If Iran has plutonium stockpiled it will burn when exposed to O2, but no second order reation/detonation can be expected. Thats the physics.

Short of occupying Iran, there is no way to stop them from gaining nuclear arms if they so wish. We can destroy facilities but the knowledge remains, and they can rebuild their program again and again. Another point is that if the Iranians value a nuclear weapons program I think they would have it spread around the country, so there could be the main facility but there's nothing to say they haven't got other compounds hidden underground throughout Iran.

That's the sad truth of the matter, Israel and the US or any other nation for that fact can bomb parts of Iran to their hearts content... but we can't stop them forever. As much as I hate the Iranian regime, there's nothing we can do to stop them... a ground invasion would just radicalise the population and make Achjaminidad's (sp?) position stronger.

[quote=Steel_Tomb;1129841]Short of occupying Iran, there is no way to stop them from gaining nuclear arms if they so wish. We can destroy facilities but the knowledge remains, and they can rebuild their program again and again.[quote]

Well then you keep setting them back if that is what it takes. This country and its mullahs have but one goal...to take away your freedom.

How often have they suspended the internet? That is freedom, and you would allow that based on your statement.

Perhaps you think that if we just talk it will make it all better. These are committed people. They care not about what you say. One thing matters to them, force.

Hahahaha, you really think the Iranian mullahs want to take away OUR freedom? They want their own people's freedom for sure, but they really don't give a cr*p about how people live outside their borders.

So you think Islam for the world is not their goal? Many have said it. I guess I'm wrong to take them at their word.

Grow up man. If they say it they mean it.
Truthfully, I'd rather nuke them than be subjected to to their law.

I know they don't want freedom and all that. What I'm getting at is that the general view of "lets bomb Iran" to stop their nuke program is flawed. Any air strike just delays the inevitable, whilst pitting public opinion in the M.E against the West in favour of the dictatorships over there. We may delay them for years and years, but the continued use of force won't work. They only respond to force, but im quietly hoping that in time the violent forces will be overcome by the minority. We saw a demonstration of that in the wake of the elections, Iran is ruled by a brutal and flawed regime yes... but history shows that such regimes do ultimately meet their end. Wether this happens before a catastrophy I don't know... I'm interested in the military and the defense of my country, but I dislike the prospect of war and killing for political points unless its absolutely nesseccary. If Iran shows itself to be an immediate and clear danger to either regional (i.e an attack on Israel) or global (as in a covert strike against the US and/or EU either by conventional or by WMD) then of course I will not hold back any military strike, I just think is should be the last course of action when all other roads have been blocked.

Going a bit O/T here, and this is my personal belief... The human race is a young species compared to the universe and the planet we live on, in fact when you look at our basic instincts and habits we are primitive and violent. Perhaps we will never shake off our animal instincts... but I hope one day that we can destroy our weapons and become a race instead of a scattering of global "tribes" (which is essentially what we are). Constantly using brute force to "solve" issues when we think they aren't going our way is a flawed conception and primitive to say the least... its the equivalent of a child not getting that mars bar its been spying for the last hour and throwing its toys out of the cot. We hold the power to completely destroy ourselves and the planet we live on, yet we don't have the patience or understanding to solve problems that are staring us in the face every day. We as a species need to evolve into something better, and running back to our most basic primal behavior which is to attack something we don't quite like is not helping us, that goes for all parties involved around the world... not just the West etc.

... I'll shut up now, sorry if that last bit is a rant and not very well written, but its just how I feel sometimes. :down:

When will that be? Before or after they got the bomb and start proliferating?


No second Pakistan or North Korea , please. Both nations should have been crippled in their nuclear ability BEFORE they got their first nuclear warhead. Once you cannot say for sure whether they have one, or not, it is too late and the game is over.

--

Second threat on the Saudi decision. Maybe merging it, Xabba?

Well if Iran does go nuclear like I can see it doing, depending on Obama's foreign policy and if he thinks merely talking can win the day or not I would most likely foresee a ground attack. With forces in Afghanistan we are somewhat uniquely positioned for an attack against Iran. With all sides closed from Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf we could contain the personnel with the knowledge and "eliminate" them as the US see's fit for their political gains. Thereby eliminating the proliferation of technology after we become aware of it. I have no doubt that the agrogance and ego of the leaders in Iran will mean that the moment they have a weapon they will test it underground like NK has, and that will give the game away and will ultimately be their downfall... after that I doubt there would be anything we could say to the Yanks to stop them from using their military prowess against Iran.... it would be a terribly costly war, but I guess the prevention of proliferation would be worth that given the right circumstances. Its still not a nice idea, but thats the best thing to do in "realpolitik" terms am I correct? The gain of power over others throwing away certain moral restrictions?

I don't suppose giving the Iranians technology regarding Fusion reactors for electricity would help the problem? It can't be weaponized and the reaction is so hard to maintain that it can't "meltdown" like a Fission reactor can. Would more or less destroy their veil for civilian usage should it be rejected, leaving the door open for other political options.

http://www.sck.be/var/plain_site/sto...on-reactor.jpg

http://www.jet.efda.org/

The Iranian theocracy is not Al Qaeda. When has the Iranian theocracy ever said that they want to make America Muslim?

Even if they wanted to, the idea of the Iranian clerics ruling the world is laughable. They're Shia, and Shias are a small minority of Muslims (around 15%). To say that Shias are unpopular in the non-Shia parts of the Muslim world is a major understatement. The Iranian clerics wouldn't even be able to control the Muslim world, much less the entire world.

The fusion carrot wouldn't work. It's simply too far down the line. Iran also has a lot of their nuclear facilities already built, so all that would go to waste.

Then when the Supreme Leader (the guy in charge of the military) said that Iran has no interest in attacking Iran (2005) and that Iran has no interest in developing nuclear weapons (2007) why don't you believe him?

If they say it, they mean it -- right?

Either you believe what they say or you don't. You can't be selective in only believing that which supports your viewpoint of Iran but not believing that which does not support your viewpoint of Iran.

I, personally, don't put much credit in what politicians say (either Iranian or US). I go by action. Evidence. Facts.

The fact is that there still is no evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapons development program. We need to base our foreign policy on facts, not fears, evidence not emotions.

Like you eliminated Iraq and Afghanistan - after how many years...?

Iran is bigger, the distances are longer, the people are extremely patriotic (and ethnically and religiously united!) , the rural populations often are armed, it is stronger and better organised than Iraq, it has the capability to close the strait of Hormuz, it has better weapons and plenty of missiles of all kinds, different to Saddam it has close contacts to terror groups in the ME that listen to its orders, and the population is bigger in size. The terrain in many areas is more rugged than in Iraq. The mountains are bad for military operations - for the attacker. For a defender, they are a paradise, even more for a defender using guerilla tactics. expect Iranian guerillas to be better armed than the Taliban in Afghnaistan or Al Quaeda in Iraq. Several key locations are in extremely bad terrain. I have been in the North-Western part of Iraq, the land from the Turkish border down to somehwhere beyond the basin around Teheran, and at the Eastern border to Afghanistan. Believe me, you do not wish to have a ground war running there. Neither your military nor your public opinion want that.

A traditional ground war is totally and completely out of question. At best you could try extremely high-.risk operation to land special commandos via air raids, occupy key installation in the middle of the country for a couple of hours to manually blast them to hell - all that in an effort to avoid a nuclear attack on these siters. You would need to airlift hundreds of troops to each target and fight down, hold and search areas several dozen square miles in size. Whether your country has enough numbers of special commandoes for that, I cannot assess I doubt it. But they would have extremely high losses. Iran is not Afghanistan. Afghanistan is simple, compared to that.

If I were a military commander, at no cost I would authorise, command or accept responsibility for such an operational concept to targets in the middle of the cpountry. Too high risks, too big losses, everything too uncalculatable. at best I could imagine such raids on taregst close to the Gulf coast. But again: that are high risk operations. a man feeling responsible would try to avoid them.

After you became aware of it? You imply they will sit like ducks and wait to get shot while you go there to eliminate proliferation. Maybe you will that risk. I can not.

....????

Think again.

Why do I think then that anybody will think twice before attacking a nuclear armed nation?

I would not hesitate a day to nuke Pakistani nuclear weapon sites - if only we would know where they are, and if only the carrier systems and the warheads would not be stored separately anyway. for the same reason the Paistani do not tell the americans these informations, although Washington presses them hard on it. They fear (correctly) that Washington would nuke thse sites in case of the "radicals" winning in the overthrowing of the state.

Why do you think the iranians would not hide and move around their warheads, once they got some? Could you imagine what it means to search something in a country the size of iran, and with that rugged terrain?
I fear not. You give me the impression that you shy away from what a real determined war to kill the Iranian program would mean, and thus you allow to follow some milder, softer scenarios that are highly unrealistic and multiply the risk for the West, Israel and anybody opposing Iran (including Saudi Arabia).

Why are they(Iran) reporting they have gaseous centrifuges? What purpose do they serve other than making U235 out of U238?

Ask the IAEA, after all they have been releasing their reports about their inspections of Irans nuclear facilities every couple of months for the past 6 years.

That is a truth. Perhaps one that can be exploited when the **** hits the fan. Muhammedanism is not a united front, but I'm uncertain where the allegiances would fall in a major battle. The west must avoid any hint of a crusade, or even use the language of crusade, or risk a united front and Theocratic war.

Buddahaid