Russo-Syrian arms shenanigans

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

The UN and the atomic bomb are the greatest inventions for peace of the 20th century.

 

What's your position on nuclear proliferation then? Seems hypocritical not to allow Iran to have a nuclear program when Israel has one. Same applies to North Korea naturally.

 

 

Nope Iran cannot be allowed to get Nuclear weapons, they have been proven to make far too many extreme foreign policy decisions and are major supporters of known terrorist groups like Hezbollah. If they somehow did get Nuclear weapons this would destabilize the region and this cannot be allowed to happen

 

Sorry Drowsy but even though I may not agree with everything Israel does they are a much more stable and easily understood country than Iran. So you shouldn't ask the question " but why can't Iran get Nuclear weapons if Israel has them?" Its two different scenario's.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The US is a major supporter of the terrorist Albanian KLA (and others) so that point is moot and irrelevant.*

 

How would it destabilize the region, please explain? The Israelis and Iranians wouldn't be able to use nuclear weapons against each other, and the Iranians would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by using them against any other major power, or indeed against anyone.

 

*As early as 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and funds supplied from Islamic countries and individuals, including Osama bin Laden. This did not stop the United States from arming and training KLA members in Albania and in the summer of 1998 sending them back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and intimidate hesitant Kosovo Albanians. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BIS111A.html

Quote is by former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania, James Bisset

Edited June 18, 2013 by Drowsy Emperor

[Rostere]

 

 

 

The UN and the atomic bomb are the greatest inventions for peace of the 20th century.

 

What's your position on nuclear proliferation then? Seems hypocritical not to allow Iran to have a nuclear program when Israel has one. Same applies to North Korea naturally.

 

 

NK is a minor actor, they don't need nuclear weapons when China has them.

 

The Middle East does definitely need to be stabilized but I'd much rather Turkey or Egypt sat with the nukes than Iran.

[Agiel]

While I can't stand for a nuclear Iran either, it's actually quite unlikely that they would ever use it to "wipe Israel off the map." Iran has always been lacking in good relations with its neighbours since time immemorial, so nuking Israel and potentially irradiating many sites holy to Islam as well as killing a whole lot of fellow Muslims is the last thing Iran needs when they are currently the second most hated entity in the Middle East.

 

Honestly, I don't think they actually are trying to produce a weapon, but I do believe they are developing the capacity to produce one very quickly if and when they do call for it (this capability is why Japan is considered a de facto nuclear power, as while they are banned from having military capable of force projection, they have the resources and know-how to make one). That the west and Israel has been unable to unambiguously prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are actively producing one after all these years of cyber-warfare and defectors that my guess is that Iran is daring the US and Israel to bomb them in order to turn world opinion against them.

[Walsingham]

Not clear what you mean by proving Iran is working on a bomb. I don't think it's credible that Natanz is purely domestic. Unless as you say it's a case of it being cheaper and easier to bluff. But that sounds like a bluff I haven't got the stones for.

 

I'm afraid I don't believe that even advanced nations can just whistle up a weaponised nuke. Look at the money the UK has to spend on ours. And that's just maintaining the bloody things. It's a very very complex system, from design to disposal.

 

I do agree that Israel isn't actually the most obvious nuke target for Iran. Nukes are a weapon for defending raw existence. That threat is more likely from Sunni extremist movements seizing power in Saudi or Pakistan. Not to mention pointing at Europe if the USA gets too interested.

[Rostere]

I'm afraid I don't believe that even advanced nations can just whistle up a weaponised nuke. Look at the money the UK has to spend on ours. And that's just maintaining the bloody things. It's a very very complex system, from design to disposal.

 

Making a primitive nuclear weapon if you have the raw material is actually shockingly simple. Making a reliable one is harder, and making a modern delivery system is by far the hardest part.

 

The most important part is which parts of the enrichment process you control. If you have raw materials in a mine, and the appropriate enrichment facilities, it's likely enrichment is going to be the bottleneck. If you lack facilities for enrichment, it's going to take a good while to build those. And obviously it's impossible to start if you lack the raw materials to begin with. I suspect Japan has a compele "chain" in this regard and that is why you consider them close to being a nuclear power.

 

If you have all the prerequisites, it would take a maximum of a couple of months to have an "ugly thing in the back of a truck" nuclear bomb.

 

If you want a reliable bomb stored safely with a modern delivery system, now that would take loads of money and years of research for a nation who has yet to even launch astronauts into space.

[Walsingham]

Well, I'd forgotten about the old truck bomb option. I'd have thought that a nation whose navy is basically speedboats is probably up for that.

 

But I was after all thinking about the cachet every tinpot loon dreams of: the tumescent missiles in their silos...

[Drowsy Emperor]

Regardless the whole point of the weapon is not in its use. The hypothetical scenario where it would be given to a covert group and set off without implicating its original owner, is just a fantasy. In regards to nukes, everyone knows everything - the moment one is set off the whole world would know who did it, and they wouldn't be happy about it.

 

As was already said, its a defensive weapon, a guarantee really that a nuclear power can't wage war on you without fear of reprisal.

 

Iran needs it in the same way NK needs it, as the ultimate trump card against a possible intervention. And for those purposes, there are no grounds on which it can be denied.

 

The discussion is moot of course. If they can develop it, they will, of course, and they should. Any country is fully within its rights to defend its independence to the fullest extent.

 

From what I understand the former nuclear program Iran had was destroyed or set back by Israeli air strikes, the current one is buried too deep underground for airstrikes to work dependably. Hence the covert ops to destroy it from the inside.

But really its a matter of time, an attack on Iran is obviously beyond the capabilities/political will of the west or they would have already done it. So the building of a nuclear weapon is not a queston of if, but when.

 

As for the warhead delivery system, I don't believe Iran is particularly advanced in that regard. But they don't need to be, all they need is to be able to hit Israel reliably to force a stalemate.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

 

 

The UN and the atomic bomb are the greatest inventions for peace of the 20th century.

 

What's your position on nuclear proliferation then? Seems hypocritical not to allow Iran to have a nuclear program when Israel has one. Same applies to North Korea naturally.

 

 

NK is a minor actor, they don't need nuclear weapons when China has them.

 

The Middle East does definitely need to be stabilized but I'd much rather Turkey or Egypt sat with the nukes than Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The UN and the atomic bomb are the greatest inventions for peace of the 20th century.

 

What's your position on nuclear proliferation then? Seems hypocritical not to allow Iran to have a nuclear program when Israel has one. Same applies to North Korea naturally.

 

 

NK is a minor actor, they don't need nuclear weapons when China has them.

 

The Middle East does definitely need to be stabilized but I'd much rather Turkey or Egypt sat with the nukes than Iran.

 

 

NK is minor but they're not China and should not have to depend on Chinese protection. Why would they do that? And why is that a reason for them not to have nuclear weapons?

 

How would a nuclear Turkey/Egypt stabilize the middle east when they're not really a threat to Israel? Strong words are thrown about from time to time, but the real conflict is Israel & Sunni states vs (separatelty, obviously) Iran. Only a nuclear Iran would bring that conflict to a stalemate, but even that wouldn't guarantee peace for the rest of the unstable countries.

[BruceVC]

Regardless the whole point of the weapon is not in its use. The hypothetical scenario where it would be given to a covert group and set off without implicating its original owner, is just a fantasy. In regards to nukes, everyone knows everything - the moment one is set off the whole world would know who did it, and they wouldn't be happy about it.

 

As was already said, its a defensive weapon, a guarantee really that a nuclear power can't wage war on you without fear of reprisal.

 

Iran needs it in the same way NK needs it, as the ultimate trump card against a possible intervention. And for those purposes, there are no grounds on which it can be denied.

 

The discussion is moot of course. If they can develop it, they will, of course, and they should. Any country is fully within its rights to defend its independence to the fullest extent.

 

From what I understand the former nuclear program Iran had was destroyed or set back by Israeli air strikes, the current one is buried too deep underground for airstrikes to work dependably. Hence the covert ops to destroy it from the inside.

But really its a matter of time, an attack on Iran is obviously beyond the capabilities/political will of the west or they would have already done it. So the building of a nuclear weapon is not a queston of if, but when.

 

As for the warhead delivery system, I don't believe Iran is particularly advanced in that regard. But they don't need to be, all they need is to be able to hit Israel reliably to force a stalemate.

 

It sounds like you actually want Iran to continue to enrich Uranium, irrespective of the outcome? Don't you care about the inexorable consequences  that will befall the Iranian people if they continue to go this unnecessary route. You do realize that almost no country in the world wants Iran to get Nuclear technology including Russia, China and almost all the members of the Arab League?

[Drowsy Emperor]

I don't see the majority of the Iranian people against the nuclear program, do you? 

 

North Korea already has some functioning nuclear weapons so where are those consequences? Sanctions? Isolation? 

 

Finally, with the constant threats the Sunni states and Israel make against Iran I fail to see how the nuclear program is unnecessary. Its their only real guarantee against foreign intervention. They would be stupid not to build it asap.

[BruceVC]

I don't see the majority of the Iranian people against the nuclear program, do you? 

 

North Korea already has some functioning nuclear weapons so where are those consequences? Sanctions? Isolation? 

 

Finally, with the constant threats the Sunni states and Israel make against Iran I fail to see how the nuclear program is unnecessary. Its their only real guarantee against foreign intervention. They would be stupid not to build it asap.

 

But Drowsy its irrelevant if the majority of the Iranians want to get nuclear technology( and I question if this is what the average Iranian actually wants considering all the issues around it)

 

Nuclear technologies become a global issue and we live in a global world. The global community doesn't want Iran to go this route so its not going to happen. You need to accept this to avoid major disappointment later

[Rostere]

NK is minor but they're not China and should not have to depend on Chinese protection. Why would they do that? And why is that a reason for them not to have nuclear weapons?

 

How would a nuclear Turkey/Egypt stabilize the middle east when they're not really a threat to Israel? Strong words are thrown about from time to time, but the real conflict is Israel & Sunni states vs (separatelty, obviously) Iran. Only a nuclear Iran would bring that conflict to a stalemate, but even that wouldn't guarantee peace for the rest of the unstable countries.

 

You asked for my opinion. In my opinion, a global balance of power through nuclear deterrence creates stability. Thus, first, the strongest state has nuclear arms (by definition...). Secondly, in order to maintain the balance, we must give nuclear arms to any other single nation which could through it's own military might initiate a world war. Today, these nations with "legitimate" nuclear weapons include Russia, China, the US and the EU, not surprisingly all NPT signatory countries. Other countries like India, Japan and Brazil are runners-up to this status (in my opinion). Through this distribution of arms, the world is guaranteed no world war will occur.

 

So why don't I think it's a good idea to extend this to including every country? Theoretically, this would deter every war if you extend the above argument.

 

It's simple. First, you want to give nuclear arms to as few countries as possible because of the risk of an unwanted catastrophe. This argment is entirely based on probability. Second, this choice becomes a question of the military might of a single nation versus that of the UN. Liechtenstein, Slovakia or Iran does not need nuclear weapons because if these countries were to aggressively invade another country, the UN could intervene and handle that conflict sufficiently well. What if China or Russia would invade a neighbouring country, then the intervention required would be of such massive scale it would eventually drag the entire world with it in the conflict, and the eventual retribution would upset the geopolitical balance so much that other major powers might be compelled to join in on the weaker side just to keep it in place. So these states are de facto world powers, and are the actual interests you must balance in global politics, therefore the legitimate holders of nuclear arms. So in short, it's a "might makes right" argument. Notice that I have a global perspective here, and not the perspective of any specific nation. It's in the global interest to have stability.

 

North Korea does not meet any necessary criterion. Any aggression from their side would be met by universal condemnation from the UN. They would have no allies in an aggressive war. Not surprisingly, the UNSC has already condemned their alleged acquisition of nuclear arms (yes, that includes China). Iran is also not important enough.

 

The presence of nuclear arms in Israel is a huge destabilizing factor in the region, but Israel has only a defensive interest regarding Iran. You might hear a lot of angry words but that's just because some Israeli politicians are afraid that Iran might either attack Israel aggressively with their nuclear weapons (which is unlikely in the short term, but a valid complaint in the long term), or because they are afraid this would shift the power balance in the region in the favour of the native Muslim community (which is not a valid complaint). I don't want Iran to have nuclear arms, I don't want Israel to have nuclear arms. I don't want any country in the Middle East to have nuclear arms, not even if Israel has them, but Iran is an especially poor choice since I think there are countries such as Egypt or Turkey which have far more long-term stable political systems.

 

The current issues of this theory of mine is largely regions such as Africa or South America, which entirely lack a major nuclear-armed power, or a permanent member of the UNSC. Without any such guarantor of stability, they would lack a voice in the global community.

 

Also, Israel is no way allied with the nations you mention. They are simply separately involved in a conflict against the same actor.

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

I don't see the majority of the Iranian people against the nuclear program, do you? 

 

North Korea already has some functioning nuclear weapons so where are those consequences? Sanctions? Isolation? 

 

Finally, with the constant threats the Sunni states and Israel make against Iran I fail to see how the nuclear program is unnecessary. Its their only real guarantee against foreign intervention. They would be stupid not to build it asap.

 

But Drowsy its irrelevant if the majority of the Iranians want to get nuclear technology( and I question if this is what the average Iranian actually wants considering all the issues around it)

 

Nuclear technologies become a global issue and we live in a global world. The global community doesn't want Iran to go this route so its not going to happen. You need to accept this to avoid major disappointment later

 

 

Lok Bruce, you need to stop speaking doublespeak. 

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

Also, Israel is no way allied with the nations you mention. They are simply separately involved in a conflict against the same actor.

 

 

That's what I said. 

 

Interesting perspective overall though. 

[Agiel]

Iran needs it in the same way NK needs it, as the ultimate trump card against a possible intervention. And for those purposes, there are no grounds on which it can be denied.

 

The discussion is moot of course. If they can develop it, they will, of course, and they should. Any country is fully within its rights to defend its independence to the fullest extent.

 

From what I understand the former nuclear program Iran had was destroyed or set back by Israeli air strikes, the current one is buried too deep underground for airstrikes to work dependably. Hence the covert ops to destroy it from the inside.

But really its a matter of time, an attack on Iran is obviously beyond the capabilities/political will of the west or they would have already done it. So the building of a nuclear weapon is not a queston of if, but when.

 

I'd say that a country that resorts to using their nascent nuclear weapons program as well as their military to extort neighbouring countries as a means of political and economic subsistence has demonstrated a total unwillingness to take part in a responsible non-proliferation regime. Both South Korea and China were and are more than happy to help North Korea out of their economic woes, but the North Korean regime either dragged their feet or stonewalled them entirely, as the measures both of them were hoping for would mean admitting that the regime was a sham. Even Iran's economic troubles are mostly on their own heads (fun fact: despite being a major oil exporter, Iran imports most of its energy needs).

 

How about I ask you this: As a pre-requisite to North Korea eventually becoming a prosperous, peace-loving nation in which case its nuclear program would be let be so long as it were solely for energy, should the North Korean leadership admit to errors in judgement on the part of the Great Leader and the Dear Leader (mistakes which continue under Kim Jong-Un's leadership)?

[Calax]

I feel that automatically condemning a nation for attempting to get nukes is shortsighted and rather stupid. The inherent problem with Nukes is that it creates the "haves" and "have nots" in international relations and military arms. It creates an inherently unequal playing field, and nobody I know of would like an unequal playing field like that. It's highly hypocritical of the US to say "Yes, we have nukes, but you can't have them!" to everyone who might develop Nukes on their own. Even if I had no intention of using the suckers, as a world leader I'd practically force my R&D crew to make em simply because I didn't want to have to deal with a foreign leader who could come to me and say "Give me your economy, or die in nuclear fire"

 

Right now, what's creating a stronger lasting peace isn't Iran trying to weave around being blown up by NATO and the USSR, it's the economic interdependence created by the increasing infrastructure. China wouldn't go after America, we MAKE their entire economy. Russia wouldn't endanger it's relationship with the west for similar reasons (although they won't let the west go nuts either). The issue with the middle east is that the main actors there don't have much in the way of necessary trading partners that are on the other side of their conflict (due to sanctions etc) and if they do have VERY strong ties (Israel) nobody is even thinking of using the economic ties to attempt a change.

[Rostere]

I feel that automatically condemning a nation for attempting to get nukes is shortsighted and rather stupid. The inherent problem with Nukes is that it creates the "haves" and "have nots" in international relations and military arms. It creates an inherently unequal playing field, and nobody I know of would like an unequal playing field like that. It's highly hypocritical of the US to say "Yes, we have nukes, but you can't have them!" to everyone who might develop Nukes on their own. Even if I had no intention of using the suckers, as a world leader I'd practically force my R&D crew to make em simply because I didn't want to have to deal with a foreign leader who could come to me and say "Give me your economy, or die in nuclear fire"

 

Right now, what's creating a stronger lasting peace isn't Iran trying to weave around being blown up by NATO and the USSR, it's the economic interdependence created by the increasing infrastructure. China wouldn't go after America, we MAKE their entire economy. Russia wouldn't endanger it's relationship with the west for similar reasons (although they won't let the west go nuts either). The issue with the middle east is that the main actors there don't have much in the way of necessary trading partners that are on the other side of their conflict (due to sanctions etc) and if they do have VERY strong ties (Israel) nobody is even thinking of using the economic ties to attempt a change.

 

You underline the issues with the current status quo. Africa/Middle East lack their own nuclear armed state to protect the interests of the region. Therefore, since the area is in effect outside the "sphere of interest" of any of the world powers, in the absence of a stronger UN it becomes a lawless playing ground for said world powers and strong local powers. Iran is a bad choice of country to have nuclear arms for several reasons, firstly it's a theocracy (and I think we all agree the world tends towards democracy, meaning Iran will eventually go through a revolution), with the exception of Iraq they have no reliable long-term allies (Syria is ruled by a sympathetic minority and Lebanon is a shakeup) - giving nuclear arms to Iran would indeed be very short-sighted. Since they are only a minor regional power, all of Iran's enemies would suddenly need nuclear arms as well. Turkey and Saudi Arabia especially, because they are the ones who stand to lose. And to no surprise, these countries are also opponents to Iran having nuclear weapons, while Turkey supports a peaceful nuclear Iranian technology, perfectly in line with their aspirations to be a just major power in the region.

 

Instability is caused by upsetting the balance of power, stability is made by maintaining it. Any change to the status quo is preferrably cleared through diplomatical agreement - that is, through the UN. By giving nuclear arms to a weaker nation (in any region), you are potentially upsetting the balance in that region. Turkey is by far a more viable candidate for nuclear armament than Iran when it comes to that part of the world. Iran is indeed a "have-not" when compared to the US, but you are forgetting the crucial part of all the other countries in that neighbourhood. Already, Israel has nuclear arms, which is a catastrophe with regards to geopolitical considerations. Giving Iran nukes as well would only serve to increase the tension. Two wrongs do not make a right. Turkey is today the natural leader of the region and catalyst for solving that conflict, the further you arm smaller countries, the further you risk anarchy and chaos.

 

It is hypocritical to not allow Iran to have peaceful nuclear technology, but it's not hypocritical to disallow them to have nukes. It's not hypocritical to disallow me to have nukes, it's not hypocritical to disallow the Tea Party to have nukes, and it's not hypocritical to disallow the Newtownabbey Borough Council or whatever to have nukes. The UN is clear on the matter: it does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. It is not the inherent "right" of any nation to have nuclear arms, and the democratic procedure of handling those questions is best left to the global community in the form of the UN.

 

The interesting question here is really why this diplomatic effort (if anyone can remember...) was prevented by the US. Essentially, it would mean Iran could trade all the enriched fuels needed for peaceful purposes with Brazil and Turkey, in exchange for handing over their own materials and dismantling their own enrichment facilities.

[Zoraptor]

That was blocked because the nuclear program is an excellent excuse for getting sanctions onto an enemy who is antagonistic to you and all your regional allies. Remove the nukular threat and it gets very difficult to justify sanctions, and you end up with a Cuba type situation where nobody else bothers.

 

Can't say that I really agree with a lot of other stuff either. Turkey is not the natural leader, it's not Arab, is an old colonial power not remembered overly fondly and has a recent history of secularism that is at odds with the current tide, even if their current leader is a mild(ish) Islamist. Egypt is the closest thing to a natural leader in the Arab world/ middle east. As a member of NATO Turkey does not need nukes, and the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood or the house of Saud having nukes is every bit as bad an idea as the Iranians having them, in fact one of the main reasons for not wanting Iran to have them is so that if they do get them Saudi will probably feel they have to. The Sunni gulf states have already tried to topple Iran once, via proxy Saddam, while even in Bahrain at present no one except the Khalifas is saying that Iran is doing anything, and that in a country where the shia majority is being oppressed without either (western) comment nor sanction- even active support from Britain in terms of riot gear, gas, monitoring equipment, sniper rifles etc. And I'm less than convinced that democracy is some sort of default state of affairs, most of the elections in the ME are returning islamist parties to power, which are by definition neither secular (nor even, by definition, pluralist) nor particularly in favour of freedom except as it is defined in the(ir interpretation of the) Koran.

 

I have no problems with Iran seeking nuclear weapons despite its ramifications as given their strategic situation it would be eminently sensible to do, though I am unconvinced it is what they are actually doing since it's the same people as insisted that Saddam had WMDs. It's as likely that they've got sick of having to sell their unrefined oil for a relative pittance then reimport refined stuff at a premium because they are blocked from increasing their refining capacity/ maintaining what they have, and nuclear power gives them that power irrespective.

[Rostere]

That was blocked because the nuclear program is an excellent excuse for getting sanctions onto an enemy who is antagonistic to you and all your regional allies. Remove the nukular threat and it gets very difficult to justify sanctions, and you end up with a Cuba type situation where nobody else bothers.

 

 

Can't say that I really agree with a lot of other stuff either. Turkey is not the natural leader, it's not Arab, is an old colonial power not remembered overly fondly and has a recent history of secularism that is at odds with the current tide, even if their current leader is a mild(ish) Islamist. Egypt is the closest thing to a natural leader in the Arab world/ middle east.

 

Egypt has historically been a leader in the pan-Arab movement, but you really need a reality check regarding the power of the different countries in the ME. Turkey is rougly equal to 2-3 Egypts by any measure. Saudi Arabia comes closer to Turkey, but I think that country is regarded as too undemocratic in the ME as well. You can't appoint a leader among nations who lacks the authority through power needed to rule.

 

Let me remind you that this current movement of "Islamism" might prove to be a sideshow in the long perspective. Only 30 years ago it was a pretty irrelevant ideology, globally speaking. In 1967 pan-Arab nationalism was at it's peak, but that movement is all but gone now.

 

 

As a member of NATO Turkey does not need nukes, and the idea of the Muslim Brotherhood or the house of Saud having nukes is every bit as bad an idea as the Iranians having them, in fact one of the main reasons for not wanting Iran to have them is so that if they do get them Saudi will probably feel they have to. The Sunni gulf states have already tried to topple Iran once, via proxy Saddam, while even in Bahrain at present no one except the Khalifas is saying that Iran is doing anything, and that in a country where the shia majority is being oppressed without either (western) comment nor sanction- even active support from Britain in terms of riot gear, gas, monitoring equipment, sniper rifles etc.

 

You're right about Turkey's NATO membership. In my opinion, it does not only entail military support, but also political constraints.

 

The Muslim Brotherhood is obviously not about to have nuclear weapons itself, but if you're talking about the government of Egypt they're far better than Saudi Arabia or Iran.

 

 

And I'm less than convinced that democracy is some sort of default state of affairs, most of the elections in the ME are returning islamist parties to power, which are by definition neither secular (nor even, by definition, pluralist) nor particularly in favour of freedom except as it is defined in the(ir interpretation of the) Koran.

 

The voice of the Islamist parties is not the voice of some militant modern Middle East, it is the voice of the traditional and conservative countryside. Among urban youth, liberal parties have much higher support. You've got to reflect over the fact that democracy is a new thing in many of these countries, and the are not at all as modern as ours. I also don't understand what you mean by "returning" Islamist parties to power.

 

In 1960, there was institutionalized racial segregation in the US. That's definitely not pluralist but it does not mean you should consider the entire country irredeemable. Democracy is not a "default state of affairs", but historical economical and political developments lead to democracy. Democracy is simply an inherently very stable form of government.

 

 

I have no problems with Iran seeking nuclear weapons despite its ramifications as given their strategic situation it would be eminently sensible to do, though I am unconvinced it is what they are actually doing since it's the same people as insisted that Saddam had WMDs. It's as likely that they've got sick of having to sell their unrefined oil for a relative pittance then reimport refined stuff at a premium because they are blocked from increasing their refining capacity/ maintaining what they have, and nuclear power gives them that power irrespective.

 

I am also not convinced Iran is seeking nuclear arms. To problem is that they are building the entire enrichment chain needed for both nuclear power plants, experimental and medical purposes. With that, they could build nuclear weapons very fast even if their original intent was not to do so.

 

To put things into perspective, far from all countries who have nuclear power have the entire refinement industry whithin their own borders, only the most powerful countries have that arrangement.

 

So the core issue is really how to give Iran peaceful nuclear power without having them build an industry which can also create the material needed for weapons, as correctly identified by Turkey and Brazil in 2010.

[Zoraptor]

Returning in that context refers to electoral returns- ie being elected. Technically it would be returning in the other sense as well since most of those areas were at least Caliphate, but I wouldn't usually go back 1000+ years anyway.

 

There's a big leap to go from 20% enriched Uranium, which Iran has, to ~95% enriched which they would need for weapons. It's the sort of thing a highly industrialised country with a lot of manufacturing capacity and expertise could do quickly, Iran, not so much. Unlike North Korea there won't be active technical help available from Pakistan in setting things up, so they'll have to do everything themselves.

 

Really though, if a quick, peaceful solution was desired the supply of pre enriched uranium from 3rd parties would not have been vetoed. That removes both a solution and any appearance of good faith from negotiations. If the US is going to prevent the importation of enriched uranium then the Iranians only have two options- actually have all the enrichment infrastructure themselves, where it is immune from US veto; or give up on nuclear power totally. Given that they cannot easily import even conventional power equipment number 2 is not really an option even if it did not mean huge loss of face.

[Malcador]

So apparently they've beheaded some priests and a Bishop as well. Charming folks these 'rebels'.

[Walsingham]

Returning in that context refers to electoral returns- ie being elected. Technically it would be returning in the other sense as well since most of those areas were at least Caliphate, but I wouldn't usually go back 1000+ years anyway.

 

There's a big leap to go from 20% enriched Uranium, which Iran has, to ~95% enriched which they would need for weapons. It's the sort of thing a highly industrialised country with a lot of manufacturing capacity and expertise could do quickly, Iran, not so much. Unlike North Korea there won't be active technical help available from Pakistan in setting things up, so they'll have to do everything themselves.

 

Really though, if a quick, peaceful solution was desired the supply of pre enriched uranium from 3rd parties would not have been vetoed. That removes both a solution and any appearance of good faith from negotiations. If the US is going to prevent the importation of enriched uranium then the Iranians only have two options- actually have all the enrichment infrastructure themselves, where it is immune from US veto; or give up on nuclear power totally. Given that they cannot easily import even conventional power equipment number 2 is not really an option even if it did not mean huge loss of face.

 

I thought the point was that peaceful nuclear power and weaponised were two very different aims, technologically.

[obyknven]

Greedy NATO supply FAS by... T-55. They are serious? Just lol, where Muricans steal these tanks? From museums?

 

Anyway rebels can't into tank's tactics. These idiots place tank on top of hill and soon anti-tank missile arrived. But G-d like fools, they stay alive in this accident.

http://youtu.be/Jt8pNPKchbc

[Oerwinde]

Those guys sure like Admiral Ackbar. I always hear them chanting his name.