The Time to Bomb Iran is NOW!!

[Jace11]

Walking out of the talks with the EU? A Bin Laden look-a-like in a suit ranting about nukes at the UN?

Isn't it about time they were referred to the Security Council, so we can get a "mickey mouse" resolution and then teach them a lesson in Western Diplomacy? Who do they think they are? Their "shady" changes in position, rhetoric and thinly veiled threats all point to one thing - They want nukes and they are planning to develop them. We know they can't be trusted. We need to do something before these religious nuts get a working weapon.

Don't need no troops on the ground, just overfly and bomb infrastructure, reactor sites, laboratories. Easy peasy, problem solved..

In the long term its the best option, sure short-term it would cause a few problems with the tree-hugging liberals. But these Iranian idiots are probably stupid enough to use it or lose it if they get one working..

[August]

Gee now that you mention it if we just blew up the entire planet there'd really be lasting peace. :roll:

[Damo1977]

Gee now that you mention it if we just blew up the entire planet there'd really be lasting peace. :roll:

In these dark times of me having a cold........gotta say thanks for making me laugh :up:

[Skybird]

:dead:

[Torpedo Fodder]

That has got to be Skybird's shortest post ever. We must preserve this event for posterity! :P

[Kapitan]

cant just fly or sail into iran do you think they wont fight back ?

iran has a very good SAM systerm and air defence systerm not only that they have three submarine which could pose a great threat to any ship or submarine nearin the coast

what do you plan to do ?

over fly it with B52 and drop bombs those B52's would bearly make it home if at all those slow bombers would fall victim to the masses and masses of air defence missiles come to think of it so would many planes.

[Skybird]

Some days old, but still worth a thought:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI13Ak01.html

Sorry for messing up your TMA on me, Torpedo Fodder :-j

[Type941]

Don't need no troops on the ground, just overfly and bomb infrastructure, reactor sites, laboratories. Easy peasy, problem solved..

Yup. A Slam Dunk.

:roll:

[Letum]

:down: think of the children

[joea]

:zzz:

[Kapitan]

not just the children what about the civilians and the innocents ?

[Type941]

not just the children what about the civilians and the innocents ?

They are all towell heads, so it's ok. :shifty:

"Let's Bomb Iran." I think this thread needs to be locked, or title edited out. What kind of message is it sending out?

If you post 'Let's Bomb USA" it would be locked immideately, surely? Do the right thing.

[Abraham]

That has got to be Skybird's shortest post ever. We must preserve this event for posterity! :P

Skybird did not write:____________________________________________ ___________________________________________
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2005 11:40 pm . Post subject: Re: The Time to Bomb Iran is NOW!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:dead:

_________________
"I mistrust all systematizers and I avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity." - Nietzsche
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______
Done!
:rotfl:

[Abraham]

The majority of the Iranians are young, educated, Western-minded and sick of the Ayatollahs. They want democracy and reform.
The hard-core reactionairy leadership is quite isolated and needs extermal pressure in order to stay in power, otherwise they might be gone in 5 to 10 years.
Regime change? Fine with me.
With U.S. support? Fine with me.
Through a military attack? No thanks, the initiative must come from the people, support should come when they ask for it...
In the meantime the US should try to win the trust of progressive and reform-minded Iranians.

[Takeda Shingen]

Printing that one as we speak. I'll be at the framers first thing tomorrow.

[Skybird]

:D

[Type941]

Regime change? Fine with me.
With U.S. support? Fine with me.

US can't do it anymore. Not enough manpower. Right now they are on the limit. They only way they can actually do more is to start nuking countries out of their existance.

Iran with Nuclear weapon is very very bad for US first and foremost, because they will be told to pack and go from the Gulf. Israel will be in BIG danger. if they use military to supress Iran they have no way out - they need to come in full worse and anihilate Middle East around Israel becaue otherwise - there will be a full time war on US by arab nations. If some idiot says Bomb Iran I hope noone will listen. It has to be done through Diplomacy, after all the USSR has been defeated through economic means, a nuclear power that could sink the whole NA into the ocean, yet never did it. If US keeps playing the intimidation game they won't go anywhere, as this new Iran president seems very much sick of the US. Perhaps new mediation is needed, that excludes the US.

[Jace11]

Not enough manpower?

Just use the Airforce and the Navy. They aren't doing anything important at the moment like the Army. Remember "Shock and Awe"... that didn't require thousands of infantry. Just bomb them, it's that simple. If you are right and Iranians are intelligent and educated then they won't be hanging around outside reactor sites while the bombing is in progress. And no children should be working to purify weapons grade plutonium so that won't be a problem either.

As for their SAM systems, you play too much Lock On. They are crud and could be neutralised in about an hour with a concerted effort.

I am not overly worried about their "huge" fleet of dangerous submarines (3). They probably don't know how to use them as the instructions will be in Russian and all that singing underwater 5 times a day would be easy to pick up on sonar.

I agree with you in that there is not enough manpower for a regime change, so just fortify the boarder a bit.

The most important thing is to stop a nation of terrorists getting nukiller weapons. We must act now before it's too late.

[Abraham]

@ Type941 & Jace11:
Don't mention Iran and nuclear weapons with Skybird around. I said the other day that Iran might have a nuclear capacity in a few years from now and he got very angry with me. Not before 2020 is the word!

[CCIP]

Bomb the USA, it has nukes :roll:

LOL

[Abraham]

When I wroteRegime change? Fine with me.
With U.S. support? Fine with me.
Through a military attack? No thanks, the initiative must come from the people, support should come when they ask for it...
In the meantime the US should try to win the trust of progressive and reform-minded Iranians. I ment with U.S. support the whole scale from information trhough diplomatic action up til undercover or deniable support. I guess something else won't do in Iran.

I did not discuss the problem of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. I feel that the combined carrot and stick approach by the U.S. and E.U. is at leats delaying the devellopment of the Iranian nuclear capacity. Iran will be in big trouble if it faces E.U. sanctions. It was important that the U.S. and the E.U. made up for its differences after the re-election of President Bush. Of course it was only Schroeder who warned the U.S. not to attack Iran without there being the slightest reason for such a warning other than his own re-election campaign retorical demands.
Of course, nobody took him for serious anymore in the international political arena.

I also must say that I find U.S. foreign policy more concise and better directed under Rice than under Powell.

[Kapitan]

hell if its just nuke bomb china india pakistan north korea russia britain america and anyone else who has a nuclear capibility oh and germany

[Skybird]

@ Type941 & Jace11:
Don't mention Iran and nuclear weapons with Skybird around. I said the other day that Iran might have a nuclear capacity in a few years from now and he got very angry with me. Not before 2020 is the word!It was not me but the London Institute for strategic Studies and a late-August or early-September-document to the UN saying so, basing on conclusions that were made independently from each other.

[Torpedo Fodder]

cant just fly or sail into iran do you think they wont fight back ?

Of course they'll fight back, but that doesn't mean they can win.

iran has a very good SAM systerm and air defence systerm

Eh? not really:

By the mid-1990s Iran reportedly had small numbers of Chinese SA-2s, along with SA-5 and SA-6 SAMs. Total holdings seem to include 30 Improved Hawk fire units (12 battalions/150+ launchers), 45-60 SA-2 and HQ-2J/23 (CSA-1 Chinese equivalents of the SA-2) launchers. Some sources claim that Iran might have 25 SA-6 launchers, but other sources are doubtful. There are reports of the transfer of eight SA-6 launchers to Iran from Russia in 1995/1996. In January 1996 US Navy Vice Admiral Scott Redd said had recently added Russian-built SA/6 missile defense systems.

In 1997 the Iranian Air Defense forces declared the Almaz S-200 Angara (SA-5 'Gammon') low-to high-altitude surface-to-air missile (SAM) operational. The missile has a comparatively modest acceleration rate, and relies on its small wings for maneuverability. Furthermore, the mechanically steered radars used by the SA-5 are vulnerable to saturation by decoys. Sources disagree on the number deployed, with some claiming four batteries, while others claim ten. Another source reports that the Air Force had three Soviet-made long-range SA-5 units, with a total of 10-15 launchers -- enough for six sites.

There were reports that Iran was considering purchases of the highly capable SA-10 [S-300] missile system. The SA-10 is a highly capable long-range all-altitude SAM. As early as 1994 it was reported that Iran had six SA-10 batteries [96 missiles] on order from Russia . In February 1997 a $90 million sale of 36 missiles to Iran and three older SA-10 SAM systems, made up of components from Russia, Croatia, and Kazakhstan, fell through. On 30 December 2000 an announcement was made in Russia that Iran had informed Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev about Iran's desire to purchase the S-300 anti-missile system. In March 2001 there were reports tha the Russians are close to cutting a deal with Iran on advanced missiles. Itar-Tass reported that Iran would soon close the deal on the Russian Tor-M1, Tor-M1T, and the S-300 surface-to-air missiles. After this report, there were no subsequent reports of Iranian interest in the SA-10.

There is no dispositive source of information on Iranian air defense deployment. Key SAM-defended areas include Tehran and centers involved in nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. Iran appears to have deployed the SA-5 batteries to defend Tehran, major ports, and oil facilities, providing long-range medium-to-high altitude coverage of vital coastal installations. The I-Hawk and SA-2 batteries are reportedly located around Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Bandar Abbas, Kharg Island, Bushehr, Bandar Khomeini, Ahwaz, Dezful, Kermanshah, Hamadan, and Tabriz, providing point defense for key bases and facilities. Some of these sites lack sufficient missile launchers to be fully effective.

Iran imported surveillance radars from the China National Electronics Import-Export Corporation. The radar can detect targets up to 300 km away and is now part of Iran's air defense system. [b]But even with China's help, Iran's air defenses remained porous, perhaps on par with Iraqi capabilities demonstrated in the 1991 Gulf war. The launchers are scattered too widely prevent relatively rapid suppression. Iran lacks the low altitude radar coverage, overlapping radar network, command and control integration, sensors, and resistance to jamming and electronic countermeasures needed for an effective air defense net. The defenses operate a point defense mode. .

Note the bolded part. Basically, I don't see any reason Iran's IADS would be any harder to deal with than Iraq's was in '91.

Before the Gulf War, Iraq had the best IADS in the world in terms of concentration and integration (though most of it's SAMs were older than the best available at the time), yet it was still dismantled within days. Due to the size of Iran and how thinly their systems are spread out, it would take longer to supress the individual SAM sites, but the command & control nodes would still be taken out early in the operation, greatly reducing the effectivenss of those sites.

not only that they have three submarine which could pose a great threat to any ship or submarine nearin the coast

A threat that would be dealt with. It's a little known fact that Russia actually sold the acoustic signatuire of thse boats to the USA to make them easier to find. This was done to appease the Americans, who threw a fit over the sale.

over fly it with B52 and drop bombs those B52's would bearly make it home if at all those slow bombers would fall victim to the masses and masses of air defence missiles come to think of it so would many planes.

More like B-2s, which Iran would be completely unable to intercept. Such B-2 sorties would probably include that new 30,000lb superheavy penetrator bomb the USAF is working on, to take out the "superbunkers" at the Natanz and Eshafan facilities. If B-52s are used, they will be employed purely as stand-off cruise missile platforms like they were against Serbia in '99.

Please note that I am not advocating bombing Iran's nuclear sites; the political backlash would be far more trouble than the potential benefits of the strike are worth. All I am saying is that it the US has the wherewithal to accomplish this feat if it so desired.

[Abraham]

@ Type941 & Jace11:
Don't mention Iran and nuclear weapons with Skybird around. I said the other day that Iran might have a nuclear capacity in a few years from now and he got very angry with me. Not before 2020 is the word!It was not me but the London Institute for strategic Studies and a late-August or early-September-document to the UN saying so, basing on conclusions that were made independently from each other.
The reports were not made by you, the attack on me was...

[Type941]

Alright, there is SO much nonsense here that it's going to be tough to separate it from few sound reasons.

In fact there's only one - terrorists must be prevented from getting nuclear bombs.

Jace - are you 12? Are you gonna pick up the rifle if the time comes and you have to be going to Iran? I seriously doubt, I see you sitting same place instead behind a keyboard and telling the army where to hit the the targets, since obviously you've played just about right amount of Lock On.

[Kapitan]

personaly id send at least a dozen air strikes in first to nutrelise air and ground threats these strikes will be carried out by ground aircraft some where in some forign land

then id send in a few destroyers and frigates along with a cruiser and a submarine to sweep the area for naval vessels and submarines

then i would move the most important part the carrier group in to a sutible possition preferably out of range of land based ASM missile that ive missed and conduct air strikes on targets of value

then while still conducting air strikes id move my force to three points of a landing stage and unload them also while they are being unloaded i shall give them constant air support and they will be protected by some frigates

id then once the army is on land switch from air strikes to recon and close air protection using the aircraft from the carrier to protect my troops on the ground

then id ask for my troops make a beech head and secure a landing area once secured

then comes the tanks and heavy artilary move them up the beeches to support the ground troops while still giving air support

always give air support untill the battle won


that is my idea of how it should be done and how i would do it

[Type941]

you forget protecting Israel. Because that's where all the retaliation will go.

Oh. Once you get to the cities capitan, you will have poor men in towels on their heads begging for food and shelter, waving american flags and kissing soldiers, and at night, of the go with sniper rifles, rpgs, and on and on. And US has to control a territory now that's like what - France+Germany? Forget about it.

[Kapitan]

no because the isrealies would be doing thier own border control but if they did need re inforcing some ground planes from germany could make it in there also some british units

[Type941]

no because the isrealies would be doing thier own border control but if they did need re inforcing some ground planes from germany could make it in there also some british units

that only answers part of my question. ;)

[Hitman]

Iran has got China's support. If the US want to attack Iran, they will find that China will be very angry because Iran gives her the black oil she needs so much. So they will sell all their dollar reserves (The ones accumulated by many years of exporting cheap goods to the US) and ruin the US economy. Not good for anyone :down:

Let us all find a more reasonable solution, guys :hmm:

[Kapitan]

then id order in UN emergency food aid and ban the soldiers from going out with night but use the helos and planes to do sweeps all the time over many places

[Jace11]

personaly id send at least a dozen air strikes in first to nutrelise air and ground threats these strikes will be carried out by ground aircraft some where in some forign land

then id send in a few destroyers and frigates along with a cruiser and a submarine to sweep the area for naval vessels and submarines

then i would move the most important part the carrier group in to a sutible possition preferably out of range of land based ASM missile that ive missed and conduct air strikes on targets of value

then while still conducting air strikes id move my force to three points of a landing stage and unload them also while they are being unloaded i shall give them constant air support and they will be protected by some frigates

id then once the army is on land switch from air strikes to recon and close air protection using the aircraft from the carrier to protect my troops on the ground

then id ask for my troops make a beech head and secure a landing area once secured

then comes the tanks and heavy artilary move them up the beeches to support the ground troops while still giving air support

always give air support untill the battle won


that is my idea of how it should be done and how i would do it

That sounds like a workable plan. Pretty easy really. Just need the "Mission Accomplished" banner for your CVBG. That should be hoisted up day 3 or 4 when the reactor core lies in smoking ruins.

I had no idea war was this easy to plan.

We don't need to go in on foot just blow up a few targets. Simple and surgical.

[Kapitan]

jace that is a bear out line but if you want give me 3 months and i could probly come up with a full war plan ie the bits like if this happens we do this we go there what about this and that ect ect

war is not eays i always say plan ahead before making a move its what i do and it works

[PeriscopeDepth]

jace that is a bear out line but if you want give me 3 months and i could probly come up with a full war plan ie the bits like if this happens we do this we go there what about this and that ect ect

war is not eays i always say plan ahead before making a move its what i do and it works

:lol:

Good old Kap.

[Kapitan]

lol :D

[Torpedo Fodder]

Iran has got China's support. If the US want to attack Iran, they will find that China will be very angry because Iran gives her the black oil she needs so much. So they will sell all their dollar reserves (The ones accumulated by many years of exporting cheap goods to the US) and ruin the US economy. Not good for anyone

China would ruin their economy as well by doing that, especially since they must know the Americans wouldn't hesitate to retaliate for such a move. I think they'd be slightly more interested in preserving their own economy than getting back at the Americans by ruining theirs, even if doing nothing maeant paying more for oil and relying more on Russia for it. They'd probably throw lots of hissy fits and brag about their resolve, but I seriously doubt they'd actually do anything.

[August]

I had no idea war was this easy to plan.

Jimmy Carter thought the same thing about hostage rescue missions and we all know how well that worked out... :D

[Damo1977]

Kapitan, stuff conventional warfare.
Why don't you just go the whole way,
1. Nuke every major city. (They wanted Nukes didn't they?)
2. Poison their fresh water supply, (If it flows into other countries it doesn't matter, for if they complain, thats anti-American talk, soo they will be next)
3. Whats left of the agricultural fields after the above actions take place... cover the fields in salt.

Than Iran, no worries anymore!

[Kapitan]

i see your point damo but hmmmm :hmm:

[XabbaRus]

Jace how old are you?

Or more relevent, what's your SAT score?

[Kapitan]

lol xabbarus lol :lol: :lol:

[Type941]

Jace how old are you?

Or more relevent, what's your SAT score?

don't think he can even spell what SAT stands for without googling. :rotfl:

[Kapitan]

hey dont mock i dont even know what they stand for

[Neptunus Rex]

jace that is a bear out line but if you want give me 3 months and i could probly come up with a full war plan ie the bits like if this happens we do this we go there what about this and that ect ect

war is not eays i always say plan ahead before making a move its what i do and it works

Let he who calls for war :down: be the first to pick up a rifle and march to the front!

[Kapitan]

who said anything about calling for war ?

i didnt i said i could pssobly come up with a plan for a fictitious war !

anyways id gladly pick up a rifle and use it for my country :up:

[Jace11]

Jace how old are you?

Or more relevent, what's your SAT score?

Never did one, however I know my IQ roughly, I'll tell you if you tell me your bmi..

[Kapitan]

hmmm is this a slagging match ?

[Fish]

Some days old, but still worth a thought:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI13Ak01.html

Sorry for messing up your TMA on me, Torpedo Fodder :-j

Makes me wonder,in what world my grandchildren will live?

[retired1212]

Can US afford another war again? It costs you know :yep:


There should be a solid reason fabricated to attack on Iran. Just like in cases of Iraq (Weapons of Mass Destruction, then :

1=1
Q = Q
IraQ = AlQeeda )

and Vietnam (Gulf of Tonkin Incident). :P

Actually Jace11 is talking about some mission in flightsim. Those evil iranians :shifty:

[Jace11]

Its perfectly possible to derail a nations nuclear program with a single air strike. Israeli's showed that.


BTW..

Has anyone detected a tinge of irony in this thread...?

[Abraham]

In my opinion the discussion on this thread has become extremely fast and extremely shallow...
A pity.
:-?

[Type941]

In my opinion the discussion on this thread has become extremely fast and extremely shallow...
A pity.
:-?

That's impossible, it began extremely shallow already. :shifty:

[Abraham]

In my opinion the discussion on this thread has become extremely fast and extremely shallow...
A pity.
:-?

That's impossible, it began extremely shallow already. :shifty:
At the end of page one some sensible things were said by some, including - amougst others - Torpedo Fodder, Jace11, you and me.
At the beginning of page two you were getting pessimistic - rightly.

Tryiong to prevent Iran getting a nuke is one thing, regime change is something els.
Perhaps, as a very last resort - but certainly not now - a surgical military strike on nuclear production facilities might be included in the options. It would be really sasd if it had to come that far...
But attacking the country in order to change a certainly disgusting regime would be a blunder of colossal dimensions. The Iranian people need to free themselves from their own wicked regime. At most with a little help from their friends...
As little help as necessairy.

[Hitman]

Torpedo Fodder wrote:

China would ruin their economy as well by doing that, especially since they must know the Americans wouldn't hesitate to retaliate for such a move. I think they'd be slightly more interested in preserving their own economy than getting back at the Americans by ruining theirs, even if doing nothing maeant paying more for oil and relying more on Russia for it. They'd probably throw lots of hissy fits and brag about their resolve, but I seriously doubt they'd actually do anything.


Without cheap oil, they can't keep their echonomy running, so they face the same situation anyway. China's attitude in a commercial war is easy: We all will loose, but you will loose more because I have less to loose.

The last time the US cornered an asiatic empire through commercial restrictions and cutting his oil supply, the result was Pearl Harbor :roll:

[Kapitan]

and whos to say china wont do another pearl harbour ?

[Perseus]

Has it ever occurred to you, Jace, that the Iranians may be trying to procure nuclear weapons to prevent an American attack? :stare:

They look to North Korea and see that the leadership of that country can do absolutely whatever it pleases, including terrorist raids on the South Korean mainland, the mass production of chemical weapons (talk about WMD, eh?), the starving of its own people and heck, even government-sponsored drugs trafficking. (Ask the Australians about that last one.)
And then there are apparently detailed American satellite photos showing laughing scientists and soldiers loading parts of nuclear warheads from and into trucks. In plain sight, nothing to hide.
Why? Because the North Koreans know that those who have nuclear weapons (or do not have oil), need not be afraid of an American attack.

Pfah, Bush's "crusade against WMD", don't make me laugh, china. While Bush was getting into gear to persuade the world to join him in his crusade, Kim Jong-il was selling and shipping upgraded Scuds and what not to whoever asked for them. Like your regular Boom Boom Wal-Mart. Pakistan, Iran, Chad, you name it, they ordered 'em and got 'em for everyone to see.
But did your prez do anything against that country? No, because that country actually has WMD, first only chemical ones and now nukes, too. Oh, and a massive army hidden in nearly indestructible caves, with Seoul only 5 minutes flying away from the nearest Frog missile battery with chemical warheads.

You are afraid of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, Jace? Well, many Iranians are afraid of US terrorists attacking Iran in their supersonic aircraft.
To you, Iranians represent danger and evil.
To Iranians, Americans represent danger and evil.
Ask yourself: How would you react if you visited a forum where some Iranian, in all his arrogance, said that the US should be bombed because it is a dangerous country?

You'd go completely APE, gung-ho, Rambo!

Well, imagine then how an Iranian (believe it or not, they're humans too) comes onto this board and reads what you wrote in your first post.
I, for one, would call my president and ask him to "please hurry up with those nukes cuz here's another of those terrorist Yanks threatening to bomb us!"

And just for the sake of the argument, imagine what would happen if Bush decided to follow your advice and bombed Iran tomorrow. Do you know what would happen?
First, all Shi'ite terrorists and fundamentalists who are now fighting Sunni terrorists and fundamentalists would turn around, and unite with their present ideological foes. I'm talking all of Iran, huge chunks of Pakistan and all of southern Iraq (not to mention the Shi'ite minority in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) and turn against you. The entire Middle East would erupt in flames. With about 150,000 US troops caught in the middle of it all.

Second, and as someone already mentioned here, I hope Bush will first provide the population of Israel with gas masks and protection against chemical and biological weapons. Israel is to Iran what Seoul is to North Korea; a hostage. Of course, your president will fail to provide the Iranian civilian population with the necessary fall-out bunkers, because it will rain Israeli nukes on Iran by then.

Third, and this is the only egoist argument I'll put in here: if you think your dad is already paying a huge amount of money at the gas pump, imagine what will happen to the crude oil price once the Middle East sinks into total chaos.

Thus the answer is quite simple. Bomb Iran and we're in World War III.

[Type941]

Read another periodical the other day. The gist of it was that the only reason US attacked IRAQ was because it DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction and they knew it (it said calling US naive about it would be stupid as US is anything but naive or incompetent). Thus, it is not going to attack IRAN because of the fear of retaliation - same with North Korea really. I can see the logic behind that thinking..


PS> I originally asked the author of the thread or moderators to edit the title as technically it's illegal as it aims to incite violence. but again it's gone unnoticed. Apparently noone gives a sh8t if an Iranian (and there are many of them outside of Iran) might read this.

[August]

Read another periodical the other day. The gist of it was that the only reason US attacked IRAQ was because it DID NOT have weapons of mass destruction and they knew it (it said calling US naive about it would be stupid as US is anything but naive or incompetent). Thus, it is not going to attack IRAN because of the fear of retaliation - same with North Korea really. I can see the logic behind that thinking..

Except Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons or WMD, which sorta blows that theory.

BTW i agree with you about the orange part

[Type941]

I think the fact that they are clearly close to making it and some believe they already have something. IT's up in the air, but the reason US backed down or isnt' waving the stick at them - well, I wonder why, perhaps the intelligence on that part is working? Or perhaps China told to the US not to use any force, which was backed by Russia and India. Which in term means that Iraq may be not armed, but in fact has the support in case of a full conflict. Hence the fact that US only attacked because they knew for certain that Iraq didn't have WMDs stands.... :yep:

[August]

Hence the fact that US only attacked because they knew for certain that Iraq didn't have WMDs stands.... :yep:

Lets not confuse supposition with fact...

[Torpedo Fodder]

I think the fact that they are clearly close to making it and some believe they already have something.

Then why have we heard nothing in the news or anywhere? After all, the news agencies picked up very quickly when North Korea got the bomb, and North Korea is far more closed off to the world than Iran. Besides, if Iran had nukes, I'm sure they would have announced it. What good is having nuclear deterrant if your enemies don't know it exists?

IT's up in the air, but the reason US backed down or isnt' waving the stick at them - well, I wonder why, perhaps the intelligence on that part is working?

Right now the US is trying to get the UN Security Council to vote on the matter. Most of Council is up for grabs on which way they'll vote, but I have a sneaking suspicion Russian will abstain, not veto. Iran may be a customer for Russia's reactiors, but they are also a competitor in the world oil market, and a nuclear-armed Iran is not in Russia's geopolitical interests.

Or perhaps China told to the US not to use any force, which was backed by Russia and India.

Such statements are made in public, not secret. If they had made such statements, we would have known.

[Abraham]

Another voice of reason.
Perhaps this tread - notwithstanding it's stupid name - may survive and still has a future as a vehical to discuss a reasonal approach of the problem of Iran, which is: what to do with an evil regime, that is economic vulnerable, posed to build a nuclear weapons capability and suppressing a majority of its population, especially the youth and the western-minded intelligentia.
As far as I am concerned a 'reasonable approach' excludes to "bomb Iran NOW".
:-?

[Torpedo Fodder]

Another thing to consider is that while the majority of Iranians hate their oppressive, theocratic government, they are also highly nationalistic, and a US or international attack ont their country would be all it would take for them to forget the hatred of their government and side with them against the "foreign agressors", wom they'd consider to be the "greater evil" compared to their own government.

[Abraham]

Exactly, that's all the theocratic dictatorship needs, an invading 'nonbelieving' enemy from abroad. Great way to unite the people.

[Skybird]

"A majority of Iranians hate their oppressive theocratic government" is a little bit far-fetched, to say the least, and reminds me of the overly enthusiastic expectations of americans that Iraqis would be eternally thankful for beeing freed of Saddam. This oppressive theocratic government has more support than you think. Even more improtant: it's support amongst young men is growing again, after a decline of several years in which they hoped reforms would be possible and would be supported by the West. When the West and America not only let them down on that hope, but Washington even started to angrily wordshelling them, that wishful thinking found a stop, and the reformers lost attractivness. Now the young are sticking closer again to their leadership (that is especially popular and supported by military and even more important: revolutionary guards, but, as I said, a constantly growing number of young men as well.

Concerning the "imminent danger" of "imminent Iranian nuclear weapons", there is no such thing as an "imminent nuclear Iran". Get over it, and don't fall for the same attempts of verbal betrayel that we have seen before the Iraq war. Such babbling illustrates certain interests of those in the West who speak them out on every opportunity. And this is what you should be concerned about much more.

http://www.iiss.org/showdocument.php?docID=661

Iran’s strategIc WeaPons Programmes
a net assessment

remarks by Dr John Chipman, Director, IISS (London Institute for Strategic Studies)

IntroductIon
Welcome to the press launch of the latest IISS ‘Strategic Dossier’
– Iran’s Strategic Weapons Programmes – A Net Assessment. This
dossier is the third in our series, which has included similar
publications on Iraq (published in September 2002) and
North Korea (published in January 2004).
Each of our dossiers has presented a particular set of
assessment challenges. Unlike North Korea under Kim
Jong Il and Iraq under Saddam Hussein – police states at
home and pariah states abroad – Iran has a more open
society, with a more complex and diverse internal political
system, a broader range of public opinion, and more
interest in preserving its international respectability and
avoiding world condemnation and isolation. This relative
openness has meant that there is more in the public domain
about Iran’s capacities and there are greater opportunities
to discuss information that has become public with relevant
officials in Iran. Nevertheless, as in all areas of great military
sensitivity, there remains a good deal that cannot be known
for certain from the outside. Where information is too scarce
to make a firm judgement, we make this clear.

SourcES And ASSESSMEnt cHALLEnGES
In the nuclear area, to avoid referral to the UN Security
Council, Iran has submitted to extensive investigations by
the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since 2003
to verify Iran’s acknowledgement of undeclared nuclear
activities extending back over nearly 20 years. The results
of these IAEA investigations form the basis for our nuclear
assessment. We also benefited from discussions with
knowledgeable experts, as well as technical briefings and
visits to nuclear facilities organised by the Iranian Atomic
Energy Organization. Although a number of uncertainties
remain about past and current activities, including the
history of Iran’s enrichment and reprocessing efforts, we
judge it is unlikely that Iran is hiding significant stocks of
fissile material or production facilities for such material.
Much less reliable technical information is available on
Iran’s suspected chemical and biological weapons (CBW)
programmes, which have not been exposed to the same
degree of international inspections. Given this limited
information base, we evaluate a range of public sources,
including official US government estimates, other reports
of Iranian procurement efforts, and claims by opposition
groups. In most cases, the accuracy and reliability of this
information cannot be confirmed and so our judgements
are more circumspect. In contrast, the existence of Iran’s
ballistic missile programme is not in question, but details
of missile production facilities and capabilities and operational
military details, such as inventories, deployment and
doctrine are less clear from available public sources.
With all these pitfalls in mind, we have tried to present
a balanced and cautious set of assessments in individual
chapters on Iran’s nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities
and its ballistic missile programme. To help establish the
remarks by political context, we have also included an opening chapter
that recounts a political history of Iran’s nuclear programme,
analysing how domestic and international political factors
have shaped the course of Iran’s nuclear development for
nearly 40 years, including a detailed account of the more
recent EU-3 negotiations with Iran. Finally, the conclusion
seeks to summarise our judgements about technical capabilities
and the political motivations that form the basis for
our overall assessment of the risks posed by Iran’s strategic
weapons programmes.

nucLEAr WEAponS cApAbILItIES
Public estimates for how long it would take Iran to acquire
nuclear weapons range from only a few years to at least a
decade. In our dossier, we analyse several different possible
scenarios, based on both technical and political factors.
From a technical standpoint, the most critical factor is Iran’s
ability to produce sufficient quantities of nuclear weapons
usable fissile material, requiring approximately 20–25kg
of weapons-grade uranium or 6–8kg of separated plutonium
for a simple implosion device. For over two decades,
Iran has sought to develop fuel cycle capabilities in both
areas. In the uranium area, Iran is constructing pilot- and
industrial-scale gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facilities
at Natanz. These facilities are designed to produce low
enriched uranium (LEU) to provide fuel for the Bushehr
nuclear power plant, but they could be converted to produce
enough highly enriched uranium (HEU) for a dozen or so
nuclear weapons annually. In the plutonium area, Iran is
commissioning a heavy-water production plant and is
constructing a 40 megawatt (MW) heavy-water research
reactor that could produce enough weapons-grade plutonium
for one or two nuclear weapons a year, assuming that
Iran builds a reprocessing facility to separate this plutonium
from spent fuel.
Of the two approaches, the centrifuge enrichment
programme is closest to fruition. Nonetheless, we estimate
that it will likely take Iran at least a few years to complete
and operate the pilot scale enrichment plant at Natanz,
currently planned to contain 1,000 centrifuge machines.
Firstly, Iran will need to resolve technical problems at
the Esfahan Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) in order
to produce sufficient quantities of high quality uranium
hexafluoride (UF6) feed material for enrichment. The particular
chemical process and the equipment used by Iran in
the initial yellowcake purification step in the conversion
process are inferior for producing clean UF6. As a result,
the UF6 produced at the UCF thus far is too contaminated
with traces of molybdenum and other elements to be used
as feed material. With practice, Iran should be able to overcome
this problem, although it may mean running the UCF
at very low capacities.
Secondly, Iran will need to complete and operate the
pilot-scale centrifuge facility at Natanz before it can produce
weapons-grade uranium in sufficient quantities to support a
nuclear weapons programme. Currently, a single cascade of
164 machines is installed at the pilot plant. The cascade only
operated briefly with UF6 gas before the October 2003 suspension
agreement with the EU-3 took effect, and its ability to
sustain prolonged operations is unknown. In any event, it
would take more than a decade for a 164-machine cascade
to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single
nuclear weapon, assuming ideal conditions . Despite the
suspension, Iran has already manufactured and assembled
enough centrifuge machines (more than 1,200) to complete
the additional five 164-machine cascades originally planned
for the pilot centrifuge plant. But, based on Iran’s demonstrated
rate of installing and testing centrifuges at the pilot
plant before the October 2003 suspension, and the likelihood
that some of these machines will fail, we estimate it will probably
take at least a year or two to install and test the remaining
cascades and work out the usual start-up problems that typically
plague first-time centrifuge operators before the facility
could operate on a reliable sustained basis.
Once it is operational, the pilot-scale centrifuge facility
will have a limited capability to produce the highly enriched
uranium (HEU), of about 90% U-235, required for nuclear
weapons use. Under ideal conditions, a pilot plant of 1,000
P-1 centrifuges can theoretically produce about 10kg of HEU
a year starting from natural uranium feed, thus requiring
about 2–3 years of operation to produce enough weapons
grade uranium for a single weapon. However, the pilot plant
(as currently planned) is configured to produce low enriched
uranium (LEU) of about 5% U-235 for nuclear power reactor
fuel rather than HEU, and continuous operation is unrealistic.
As a result, actual production of HEU is likely to be considerably
less than the theoretical maximum, perhaps as much as
50%. Iran could scrap its current plans and build the pilot
plant in a configuration to maximise HEU production, but
this would take at least a year or two. If the pilot plant is built
and completed as currently planned, it would take a further
six months to reconfigure it for improved HEU production.
As an alternative to producing HEU directly from natural
uranium feed, Iran could produce a stockpile of LEU, ostensibly
for nuclear power reactor fuel, and then break out by
using this material as feed to produce HEU in a short period
of time. In theory, with LEU feed, the 1,000-machine pilot
plant could produce enough HEU for a single weapon within
several months of operation, even taking into consideration
likely inefficiencies and some requirements for re-configuration.
However, unless Iran acquired an alternative source of
LEU feed, the plant would need to operate for at least a few
years to produce enough LEU for a running start to produce
enough HEU for a single weapon.Thus, in any break out scenario involving the 1,000- machine pilot centrifuge plant, at least a few years of high
operation would be needed to produce enough HEU for
a single nuclear weapon, whether this involves direct
production of HEU from natural uranium or production of
a stockpile of LEU that is then used to produce HEU. Iran
could reduce this time by installing additional enrichment
capacity, depending on the rate at which Iran can manufacture,
assemble, install and test additional centrifuge
machines and cascades. Based on partial data from IAEA
reports, Iran has been able to manufacture and assemble
additional centrifuge machines at a rate of between 50
and 100 new machines a month. Assuming Iran cannot
easily increase this rate of production, it could double its
enrichment capacity within a year or two of resuming the
manufacture of centrifuge machines, with additional time
required to install and test the machines in cascades.
In conclusion, if Iran threw caution to the wind, and
sought a nuclear weapon capability as quickly as possible
without regard for international reaction, it might be able
to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon by the
end of this decade, assuming it can
1) produce sufficient quantities of clean UF6;
2) complete the pilot centrifuge plant; and
3) operate the plant on a high capacity basis over
a period of a couple years.
Unanticipated technical problems in any of these areas
would lengthen the time frame.
As an alternative, if Tehran does not feel compelled to
acquire nuclear weapons urgently or judges that the risk of
breaking out with a marginal capacity is too great, it could
wait until it completes the industrial-scale centrifuge plant at
Natanz, planned to contain 50,000 machines. Although the
industrial-scale plant is likely to take more than a decade to
complete , such a facility could produce enough HEU for a
nuclear weapon within a few weeks (with natural feed) or
even a few days (with LEU feed) without reconfiguration,
thus denying other countries adequate time to act before break
out was achieved. In addition, this approach would enhance
Iran’s options to pursue covert enrichment options because
the completion and operation of industrial-scale conversion
and enrichment facilities would substantially facilitate efforts
to conceal and construct smaller secret facilities.
In contrast to the production of weapons-grade uranium,
Iran’s ability to produce weapons-grade plutonium seems
more distant. Iran’s 40-megawatt heavy-water research
reactor at Arak is in the early stages of construction, scheduled
for completion in 2014. However, the project is likely to
run over time. Moreover, although Iran has conducted laboratory-
scale reprocessing experiments, it has very limited
technical expertise to build an industrial-scale reprocessing
facility. In theory, if Russia delivers fresh fuel, the Bushehr
nuclear power reactor could accumulate substantial quantities
of weapons-grade plutonium within only a few months
of operating. In order to acquire that plutonium, however,
Iran would need to build a reprocessing facility suited to
Bushehr fuel. This poses some additional technical challenges
beyond those that exist for building a reprocessing
facility for fuel obtainable from the Arak reactor.
Assuming Iran produces sufficient quantities of fissile
material, Iran’s ability to design and fabricate nuclear
weapons from this material is unknown. The IAEA has
conducted some limited investigations of possible weaponisation
research and development, but has found nothing
conclusive. Some analysts speculate that Iran might have
acquired a nuclear design from the A.Q. Khan network (as
Libya did), but this has not been confirmed. According to
press accounts, Western intelligence agencies have acquired
a large set of computer files from an Iranian source, showing
studies to develop a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-3 missile,
but the details of this reported research are not public, and
it is not clear whether this research has gone beyond theoretical
studies. Thus, on the basis of public information, it is
not possible to assess the status of Iran’s suspected nuclear
weaponisation efforts.

cHEMIcAL And bIoLoGIcAL WEAponS cApAbILItIES
Compared to its nuclear programme, it is much more difficult
to assess Iran’s suspected chemical and biological weapons
capabilities. For many years, public US government estimates
have accused Iran of stockpiling chemical and biological
agent and weapons, but there is no conclusive evidence in the
public domain to support this accusation. The most recent
US government estimates have become more cautious about
asserting that Iran actually possesses a CBW stockpile, while
still claiming that Iran continues a CBW research and development
programme and seeks dual-use materials, equipment
and expertise to further its chemical weapons capabilities.
From public information, we cannot determine whether
Iran is conducting offensive CBW research. Nonetheless, it is
certainly true that the development of Iran’s civilian, chemical
and biotechnical infrastructure has enhanced Iran’s inherent
ability to produce chemical and biological weapons agents
if it decided to do so. Rather than risk exposure – especially
in the area of maintaining stocks of agent or actual weapons
– Iran may be content to conduct CBW research and development
within its civilian activities (which would be very
difficult to detect) and maintain a break out capability, in the
event that the production and weaponisation of chemical and
biological agents was deemed necessary.

bALLIStIc MISSILES
Iran’s ballistic missile programme is based primarily on
liquid fuel technology acquired from North Korea – the short
range Shahab-1 (Scud-B) and Shahab -2 (Scud-C) missiles,
with effective ranges of 300–500km, and the intermediate
range Shahad-3 (No dong) missiles, with an effective range of
1,300–1,500km. We estimate that Iran has deployed a single
Shahab-1/2 missile brigade, comprising three or four missile
battalions for a total of 12–18 mobile missile launchers and
48–72 missiles in the field, and at least one Shahab-3 missile
battery, which would normally consist of 3 launchers and
12 missiles in the field. Additional missiles are stored in
reserve. As far as is known, Iran’s missile forces are armed
with conventional high explosive warheads, although Iran
could probably build primitive CBW warheads if it chose
to do so. Based on the most recent flight tests in 2004, Iran
is seeking to develop a smaller warhead for the Shahab-3,
which appears consistent with reports of research into the
development of a nuclear warhead for the Shahab-3, but the
details of this reported research are not available.

concLuSIonS
Unlike countries driven by a sense of national survival,
Iran has not launched a dedicated effort to acquire nuclear
weapons as quickly as possible at all costs. While most
Iranians support the nuclear programme as a matter of
national pride and accomplishment, and deeply resent
efforts by outside powers to deny Iran the benefits of modern
technology, few Iranians openly profess a desire for nuclear
weapons. Officially, Iran claims that its nuclear programme
is entirely peaceful and that the enrichment programme is
only intended for fuel production. Privately, most Iranians
make more sophisticated arguments, knowing that the
‘purely peaceful’ justification is not entirely plausible. Iran,
they say, needs a latent nuclear weapons capability to stay
afloat in a sea of nuclear states and to strengthen Iran’s
bargaining position against more powerful countries, such
as the United States, but they assure that Iran would never
actually build nuclear weapons. Except for some hardliners,
they say, Iranians are sophisticated enough to recognise
that nuclear weapons would make Iran a target of international
hostility, spur further proliferation in the region, and
help America enhance its security presence in the region.
Finally, they say, Supreme Leader Khamene’i (like Ayatollah
Khomeini before him) has ruled that nuclear weapons are
contrary to Islam. Even if these arguments are genuine,
however, the temptation for Iran’s leaders eventually to
translate nuclear potential into reality could be difficult to
resist once the option is available.
Iran’s nuclear option is not imminent. On purely technical
grounds, Iran appears to be at least several years
away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear
weapon, and whether Iran has the expertise to fabricate a
nuclear weapon from this material is unknown. This ‘worst
case’ scenario assumes that Tehran blatantly reaches for
nuclear weapons without regard for international reaction.
Up to now, however, Tehran has been more cautious. It has
been prepared to accept delays and limits on its nuclear
activities in the interests of dividing international opposition
and avoiding confrontation. Rather than dash for a
bomb, Iran may seek gradually to acquire a much more
substantial nuclear production capability over a decade
or more – for example by completing a large-scale centrifuge
plant for producing nuclear fuel – before it decides
whether to exercise a weapons option. The challenge for
international diplomacy in these circumstances is a delicate
one. It will be important on the one hand to apply pressure
and create inducements to persuade Iran not to develop a
fuel cycle capability that it could later turn into a weapons
programme. On the other hand, it will be important to apply
international diplomacy in a way that does not inspire Iran
to abandon all restraint and seek a nuclear weapons capability
without regard to the international repercussions. For
its part, Iran must decide if mastery of the fuel cycle is worth
the international isolation that in the current climate would
no doubt result from its refusal to compromise on this point.
It will also have to judge whether its power and status is
reinforced or weakened if it defies the wishes of an international
community aroused to the dangers of allowing a
country to sneak towards a nuclear weapons capability.
The IISS has provided with this dossier a technical analysis
of present, putative and potential capabilities. The greater
difficulty is conjuring a satisfactory diplomatic outcome to
the present impasse.

A study beeing done by an UN gremium and given to the UN around end august or early september made coclusions of the same kind, expecting Iran to be 12-15 years away from a nuclear weapon. AT LEAST 12-15 years.

[Type941]

nuclear-armed Iran is not in Russia's geopolitical interests.

Neither is a potential world war on its border... :roll: Sidenote: Security Council, the UN, etc, - all are synonims of a 'useless'.

Or perhaps China told to the US not to use any force, which was backed by Russia and India.

Such statements are made in public, not secret. If they had made such statements, we would have known.

Yeah, right!! If you think we know of anything that goes on behind the closed doors, I envy your naivee outlook on world politics. I tend to think that it's more likely there's 20 powerful individuals who decide what happens, and we just watch it unfold, as the CNN tells us.

What good is having nuclear deterrant if your enemies don't know it exists?

Israel has nuclear weapons, somethng we all take for granted, but never ever I heard of them officially confirming it or denying it. Just to keep them guessing I guess. All the neighbors of Israel know pretty much that Israel has the weapons (didn't they just released a guy who spent 18 years in prison for telling eveyrone about it?) and who knows what Iran really has or how close they are.

I think Iran is watching with mighty interest at how Korea handles the US pressure.

[Fish]

Has it ever occurred to you, Jace, that the Iranians may be trying to procure nuclear weapons to prevent an American attack? :stare:

They look to North Korea and see that the leadership of that country can do absolutely whatever it pleases, including terrorist raids on the South Korean mainland, the mass production of chemical weapons (talk about WMD, eh?), the starving of its own people and heck, even government-sponsored drugs trafficking. (Ask the Australians about that last one.)
And then there are apparently detailed American satellite photos showing laughing scientists and soldiers loading parts of nuclear warheads from and into trucks. In plain sight, nothing to hide.
Why? Because the North Koreans know that those who have nuclear weapons (or do not have oil), need not be afraid of an American attack.

Pfah, Bush's "crusade against WMD", don't make me laugh, china. While Bush was getting into gear to persuade the world to join him in his crusade, Kim Jong-il was selling and shipping upgraded Scuds and what not to whoever asked for them. Like your regular Boom Boom Wal-Mart. Pakistan, Iran, Chad, you name it, they ordered 'em and got 'em for everyone to see.
But did your prez do anything against that country? No, because that country actually has WMD, first only chemical ones and now nukes, too. Oh, and a massive army hidden in nearly indestructible caves, with Seoul only 5 minutes flying away from the nearest Frog missile battery with chemical warheads.

You are afraid of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists, Jace? Well, many Iranians are afraid of US terrorists attacking Iran in their supersonic aircraft.
To you, Iranians represent danger and evil.
To Iranians, Americans represent danger and evil.
Ask yourself: How would you react if you visited a forum where some Iranian, in all his arrogance, said that the US should be bombed because it is a dangerous country?

You'd go completely APE, gung-ho, Rambo!

Well, imagine then how an Iranian (believe it or not, they're humans too) comes onto this board and reads what you wrote in your first post.
I, for one, would call my president and ask him to "please hurry up with those nukes cuz here's another of those terrorist Yanks threatening to bomb us!"

And just for the sake of the argument, imagine what would happen if Bush decided to follow your advice and bombed Iran tomorrow. Do you know what would happen?
First, all Shi'ite terrorists and fundamentalists who are now fighting Sunni terrorists and fundamentalists would turn around, and unite with their present ideological foes. I'm talking all of Iran, huge chunks of Pakistan and all of southern Iraq (not to mention the Shi'ite minority in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States) and turn against you. The entire Middle East would erupt in flames. With about 150,000 US troops caught in the middle of it all.

Second, and as someone already mentioned here, I hope Bush will first provide the population of Israel with gas masks and protection against chemical and biological weapons. Israel is to Iran what Seoul is to North Korea; a hostage. Of course, your president will fail to provide the Iranian civilian population with the necessary fall-out bunkers, because it will rain Israeli nukes on Iran by then.

Third, and this is the only egoist argument I'll put in here: if you think your dad is already paying a huge amount of money at the gas pump, imagine what will happen to the crude oil price once the Middle East sinks into total chaos.

Thus the answer is quite simple. Bomb Iran and we're in World War III.

Hear,hear! :yep:

[Damo1977]

Honestly. I don't see the real problem in Iran owning a few nukes, if it is for their defence purposes. It is hypocritical when some nuclear armed countries, attempt to stop others from obtaining them.

I say get rid of them all (nukes), than there would be no arguements and/or 'jealous' 2nd/3rd world countries looking to the west and thinking 'They have them, why can't we?'

Is it really a wonder why alot of countries hate the west, when it seems that we have one rule for us and stuff the rest.

[Type941]

Problem is for america that by logic it can't counter Iran's arguments on why they should have the nuclear technology. They can't. The say about percieved hostile intentions, but that's probably mighty week even for the american tax payer to finance another war.

There was a site, that counted every dollar spent in Iraq - like on daily basis, using some models, etc. I wonder what the numbers are now... It's expensive. The US has no chance if this goes on for more. US will have to soon either revert to isolationism or start another war. Your pick.

[PeriscopeDepth]

IMO, resource wars are coming sooner or later no mater what we do. Hopefully somebody will figure out how to make my car run on vegetable oil in the meantime...

[August]

Has it ever occurred to you, Jace, that the Iranians may be trying to procure nuclear weapons to prevent an American attack? :stare:

While i agree with your post i'd like to point out that it's a dangerous game Iran is playing as it is based on a false premise.

The true deterrent that North Korea posesses is not it's nukes, ones which it says it has but has never tested or offered concrete proof of their existance I might add, but rather it is the power of their neighbors to the north, the Chinese.

Any nation or group of nations that attacks North Korea risks war with the Peoples Republic of China. They have done it before and they'd certainly could do it again, especially if the result was a stronger, pro western Asian power on their doorstep.

Now if North Korea were located somewhere else, say for instance where Iran is, then that particular deterrent would not exist.

[Damo1977]

IMO, resource wars are coming sooner or later no mater what we do. Hopefully somebody will figure out how to make my car run on vegetable oil in the meantime...

So true.....We in Adelaide, have at least one petrol station that has a biofuel and its cheaper than regular fuel. I cant say how good it is.

[Torpedo Fodder]

Neither is a potential world war on its border...

Why would a conflict in Iran turn into a world war unless a major power comes to Iran's defence, China and Russia certianly would not, so who does that leave? The spectre of the mushroom cloud constrains nuclear powers from engaging in direct combat with each other. That's why the US and USSR fought the hot wars of the Cold War through proxies, rather than duking it out themselves.

Or perhaps China told to the US not to use any force, which was backed by Russia and India.

Sidenote: Security Council, the UN, etc, - all are synonims of a 'useless'.

The perminant members of the security council are the real power of the UN; the temporary members are basicly just along for the ride (they don't even have veto power), and the General Assembly is a useless rabble, and any vote made by them can be overturned by the Security Council. Getting the UNSC's aproval for the war "legitimizes" that war, and any nation that protests the war can basically be told "we have UN aproval, so f**k off". Also, several Western nations are known for not participating in military actions unless they have the UN seal of approval.

Yeah, right!! If you think we know of anything that goes on behind the closed doors, I envy your naivee outlook on world politics. I tend to think that it's more likely there's 20 powerful individuals who decide what happens, and we just watch it unfold, as the CNN tells us.

Oh look, a conspiracy theorist! Tell me, what possible reason at all is there for them to keep these declarations secret?

Israel has nuclear weapons, somethng we all take for granted, but never ever I heard of them officially confirming it or denying it. Just to keep them guessing I guess. All the neighbors of Israel know pretty much that Israel has the weapons (didn't they just released a guy who spent 18 years in prison for telling eveyrone about it?) and who knows what Iran really has or how close they are.

Read this (http://www.geocities.com/alabasters_archive/nuclear_opacity.html), and you will understand why the Israelis adopted their policy of "nuclear opacity". The thing is, they want everyone to know they have nukes without having to politically admit it. In fact their first nuclear alert in 1973 (during the Yom Kippur war) was specifically to remind both the US and USSR that they had nuclear weapons and they would use them if their back was against the wall. They were hoping the US would respond by expediating it's military aid, and that that the USSR would respond by restraining it's Arab clients. If Iran adopted a similar policy, even if they didn't actually admit to having nuclear warheads, we would know about them.

[Damo1977]

Jace11, its been a few days since 'NOW'. When is this 'NOW' going to happen?

[Type941]

Tell me, what possible reason at all is there for them to keep these declarations secret?

Rhetorical question or you seriously can't think of reasons why backdoor negotiations are kept secret? :o

[Torpedo Fodder]

Tell me, what possible reason at all is there for them to keep these declarations secret?

Rhetorical question or you seriously can't think of reasons why backdoor negotiations are kept secret? :o

No, what reason is there that a declaration like this would be made through backdoor negotiations and not publicly? Besides, even if it did happen as you describe, the media would have picked up some hint. They always do.

[Type941]

I think the media picks up on what they are allowed to pick up. Only rarely do those things leak out, like AbuGareib, and even if that's the case - it is than mixed with mud and made into an uncredible source with everyone soon forgetting it and it ends up that the 'Liberals' made it only to desredit Bush.

[Abraham]

TheTime to bomb Iran Has Gone:

Now the plan has been exposed:
the window of opportunity has closed.
No ack-ack over Tehran tonight,
no WMD's that lite up bright.
No cruise missiles of sorts,
no CNN reports...
It really makes me sad.
So I'd Rather go to bed.