Iran refuses EU's nuclear offer

[dvandyke]

Some facts seem to be constantly ignored here.

1. Iran's government is a terrorist organization that has, in the past, lent its resources to support other terrorist organizations and also commited terrorist acts on its own.

2. It would certainly not be in Iran's best interest to use a nuclear weapon either on its own or via delivery by another terrorist organization. It was also not in Stalin's best interests to execute all of his top military commanders prior to World War II. Nor was it in Hitler's best interest to invade Russia, thereafter. Irrational people, however, do irrational things that are often not in their best interests.

3. As far as its neighbors being a threat; Pakistan and Iran have been growing closer in relations very much so, recently. Israel has likely had nukes for likely more than thirty years and has not used them. Israel is in no position to attack Iran otherwise. The United States, without the nuclear issue, has no grounds for attacking Iran.

4. It is not likely, that without some pressing issue such as the nuclear issue, that any nation such as the United States or Europe would ever attack Iran. If and when that does happen, oil prices would be dramatically affected in an already stressed market. Nobody wants to suffer those kinds of consequences.

5. If Iran obtains nuclear arms, three bad situations will then exist. First, Iran will be more aggressive diplomatically, less willing to compromise in a myriad of situations and events. Two, Iran will then be in a situation where if they were invade or make any form of aggressive move against a neighbor, it is known that other nations of the world would be more reluctant to intervene due to Iran's nuclear arsenal. Third, if and when the Iranian Islamic Fundamentalist government does collapse, these nuclear weapons will be exposed to the possibility of being misplaced. Even if that never happens, who knows how secure the Iranian Gov't will keep these weapons.

Some facts seem to be ignored by you.

1. The United States government is a terrorist organization that has, in the past, lent its resources to support other terrorist organizations and also committed terrorist acts on its own. CIA in Central America, Mujahidin in Afghanistan, just a couple of examples.

2. There is no indication that Iranians are irrational people, who will do irrational things that are often not in their best interests.

3. Pakistan and Iran have a long history of fierce disputes. Israel has likely had nukes for likely more than thirty years and has not used them, so what? Neither have the UK, France, China, Pakistan, India, DPR Korea or Russia. The only country mad enough to use them is the USA.

4. It is highly likely that that the United States will go to war with Iran at the first available opportunity. Iran has been declared a ‘rouge state’ part of an ‘Axis of Evil’ and an enemy of the most powerful and militarily aggressive nation in the world. Oil prices were dramatically affected by Iraq but the long term security of supply is more important to the US than current market prices.

5. All of these points are the same for Iran as every other nuclear power. There no evidence to suggest that the Iranian regime will collapse. All these issues can be solved by nuclaer dissarmament by the major powers. Then Iran has no need for nukes.

 

[dvandyke]

I agree, Bush and his fellow Americans (myself included) are very dangerous men to toy with.

EU I mean come on, stop being such a bunch of cowards and show a little military muscle. To England and those helping the U.S. in Iraq: I don't think this of you, in fact I think quite the contrary.

This has nothing to do with being cowards. Iran is no threat to us. We are only involved to try to stop your New York Cowboys from having another excuse to start a war in a peaceful country. I am no more threatened by Iran than I am Canada, Japan or Cape Verde Islands. Get rid of your own weapons of mass destruction and you might have a moral leg to stand on.

 

[wit>trope]

That won't be so easy as it was in the Iraq's case.

It's going to happen though.

If the US does it, "smart nukes" might be used to attack the targets that are too deep underground for conventional weapons.

I hope Israel does it ... maybe the US could quietly give them the planes and bombs to do it ... that way Israel instead of the US will take the heat for it.

 

[wit>trope]

The problem I see is the american occupation of Iraq, as that makes it too easy for Iran to retaliate. If it was not for Bush's little adventure, I think it would be pretty easy and painless.

You are right and that's probably another reason the war might not have been a good idea. If Iran retaliates by invading Iraq or whatever, then we can just retaliate more by bombing not only their nuclear sites but all their military and command and control sites. We could also blockade them by sea and maybe even by air. Or we could just keep on bombing their military for like 5 years until there's nothing left of it and then just take over (and after a suitable period install an autonomous local govt or sovereign govt)

 

[wit>trope]

The only way Iran can ensure that it is not attacked is by producing a nuclear deterrent as soon as possible. They must act now before the US can finish its business in Iraq and Afghanistan then begin preparations to invade their next target/s.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty was set up to prevent new nations from producing nuclear weapons but only in agreement that the established nuclear powers dismantling their nuclear weapons programs. The USA is developing new tactical nuclear weapons and UK a new Trident program.

The hypocrisy of the US is unbelievable, disarm your own nuclear weapons before making demand on other states.

If it's only a small deterrent (like one small bomb), then I'm willing to bet that Israel and/or the US would still strike ... better to strike now and disable their capablity then to strike later when they have more bombs and maybe even missiles that can reach Europe or eventually the US.

 

[wit>trope]

Why should we use force to impose our will upon another nation over a treaty that we also breach

They can withdraw from the treaty if they want to. If they stay with the treaty then they should be held accountable to it, whether others are not being held accountable to it or not.

 

[wit>trope]

Iranians don't want to build nukes in order to use it, they want to build nukes in order to make it sure to not be attacked.

Marla, obviously they want to build them so that they can USE them if and when they ARE attacked We don't want them to EVER use it in ANY situation

So no, there's no chance any US cities will be nuked by a terrorist in case Iranians have the bomb.

I'm not sure about that. There's some evidence that the current Iranian leader was involved in the hostage taking of Americans.

Such a thing would be against the Iranian mollahs' interests as Yankee well explained.

The mollahs are concerned about religious things. If they glorify Allah then it doesn't matter to them if they die or lose power or whatever.

 

[dvandyke]

If it's only a small deterrent (like one small bomb), then I'm willing to bet that Israel and/or the US would still strike ... better to strike now and disable their capablity then to strike later when they have more bombs and maybe even missiles that can reach Europe or eventually the US.

I agree. Iran has a choice at the moment. With the rhetoric coming out of Bush's mouth an attack is seen as inevitable.

1. Comply with the West and stop all nuclear production, just like Iraq did. Wait until the US are finished in Iraq/Afghanistan and full strength than face an attack anyway.
2. Do everything in its power to develop some kind of deterrent as soon as possible. Probably still be attacked but perhaps this time by Isreal. More chance of outside help and at least the US will have something to think about.

 

[wit>trope]

An air strike is not the only option:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-blockade.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

 

[10Seven]

It's going to happen though.

If the US does it, "smart nukes" might be used to attack the targets that are too deep underground for conventional weapons.

I hope Israel does it ... maybe the US could quietly give them the planes and bombs to do it ... that way Israel instead of the US will take the heat for it.

Unfortunately, it appears there will be no magical nuclear weapons which can be used without risk of contamination - I don't recall where, but I read a number of articles discussing various practical and hypothetical tests of such weapons.

Thus far, I gathered from these, subterranean detonation has not reduced contamination, as across various depths, the explosion simply forces the ejection of thousands of tons - presumably up to millions, depending on the strength warhead - of contaminated soil and rock into the atmosphere.

It sounded like there was some consideration that, potentially, contamination could be even worse, as these particles present a greater danger than irradiated particles as are effected during an atmosspheric detonation.

There's also the issue of contaminating water supplies - which is considerable.

Underground detonations, such as the French have carried out in the pacific - where a deep hole was drilled, and massive amounts of concrete over top to plug this - now that did prevent a blast coming up the entry hole, but those islands where testing is/was conducted now present considerable contamination to the environment as the explosions caused considerable cracking and fissure of surrounding rock and coral.

 

[BasketCase]

The United States government is a terrorist organization that has, in the past, lent its resources to support other terrorist organizations and also committed terrorist acts on its own. CIA in Central America, Mujahidin in Afghanistan, just a couple of examples.

The U.S. government changes every four years. The specific people who order the killing of innocents--they are the only ones who can be called terrorists.

All of these points are the same for Iran as every other nuclear power. There no evidence to suggest that the Iranian regime will collapse. All these issues can be solved by nuclaer dissarmament by the major powers. Then Iran has no need for nukes.

Not true. If nobody else on the planet has nuclear weapons, then nukes would still be very effective to Iran as a deterrent against conventional attack.

That's the reason the U.S. developed nukes in the first place. Nobody else was a nuclear power at the time. We didn't need them for protection from other nuclear powers (as there were none) but we built them anyway.

 

[10Seven]

If it's only a small deterrent (like one small bomb), then I'm willing to bet that Israel and/or the US would still strike ... better to strike now and disable their capablity then to strike later when they have more bombs and maybe even missiles that can reach Europe or eventually the US.

Whilst the USA has very much fewer friends in the last years, and causing considerable alarm and annoyance at various adventures and bullying, I wonder at the possible reaction to even more.

The United Nations was ostensibly formed to prevent exactly this kind of action.

The USA at some levels, may have been willing, in contravention of international law, to invade another nation.

The question may be, whether it can, a) Get away with it again, or b) get away with deploying nuclear weapons.

This doesn't seem likely - and, frankly, I doubt most Americans even want the government to try - excepting of course, what appears on this site a large group of people who think bullying, and violence is just cool thanks man presumably just so long as it isn't them getting it.

 

[wit>trope]

Unfortunately, it appears there will be no magical nuclear weapons which can be used without risk of contamination - I don't recall where, but I read a number of articles discussing various practical and hypothetical tests of such weapons.

Thus far, I gathered from these, subterranean detonation has not reduced contamination, as across various depths, the explosion simply forces the ejection of thousands of tons - presumably up to millions, depending on the strength warhead - of contaminated soil and rock into the atmosphere.

It sounded like there was some consideration that, potentially, contamination could be even worse, as these particles present a greater danger than irradiated particles as are effected during an atmosspheric detonation.

There's also the issue of contaminating water supplies - which is considerable.

Underground detonations, such as the French have carried out in the pacific - where a deep hole was drilled, and massive amounts of concrete over top to plug this - now that did prevent a blast coming up the entry hole, but those islands where testing is/was conducted now present considerable contamination to the environment as the explosions caused considerable cracking and fissure of surrounding rock and coral.

It sounds like you know more about it than I do

Even if the scenario is as bleak as you describe, maybe you could give the civilian populations in the affected area advance warning? That would give them time to evacuate (i though they could evacuate after the fact also though). In any case, even if it causes hundreds or even thousands of civilian casualities, that may be better than the millions or hundreds of millions that could die as a result of a nuclear-armed Iran.

I thought of another idea. Maybe the US/Israel could destroy the nuclear sites and make it look like it was a terrorist attack? It probably wouldn't work though

 

[10Seven]

That's the reason the U.S. developed nukes in the first place. Nobody else was a nuclear power at the time. We didn't need them for protection from other nuclear powers (as there were none) but we built them anyway.

Presuming you refer to development directly after WW2 - I'm not sure, but wasn't there fear that the Soviets were or were capable of developing?

Also I would think the very tendency amongst the military and men, especially, to like cool toys, and especially big ones that make bigger booms, would be a major factor in development.

I'm not interested in shooting people - doesn't stop me wanting a collection of big guns that make big noises

 

[BasketCase]

Presuming you refer to development directly after WW2 - I'm not sure, but wasn't there fear that the Soviets were or were capable of developing?

Bingo. The Soviets didn't actually have them; it wasn't actually necessary for there to be an actual bona fide nuclear power anywhere else on Earth.

So we (the U.S.) disarm our nuclear weapons. Iran will still pursue a nuclear deterrent because the U.S. might start building nukes again.

 

[Nobody]

if america wasnt wasting its time in iraq this whole situation would be settled by america just giving iran a angry look. right now america would have to draft to properlly attack iran. while if they bombed them iran could invade iraq of course i have no doubt the US army and marines would smash a invading iran army, they would have casualties. Nuking Iran is out of the question. Also people who are saying "isreal should do it" are being silly. If isreal does this i could erupt into a Arab-Israeli war again.

If iran gets the bomb. They will be able to pressure other nations. But only israel. Because 3 nukes would be enough to wipe israel out. But if they didnt they would lose everything. (nuking Parkistan, Iraq, or Russia would get the same result without killing the enemy.) So they will have a little bit bigger saber to rattle. Recently they have been slowly coming back into the international community, this can be taken away in a second if they start rattling there saber. Iran is nothing, the worst they can do is invade iraq and even then they will get totally smashed. If they nuke anyone they lose there nation. So really the question is: would iran commit suicide to kill one hundred thousand americans. Because that is the best they can hope for. Really to be one big suicide bomber of a nation. I dont think they will, but if anyn ation was going to, it would be a fundamentlist Muslim dicatorship with a new nationlistic leader. So well ........
i think the best option is for the EU to give them a ultimatium. HMS Invincable and the De Gual carriers with a nice big fleet to sail up to iran and blow there nuclear factorys to bits. at the same time the grand old british intellegence can rig a coup. As soon as its all over billions of dollars of foreign aid can pour in dependant on democractic elections. The EU will then be respected as a superpower. The EU army can help the new iran goverment fight a pointless insugence, America will not look so bad anymore, EU and America can be best freind superpowers both fighting pointless bloody insurgents, while living in there beatutifull citys eating pork and drinking wine. Britney Murpy will win best Actress oscar for spun, and New Zealand will win the Rugby World cup.

 

[BasketCase]

One Arab is willing to commit suicide for a lot less--say, in order to kill a dozen Israelis on a bus.

In any case, we did give Iraq (a nation with a secular government, even!) an angry look (and our military wasn't otherwise engaged, either) and big surprise, it didn't work. The threat of physical force doesn't work when you're dealing with irrational people.

 

[Winner]

Even if we did not enter Iraq, the Middle East would still have Israel as a nuclear power. Has Iran ever, and I mean ever, attacked Europe from colonialism to present?

I don't they will attack us, but they can possibly retaliate against the US bases in Europe.

Iran's first nuclear missile isn't going to protect the nation. The Soviet Union had nuclear weapons--lots more of them, with a lot more rumble for the ruble--and we still beat them. Soviet nukes didn't protect the USSR from our military, either. The US and the USSR simply fought via third party proxy armies instead.

Iran doesn't want to fight proxy wars, it just want the nukes and missiles which can deliver it to Israel and other US allies. And you're wrong, it will protect them. US won't dare to attack country, which can relatiate with nuclear weapons. Look at North Korea.

 

[Winner]

It's going to happen though.

If the US does it, "smart nukes" might be used to attack the targets that are too deep underground for conventional weapons.

I hope Israel does it ... maybe the US could quietly give them the planes and bombs to do it ... that way Israel instead of the US will take the heat for it.

One small note for you - you don't have smart nukes. Nukes aren't smart. You don't even have those nice and clean bunker busting nukes, because you can build them. All you have are good old nukes.

If you ever use the nuclear weapons during an unprovoked invasion of some third country, rest assured that present anti-americanism in the world will quadruple and you will loose the support of the rest of your allies (including Japan).

 

[Winner]

Note #3:

I don't like the idea of nuclear Iran either, but the "Iran is going to give the bomb to Osama" crap is completely wrong. Iran doesn't seem to be bent on provoking it's own self destruction. As it appears now, they just want nukes to detter the US and Israel from attacking it.