BC Sport Bikes Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In case anyone missed the news stories this weekend the U.S. is purportedly planning to use bunker busting nukes to destroy Irans enrichment facilities.



Hersh: U.S. mulls nuclear option for Iran
Monday, April 10, 2006; Posted: 11:55 a.m. EDT (15:55 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, in an article in the April 17 edition of The New Yorker magazine, writes that President Bush wants regime change in Iran.

Citing a former senior intelligence official, Hersh says the administration views Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler."

Among the options U.S. military officials have been asked to examine is the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities for Iran's controversial nuclear program...

CNN VID OF INTERVIEW WITH SEYMOUR HERSH




With the announcement that Iran has enriched uranium the
Doomsday Clock edges closer to midnight. Now that Iran has "joined the club", pressure wiil be on the u.s. to...

A) Stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (like those found in Iraq)

B) Protect Israel from attack.

C) Liberate the oil in Iran which is so horribly suppressed by it's goverment.
:rolleyes




Iran has joined 'club of nuclear countries': Ahmadinejad
Last Updated Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:48:02 EDT
CBC News

Iran has enriched uranium for the first time, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday about the critical step in developing a nuclear program.

But Ahmadinejad insisted that his country does not aim to develop atomic weapons.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he said in a nationally televised speech...





.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,127 Posts
If you watched the news today, they said iran hasn't achieved weapons grade uranium. I think they achieve powerplant levels but are far away from weapons grade. The iranian president is jumpin the gun, trying to encourge his uneducated people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,056 Posts
There should be a regime change in the states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,127 Posts
Speaking of Presidential changes..... Rumors have it Hilary will be the democratic candidate... thoughts on a woman president? I have mixed feelings, while it cant be worse than where we are at now, but it may show a sign of weakness to other countries. Discuss.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
PUREVIL said:
Speaking of Presidential changes..... Rumors have it Hilary will be the democratic candidate... thoughts on a woman president? I have mixed feelings, while it cant be worse than where we are at now, but it may show a sign of weakness to other countries. Discuss.
J I don't think that the Americans are ready for Thatcher.
 

·
'04 R1 - You are mine!
Joined
·
1,697 Posts
Hillary just wants to smoke her own "cigar" in the Oval Office, just to pay back Billy for the public humiliation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
PUREVIL said:
If you watched the news today, they said iran hasn't achieved weapons grade uranium. I think they achieve powerplant levels but are far away from weapons grade. The iranian president is jumpin the gun, trying to encourge his uneducated people.
i'm not to sure on that one purevil. if i'm not mistaken uranium 235 can be used for both weapons and reactors. U-235 is what you get from enrichment.

at any rate it is likely nothing more than a publicity stunt for iran. but at the same time there is a good chance they could be well on their way. in this day and age the material is more important than the technology as basically every physicist already knows the basics of fission reactions, heck even i have a basic working understanding of how nuclear bombs work, it's not that fancy, we've been doing it for at least 60yrs now.

as far as the people of iran not being educated i'm not so sure that is entirely correct. while there are definately sections of the population that are still living in the dark ages, just as many are fairly educated. a number of years ago i worked with some people that had moved here from iraq after the first gulf war. i was pleasantly surprised at how intelligent, educated and modern their frames of mind were. they're not that stupid, our gov/media simply tells us that they are savages because it makes it easier to support the bombing of their neighborhoods. they are regular folk, the vast majority do not want war.


purevil, i know you're american and i hope that you do not think that i am picking on the u.s.. for all intents and purposes we are basically one nation, i find little difference and consider america family, this is why i speak out about them often. if your brother was about to do something stupid would you not speak up?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,761 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
The Nuclear Power Beside Iraq

by James Fallows
The Atlantic Monthly
May 2006

Now that Iran unquestionably intends to build a nuclear bomb, the international community has few options to stop it—and the worst option would be a military strike

A year and a half ago, Iran’s nuclear ambition constituted a threat but not yet a world crisis. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had not yet been elected president of the country, nor begun his declarations that the Holocaust never occurred and that modern Israel must be “wiped from the map.” The mullah-dominated Iranian government was still evasive and uncooperative rather than flatly defiant when the United States and Europe demanded supervision of its nuclear programs by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It might even look favorably on the face-saving compromise the Russian government talked about, under which Iranians could build just about any nuclear power plant they wanted, thereby satisfying their announced desire to move beyond reliance on oil—as long as they left the reprocessing and enrichment of spent fuel, and therefore the potential for building nuclear weapons, in Russian hands on Russian soil.

It was at this time, in September 2004, that The Atlantic sponsored a “war game” to consider what choices the United States might have if the Iranian problem built to a crisis. War games are not a staple of this magazine’s operation, but in light of difficulties in Iraq, we wanted to play out the long-term implications of possible U.S. moves and Iranian countermoves. So under the guidance of Sam Gardiner, a retired Air Force colonel who had conducted many real-world war games for the Pentagon, including those that shaped U.S. strategy for the first Gulf War, we assembled a panel of experts to ask “What then?” about the ways in which the United States might threaten, pressure, or entice the Iranians not to build a bomb. Some had been for and some against the invasion of Iraq; all had served in the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, or other parts of the nation’s security apparatus, and many had dealt directly with Iran.

The experts disagreed on some details but were nearly unanimous on one crucial point: what might seem America’s ace in the hole—the ability to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations in a pre-emptive air strike—was a fantasy. When exposed to “What then?” analysis, this plan (or a variant in which the United States looked the other way while Israel did the job) held more dangers than rewards for the United States. How could this be, given America’s crushing strength and wealth relative to Iran’s? There were three main problems:

* The United States was too late. Iran’s leaders had learned from what happened to Saddam Hussein in 1981, when Israeli F-16s destroyed a facility at Osirak where most of his nuclear projects were concentrated. Iran spread its research to at least a dozen sites—exactly how many, and where, the U.S. government could not be sure.

* The United States was too vulnerable. Iran, until now relatively restrained in using its influence among the Iraqi Shiites, “could make Iraq hell,” in the words of one of our experts, Kenneth Pollack, of the Brookings Institution. It could use its influence on the world’s oil markets to shock Western economies—most of all, that of the world’s largest oil importer, the United States.

* The plan was likely to backfire, in a grand-strategy sense. At best, it would slow Iranian nuclear projects by a few years. But the cost of buying that time would likely be a redoubling of Iran’s determination to get a bomb—and an increase in its bitterness toward the United States.

That was the situation nearly two years ago. Everything that has changed since then increases the pressure on the United States to choose the “military option” of a pre-emptive strike—and makes that option more ruinously self-defeating.

About Iran’s intention to build a bomb, there is no serious disagreement among Russia, China, France, and the United States. Iran has dropped its pretense of benign intent. It refused the compromise that Russia formally proposed late in 2005 (though a new round of negotiations was announced early in March). Last year’s elections, the most democratic in that nation’s history, transformed the leadership—by making it more anti-Western and harder-edged. The attainment of an Iranian bomb might provoke Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other neighboring countries to begin nuclear programs of their own, and might make the terrorist groups Iran supports throughout the region feel they can attack with greater impunity. Dealing with Iran is now considered an international crisis. As it has watched Iran’s evolution, the United States has delivered more and more studied warnings that “all options remain open”—code to the Iranians that they should worry about an attack. In different ways, George W. Bush and two aspiring successors, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, have expressed this view. Government officials in Israel have been more explicit still, with the defense minister saying that Israel “will not accept” Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Intellectuals, activists, and out-of-power politicians from Newt Gingrich to Benjamin Netanyahu have all urged their leaders to stand firm.

The biggest change has been in what Soviet strategists used to call the “correlation of forces.” Every tool at Iran’s disposal is now more powerful, and every complication for the United States worse, than when our war-gamers determined that a pre-emptive strike could not succeed. Iran has used the passing time to disperse, diversify, conceal, and protect its nuclear centers. Instead of a dozen or so potential sites that would have to be destroyed, it now has at least twice that many. The Shiite dominance of Iraq’s new government and military has consolidated, and the ties between the Shiites of Iran and those of Iraq have grown more intense. Early this year, the Iraqi Shiite warlord Mustafa al-Sadri suggested that he would turn his Made Army against Americans if they attacked Iran.

Economically, Iran also has far greater leverage than before. Through 2004, the price of a barrel of oil averaged less than $40. In 2006, it has been above $60, an increase of more than 50 percent. Rising demand from China, India, and, yes, the United States has left virtually no slack in the world’s oil markets. OPEC’s “spare” production capacity—the amount it could quickly supply beyond current demand—is about 1 million barrels a day. Iran now supplies about 4 million barrels a day. If it chose to, or had to, remove much of its oil from the market, a bidding war could send the price of a barrel of oil above $100. Eventually, everyone would adjust. Eventually, the Great Depression ended.
Perhaps the American and Israeli hard-liners know all this, and are merely bluffing. If so, they have made an elementary strategic error. The target of their bluff is the Iranian government, and the most effective warnings would be discreet and back-channel. Iranian intelligence should be picking up secret signals that the United States is planning an attack. By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,” as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices. The inconvenient truth of American foreign policy is that the last five years have left us with a series of choices—and all of them are bad. The United States can’t keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can’t withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue. The United States can’t keep prisoners at Guantánamo Bay (and other overseas facilities) indefinitely, because of international and domestic challenges. But it can’t hastily release them, since many were and more have become terrorists. And it can’t even bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have already occurred. Similarly, the United States can’t accept Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power, but it cannot prevent this through military means—unless it is willing to commit itself to all-out war. The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,127 Posts
radmtnbkr said:
i'm not to sure on that one purevil. if i'm not mistaken uranium 235 can be used for both weapons and reactors. U-235 is what you get from enrichment.

at any rate it is likely nothing more than a publicity stunt for iran. but at the same time there is a good chance they could be well on their way. in this day and age the material is more important than the technology as basically every physicist already knows the basics of fission reactions, heck even i have a basic working understanding of how nuclear bombs work, it's not that fancy, we've been doing it for at least 60yrs now.

as far as the people of iran not being educated i'm not so sure that is entirely correct. while there are definately sections of the population that are still living in the dark ages, just as many are fairly educated. a number of years ago i worked with some people that had moved here from iraq after the first gulf war. i was pleasantly surprised at how intelligent, educated and modern their frames of mind were. they're not that stupid, our gov/media simply tells us that they are savages because it makes it easier to support the bombing of their neighborhoods. they are regular folk, the vast majority do not want war.


purevil, i know you're american and i hope that you do not think that i am picking on the u.s.. for all intents and purposes we are basically one nation, i find little difference and consider america family, this is why i speak out about them often. if your brother was about to do something stupid would you not speak up?
Hmm I dont care if you pick on the us, I just hate when one person ruins it for all of us. For example, like the seperatist and french ruin it for all canadians. :D

According to the news report I saw the other day they said they only had U 160ish whatever the unit of measurement is.... make sense? I forgot what they measure the amount of uranium is but it was in the 160s the guy reported. He said its not any type of threat and the Iranians were far from weapons grade. Thats all I remember... but maybe there have been more developments since then.

I also never said the country of iran is uneducated.... what I meant was hes trying to impress/show confidence to his uneducated people of his country. ya know what Im saying?

Im tired today and my engrish isn't working in my favor. LOL
 

·
Bohica
Joined
·
2,801 Posts
nasty business. I'm not fond of the Iranian President and wouldn't trust him nuclear capability. Hopefully, the world community agrees and can get on board and work collectively.

I'm not surprised by the scenario of nuclear bunker busters against Iran. The US has something like 50 war plans (some at different stages of development and updating) for diffent countries throughout the world. Their actively looking at both inside and outside the box thinkiong
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top