonsterZero; 09 Nov 03, 11:28.

        "Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a ugly brawl."
        --Frederick II, King of Prussia

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MonsterZero
          Because Iran is a universaly acknowledged sponsor of global terrorism. What kind of question is that? You may as well ask why the Nazi SS dosn't have the right to operate gas chambers. "But they do pay their gas bill, MonsterZero, don't they??"
          Iran is “calm” now, and prefer recognition on the international scene. They have economical problems and need relatively good relations with the rest of the world. And if they wanted to give WMDs to terrorists, they wouldn’t wait to have nuclear weapons, there are chemical weapons too. No state, even Iran, would be ready to give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, particularly Al Qaeda.
          I would say that the Iranian could say a nuclear weapon as something to counter the Americans who would think a lot before trying something against Iran.

          LaPalice.
          Monsieur de La Palice est mort
          Mort devant Pavie.
          Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
          Il était encore en vie...

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LaPalice
            Iran is “calm” now, and prefer recognition on the international scene. They have economical problems and need relatively good relations with the rest of the world. And if they wanted to give WMDs to terrorists, they wouldn’t wait to have nuclear weapons, there are chemical weapons too. No state, even Iran, would be ready to give a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group, particularly Al Qaeda.
            I would say that the Iranian could say a nuclear weapon as something to counter the Americans who would think a lot before trying something against Iran.

            LaPalice.
            America must have really *ucked up if people are turning to Iran as a mean of deterrence.

            I believe it would be a horrible mistake allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. The country is anything, but stable, which is why I didn't support making ways in there in the first place. Pragmatism, though, growing, has yet to take root. There is still a large fanatical sector who not only hates America, but also seeks to expand Iran's power in the region.

            Iran has a history of using political terrorism to expand her power, or ease economic strains. In the 1980's, it tried to coerce it's neighbors, but the strong American presence stopped it. It tried again in the 1990's. Bahrain claims Iran was behind more than a year of Shi'a violence which cumiliated with a failed coup. Days later, a US barracks in Riyadh occurred. Most governments in the region would depend on America to counter any expansive move Iran.

            Basically, allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would do little to hold America in check. Whether or not Iraq had WMDs is debatable. Yet, 70% of the American people thought it did and still was prepared to sustain heavy casualties to secure the country. America's relationship with Iran is worse than it was with Iraq. Bush could easily make a case against Iraq, and the world will provide the evidence by allowing it obtain nuclear weapons.

            If Iran used nuclear weapons during a conflict with the US, American will be so outraged, they'd demand retaliation. In 1991, the plan was if Iraq killed thousands of our troops with WMDs, we'd order planes to hit the damns on the Eurphrates and Tigeris rivers. Millions would have perished in the wall of water, that once settled, would have left Baghdad 6ft under. Powell later said, the US was also prepared to employ nuclear weapons if the American people and situation dictated. (He also said it was probably never going to happen since it required approval from the allies.)

            Not trying to offend you LaPalice, but your comment struck me in the same way Chirac's "we'll change our policy if Iraq uses WMDs" did. If proof and the transatlantic alliance now depends on thousands of American soldiers dying, I would honestly have to say the neo-conservatives are right to pursue unilateral foriegn policy.

            Whether people want to admit it or not, the West collective interest in the region depends on American dominance. One reason European leaders opposed the war in Iraq was because they felt it would lead to greater instability, in part because more Arabs would end up hating Americans. Our allies can't continue to suggest America must put lives in grave risk to obtain global support for causes we mutually have an interest in.

            Once again, when the *hit hits the fan, America will be the firstest with mostest. While we'll have the international support, I don't know if that will mean much to the soldiers that will die in those early hours. In 1990, American, British, and French troops were thrown to the wolves because the world wanted to wait and see whether or not Saddam invaded Kuwait. Chuck Horner said most of those troops would die fighting delaying actions.

            I'm not trying to sell Bush's ideal of pre-emptive measures. Deterrence doesn't should not be based solely on "making threats." While you might see letting Iran have nukes as no problem, I would demand Bush move a SSBN into the region, and keep them there indefinately. One nuke can take out an airbase. I want want to be sure, America has enough firepower to respond in minutes to ensure further attacks do not occur. Nukes are the way to go.

            Again, I'm not picking on you LaPalice. Like I said, I feel America is part of the blame for many of the opinions I've been hearing coming out of Europe (mainly from think-tanks). Bush is causing a stir as it appears he's adopted a tactic designed to split the EU by trying to make powers out of Eastern Europe nations. However, we shouldn't resort to foriegn policies that are equally as reckless as Bush's are.

            Someone needs to act rationally to strengthen the TransAtlantic alliance. For America, that means re-establishing confidence through less threatening policies, which are developed in part with the advice and support of allies. For Europe, it means defining it's role in the Post Cold War World that is based more on the situation, and not what everyone wishes it is.

            For decades, Europe employed quiet diplomacy to encourage American foriegn policy, and stop reckless behavior. Abandoning such strategies has already undermined the interest of Europe, and will continue to do so. Convincing America that Europe is important is still the strongest deterrent instrument in your arsenal. Don't abandon it now simply because American appear to have gotten too big for it's pants.
            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

            Comment


            • #7
              Deltapooh :

              Using terrorism to pursue political goals and using nuclear weapons are not the same thing for a state. It is not because Iranians used terrorism in the past that they will use their nuclear weapons when they will have ones, except if their country or their regime is in danger of destruction (whatever the reason). You pretend that an Iran with WMD would be a danger for the Americans. But how it would become a danger to America ? Only if the Americans by their attitude provoke it. I don’t see the Iranians attacking the Americans first with nuclear weapon and with no reasons.
              There is something I don’t like with the Americans concerning their international policy is when they claim that a country is a danger for the stability in the Middle East, and then that they must do something against it, when in fact they create themselves this danger. You create the instability in the region by your attitude and then you say that Iran or Syria is a danger. I have the impression that you provoke an animal, intentionally or not, and then claim that it is a danger for you when finally it charges. If Iran is a danger, it is to the American hegemony in the region : because the Americans come there and try to impose their will.
              You still pretend that America is a victim, and the target, when it is only an actor among other, nothing more nothing less. You say that the American soldiers could be killed by Iranian WMDs, but you only explain the effect. Why the Iranians would desire to attack the Americans ?

              Otherwise I don’t say that an Iran having nuclear weapons is not a problem, I simply don’t see why they couldn’t have ones when other countries in the world have. Would the Iranians use them if they had them ? They don’t claim they would use them. The only countries who have said that they could use nuke in preventive strikes are France and the USA.

              And I am not completely right with the fact that the West security depend on the American dominance. To maintain their independence, regimes like Saddam’s Iraq call non American cpies, French ones for example.

              LaPalice.
              Monsieur de La Palice est mort
              Mort devant Pavie.
              Un quart d'heure avant sa mort
              Il était encore en vie...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by LaPalice

                Using terrorism to pursue political goals and using nuclear weapons are not the same thing for a state. It is not because Iranians used terrorism in the past that they will use their nuclear weapons when they will have ones, except if their country or their regime is in danger of destruction (whatever the reason). You pretend that an Iran with WMD would be a danger for the Americans. But how it would become a danger to America ? Only if the Americans by their attitude provoke it. I don’t see the Iranians attacking the Americans first with nuclear weapon and with no reasons.
                Iran has expansive goals, which are in part driven by it's deteriorating economy. Even without sanctions, Iran's financial status is unlikely to improve anytime in the near future. Furthermore, hatred of America is created not only by our own acts. The US is an obstacle for anyone wishing to achieve dominance. Many analysts in Europe seem to be pushing the belief that political Islam is a contained ideal, which is only a threat to entities possessing a dominant role. This concept seeks to lay blame squarely on the US because otherwise, the Bush and America are more right than people give us credit for, and Europe will need to commit themselves to the region to a degree that is not popular.

                America causes alot of her problems. In the Middle East, we've done everything from rob and kill, to supporting those who rob and kill. Yet, at the same rate, we are the region's only hope for peace and security. Our presence is required because few other countries have the ability to actually fill the role we need to ensure the west's economic and political status.

                If I were a gambler, I'd say let the Iranians have the nukes. There's a good chance local governments will seek to consolidate relationships with America to ensure their own security. It worked in the past. However, I don't like to gamble. The risk is Iran uses the nuclear weapons, and anti-American sentiment to establish strong Arab alliance. This group can then dominate the global economy by controlling more than 40% of the world's oil. When those gas prices goes up, and begin to strangle the West, America will get the call, XVIIIth Airborne Corps, and 2 MBDE will once again find themselves on the thin blue line along with 2,000 French, 5,000 British who will all curse their governments for waiting until things are so *ucked up companies of soldiers are expected to defeat whole divisions.
                "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                Comment


                • #9
                  I agree with LaPalice here, even tho I don't like the idea of another country with nuclear arme, what right does the USA, a land with tens of thousands nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them worldwide in a matter of hours, to prevent another country from getting them, too?
                  Nuks are basically a defensive weapon, if you want to conquer another country you can't use nukes. In a military conflict it's almost impossible to use nukes because you would probably also hit your own troops and country (fallout) and would provoke a counter reaction.
                  Deltapooh, you seem to fear that Iran could strike an american airbase with nukes... now, why would they do such a dumb thing ?? What could they hope to gain from that ? The reaction would be a nuclear retaliation. This is not 1941 were the sinking of the US fleet at Pearl Harbour indeed managed to reduce the US abilities to strike back, in the age of ICBM that's no longer possible!
                  So, if there are no offensive possibles to use a nuke... why are you afraid of it? To be on guard is OK but you had thousands of soviet nukes pointed at your cities for years and still nothing happened so what's the fuss all about ? Iran is an 'unstable' country, but so is India or Pakistan or China or the former SU states... all armed with nukes! So calm down, if it's possible to prevent an Iran with nukes... great. But if not... nothing is going to happen (oh, maybe the US plans for an invasion of Iran need a little rethinking
                  "The conventional army loses if it does not win. The guerrilla wins if he does not lose."

                  Henry Alfred Kissinger

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Basically if a lot more countries get nuclear arms, the current nuclear countries lose some of their power. All this talk about stability and such is nonsense.

                    I agree with Delta and don't want Iran to get nukes either. Why? Simply, because the price of goods will likely increase in the West as a result.
                    "There is no great genius without some touch of madness."

                    Seneca (5 BC - 65 AD)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Kraut and LaPalice,

                      Now why would Napoleon ever start a war with the rest of Europe? Why would Hitler chose to invade Soviet Union in spite of non-aggression pact? Why would Americans push onward through the western part of the United States, knocking Indians off their ancestral homelands? Why? Why? Why? So many whys are completely pointless.

                      All America knows is that Iran intends to expand at her expense, and America isn't going to sit back and let her take the hit. If Iran really wants to acquire nuclear weapons, she should expect a hard fight with America and rest of Arab world, which doesn't want fundamentalism to spread beyond Iran. This is the price Iran has to pay for developing nuclear programs. Iran was caught with her pants down, too bad, she's going to have to pay that price.

                      Though in the realm of foreign policy, you are supposed to make rational decisions, but that isn't always the case, especially so in the domestic policys as well. We really can't expect everybody to make a rational decision all the time. Even occasionally American presidents do make some stupid mistakes, on both sides -- Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, you can't really expect us to believe Iran will make a rational decision.

                      As Deltapooh stated, I'm not a gambler as well, I don't to gamble that another country is going to develop a responsible nuclear policy.

                      Dan

                      PS. Deltapooh should know about the use of rationales in foreign policy decisions, if he is a political scientist, then surely he will explain much better about such rationality in foreign policy decision-making process. The foreign policy at times could be termed "unstable."
                      Last edited by Cheetah772; 09 Nov 03, 17:08.
                      Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                      "Aim small, miss small."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kraut
                        Deltapooh, you seem to fear that Iran could strike an american airbase with nukes... now, why would they do such a dumb thing ?? What could they hope to gain from that ? The reaction would be a nuclear retaliation. This is not 1941 were the sinking of the US fleet at Pearl Harbour indeed managed to reduce the US abilities to strike back, in the age of ICBM that's no longer possible!
                        A nuclear armed Iran would, in my opinion, threaten the vital interest (those conditions considered important to our way of life). If Iran is able to coerce it's neighbors into an alliance, which it's been trying to do for sometime now, it will have control of more than 40% of the world's oil reserve. Iran could then dictate prices based on the political and social ideals of the consumer.

                        I'm certain the first thought that comes to many people's mind is that America will be the only to really suffer because Arabs don't hate anyone else. However, this is power, and with power comes the desire to expand it. Sooner or later, Arab governments will seek to expand their interest by using their dominant position over global interest.

                        This isn't 1941. We can't wait for enemies to clobber us before we realize there is no reasoning with him. I would think Europe, of all people would realize that. It would be outrageous for America to allow the situation to deteriorate to the inevitable point where the shooting starts simply because it wants fewer people to have more birthdays than if we took action to deter the problem before it got out of hand.

                        I know America is not the best country on earth. We don't have the solutions. However, on this issue, I believe America is right to demand Iran stop making nuclear weapons. Otherwise, you increase the chance we'll shoot to maintain our livelihood.

                        I continue to advocate a less than threatening provocative policy against Iran. I believe the people are growing increasingly tired of strict Islamic law. If we are patient, I feel Iranians will develop a "we can do business" policy. It doesn't mean they will like us (I really don't blame them either.) It would simply ease tensions to a point where I don't have keep my gun off safety. Allowing Iran to obtain nukes could very well reverse pragmatism in the country, reviving Islamic fundamentalism.

                        The political repercussions for the US and international community could be serious. Fortunately, Iran has chosen to back off the nukes. And America must take a step back and give those in Iran who are actually trying to thaw tensions room to maneuver. However, none of this could be achieved with nukes on either side.
                        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          About the worst thing for the reform movement inside Iran would be an increasingly hawkish US. If the US goes hardline on Iran, the hardliners in Iran will be able to do away with the reformists with popular support.
                          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MikeJ
                            About the worst thing for the reform movement inside Iran would be an increasingly hawkish US. If the US goes hardline on Iran, the hardliners in Iran will be able to do away with the reformists with popular support.
                            Somehow, I doubt this, pretty soon, the hardliners would have to contend with increasingly young population's restless for relaxation of some strict laws. In fact, Iran has one of the largest youth population in Middle East, and it is rapidly outliving the older generations, which consisted of mainly hardliners and senior citizens who favored strict Islam.

                            In next 10 or 15 years, Iran could once again witness a devastating civil war with young people against older generations and fanatical supporters of Islam. Right now, the problem is present: the hardliners are more than willing to challenge the US hegemony in Middle East and looking for ways to exploit the weakened Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran was behind some attempts to forment rebellions inside Iraq to turn it to stricter band of Islam, considering how it has large Shiite population centers.

                            There is some substantial concern that the hardliners will do anything to protect their position, the problem is augmented by the fact whatever the US moves, it is highly polarized. Either US is hawkish, it could push hardliners further, or if the US is seen as weak, then the hardliners would initially take advantage of this before the more moderate leaders step in.

                            The moderate leaders have a hard time organizing themselves into a political force to be reckoned with in Iran, probably due to hardliners' ability to throw some of them into prisons.

                            In all, it doesn't really matter how the US chose to act, she could not allow Iran to possess nuclear bombs for the very danger of uncertainty.

                            Dan
                            Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                            "Aim small, miss small."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cheetah772
                              Somehow, I doubt this, pretty soon, the hardliners would have to contend with increasingly young population's restless for relaxation of some strict laws.
                              I'm not saying the reformists would be gone for good. But if the US takes a hardline with Iran, the reformists will lose creidibilty and the mullahs will be able to suppress them with popular support. This is demonstratable throughout history, all the way back to the era of city-states.

                              You threaten people and they turn to those they perceive to be strong. You threaten them more and their stance hardens more. In fact, if you look at the US and indeed your own positions, you'll find a perfect example of it.

                              Not everyone will harden their position. The pragmatists, the pacifists and the moderates will attempt to defuse the tension. But if one side is determined to take action, the cooler heads on the other side will fail.
                              "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

                              – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X