AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
Sandbox politics, how cute
It is extreme hypocrisy to say that there are different rules for different countries. Israel and Irans nuclear programs should be treated equally.
UN atomic agency has "serious concerns" about Iran's nuclear activities
- Thread starter Silurian
- Start date
It is extreme hypocrisy to say that there are different rules for different countries. Israel and Irans nuclear programs should be treated equally.
The Israeli bombing of the Tammuz reactor site in Bagdad in 1981 put the Iraqi nuclear program back more than a decade. A vast wealth of time, money and resources is involved in building up such a program, and Iran would have to decide to impoverish itself a second time to reestablish it. Time would then work for the interests of peace, in that the current generation of ruling mullahs will grow old and die.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
The only reason Iraq's project was delayed was because the nuclear plant was too small to produce any weapons-grade plutonium. Iraq still wouldn't have a bomb today even if Israel (and Iran) hadn't bombed the site!
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, by the act of which it committed itself not to pursue nuclear weapons. Therefore, developing a military nuclear programme while it remains a signatory of the NPT means it defies the international law.
There are no double standards involved at this stage. Of course, Iran knows damn well that if it withdraws from the NPT, the others will take it as a cue to strike.
AL_DA_GREAT
amour absinthe révolution
There is no hypocrisy if Israel is treated the same. Which it isn't.
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Israel is not a signatory party of the NPT.
Spoiler :
True, the Tammuz reactor was not a breeder reactor. But If you want a nuclear-weapons program, a nuclear reactor is the first item on your list. You need to train your personel in fissile materials handling, and you do that with an initial research reactor. The first atomic pile at the University of Chicago in 1942-42 was not a breeder either, but it got Fermi et. al. started up.
Iraq was delayed by the '81 strike, and then again in 1991-92, when their centrifuges and other facilities were bombed during Desert Storm. A nuclear weapons program is extremely expensive and time consuming and quite a drain of money and resources for these small Middle Eastern countries. Delays are especially costly.
On the other hand, Iranian officials are now bragging they've attained 20% enrichment, and that's the bottom end for actual atom bomb manufacture. So if somebody's going to stop them, this is the time - ergo all the talk of strikes. If we wait and see, it'll be too late. Once they build a few warheads and hide them, it's all over.
President Obama promised Iran would not get nukes. The media will drag that out and opponents will use it against him if Iran succedes and he does nothing.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
Hint: arguing that war is in the interest of peace is hard to push. You see, it's kind of a... contradiction!
I couldn't agree with you more inno. However, sometimes a premptive strike can avoid a more terrible conflagration later.
Two questions: in the event of war, how easily and how well can Iran blockade the strait of Hormuz (through which 1/3 of the world's oil is trafficked)?
If there is a strike and no subsequent land invasion of Iran, for how long will there be an epic spike in the price of oil?
If there is a strike and no subsequent land invasion of Iran, for how long will there be an epic spike in the price of oil?
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
During the Tanker War part of the Iran-Iraq War, Iran's counter-mining of the Straight of Hormuz worked to the extent that US Navy Destroyers sent to protect the tankers were forced to sail behind the tankers because the tankers were less vulnerable to the mines (indeed, they were almost invulnerable due to their multiple hulls and sheer size).
That should answer your question. The Iranian navy isn't good enough to hold any sort of position against the local USN fleet, let alone if the Sunni Gulf Monarchies decide to teach the revolutionary Shia a lesson. Against the tankers themselves, there is a problem simply because tankers are frilling HUGE.
1) Very. Or at least they could sink enough tankers to have a real effect for a while. But they couldn't sustain it over the long run. It would take a major effort by a lot of forces to stop them, though. 2) No real way of predicting. Months, at the least. Possibly a couple of years. The fact that Iran isn't very popular with much of the rest of OPEC is on our side in that regard.
bonefang
Emperor
But with the amount the US spent in Iraq (hundreds of billions? Trillions?) they could have bought all iraqi oil they would need. And Saddam would be happy to sell them.
~ That was the case of greed. or else, what was the reason for attacking Iraq? Surely you do know that the UN has placed several sanctions on Iraq after the Kuwait war. US can do without another AWB scandal.Why buy when you can stuff for free ? And as it is, with the financial condition, i doubt how much longer before UN sends relief package to it.
Now, after all that money spent, they are still not getting the oil for free. If it was about "stealing the oil", it was the most ******** move in human history.
Finally, Sudan and Lybia? WTH? How is the US meddling in Sudan? How much sudanese oil are they getting?
~ US had long placed Sudan in the list of countries that promote terrorism, hence no US companies can work there. Now with creation of southern Sudan, there is no more of that hindrance. see the incentive ??
As for Lybia, Kadaffi was more than willing to sell his oil to the US. ~ Again, sanctions !!
Again, what's the point of toppling him if it's all about stealing the oil?
~ Puppet govt. FTW !!
US satelites have been watching and mapping out Iranian nuclear fascilities for over a decade - including ground-penetrating radar to see the new "hidden" ones under the desert. B-2 Spirits operating out of Diego Garcia could eliminate these fascilities in a single night with deep-penetrator smart bombs. No actual "invasion" or war would be neccessary.
The nuclear threat would be eliminated for years, But naturally the Iranians wouldn't accept that without retaliation. As they support and fund many of the terrorist movements in the Middle East, they might begin with murder and mahem. Also, they have many Chinese Silkworm missile sites along the Hormuz waterway, and might arbitrarily blast away at innocent shipping.
So again, it's now or never. Once Iran actually fabricates a few warheads it's over. Iran would be a nuclear power. For better or worse. Mostly worse.
The nuclear threat would be eliminated for years, But naturally the Iranians wouldn't accept that without retaliation. As they support and fund many of the terrorist movements in the Middle East, they might begin with murder and mahem. Also, they have many Chinese Silkworm missile sites along the Hormuz waterway, and might arbitrarily blast away at innocent shipping.
So again, it's now or never. Once Iran actually fabricates a few warheads it's over. Iran would be a nuclear power. For better or worse. Mostly worse.
. So can they or can't they?I realize economic projections are hard to predict, but what are the prospects of the world falling into recession as a result of such a supply shock?
I tend to think they can, but likely not for long. Those missiles on mobile launchers will be really hard to locate and destroy before they are used. Recall after Desert Storm, we spent a very long time looking for scuds before all of them were accounted for. Little needle, big haystack. And Iran has a couple of Russian built subs now. There just aren't that many of the really big tankers working. If Iran can set a couple dozen of them on fire, the world is going to feel it in oil prices.
Against a very large double hulled ship, the mines may not be all that effective. Torpedoes and missiles are a different story.
