[quote]pookie wrote:
doogie wrote:
Oh, I’m all for throwing nukes at their reactors.
Why is everyone talking about “nuking” their reactors? Just bomb them with conventional bombs.
Israel did it to Iraq in 1981. Worked perfecly fine.
[/quote]
Not to mention, any preemptive use of nuclear weapons by the US would just about seal the deal for an unplanned nuclear explosion somewhere here in America, anytime in the next few years.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
[quote]pookie wrote:
doogie wrote:
Oh, I’m all for throwing nukes at their reactors.
Why is everyone talking about “nuking” their reactors? Just bomb them with conventional bombs.
Israel did it to Iraq in 1981. Worked perfecly fine.
[/quote]
They’ve buried most of it. They learned from Iraq’s mistakes.
[quote]WMD wrote:
C&J means collection and jamming.
As far as a nuclear response goes, does the word fallout mean anything to you? Nukes are anything but precise, therefore the collateral damage will be enormous, there will be few places anyone could move whre they would not be affected. Remember we’re not talking about Fatman and Little Boy any more. We’re talking about much more powerful and sophisticated weapons, even at the tactical level. Nuking a nuclear facility would create an even bigger problem with fallout.[/quote]
Oh, yeah? Not according to the Discovery Channel. Does C&J have anything to do with tactical nukes?
You seem to be very concerned with us stirring up ill-will in Islamic countries. I would rather nuke them and have them hate us and be sure their nuclear capability is gone than try and pull some Carter-esque bullshit, not get the job done, and still have them hate us.
I was 63W, wheeled vehicle mechanic. Even now that you’ve told me that C&J is collection and jamming, I have only a vague idea as to what that is. Didn’t really need to know that to PMCS a humvee.
Of course there are more than just fanatics and terrorists in Iran. The problem is that those in charge are religious fanatics and terrorists. You can negotiate with all the 19 year old college kids you want, but the wackos in charge won’t give a shit.
Like what? Saying there are a lot of things isn’t really an answer.
Question:
If Iran does develop nuclear weaponry, how do y’all think they are going to prove it? Pakistan and India held little “demonstrations”, didn’t they? I suppose that the Iranianis will do the same. Maybe they’ll head on over to Iraq? Get the hated Iraqians and some US forces in one fell swoop?
[quote]pookie wrote:
iscariot wrote:
Err…question.
I’ve yet to hear or read anywhere, from any source, anything even vaguely conclusive to the effect that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme.
Actually, if we’re speaking in terms of the ostensibly logic presented, it goes something like this.
[1]Iran is developing a programme to provide it with Nuclear Power.
Yes, everyone is pretty much in agreement on that point.
[2] Iran hates the USA
Safe bet.
[3] Conclusion: Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme to attack the USA…
The conclusion doesn’t follow directly from [1] and [2].
Iran is building facilities that will allow it to enrich uranium. Now, you can enrich uranium to a level of 3-5% for use in commercial nuclear reactors OR you can enrich it to 20% and above (up to 80-85%) for use in nuclear weapons. The facilities Iran is building would allow them to do either one. Enriching uranium to those levels is not necessary if nuclear reactor are your only goal.
That’s why many people conclude (and probably rightly) that Iran is trying to join the ranks of nuclear powers.
[/quote]
Why would a country, that has some of the world’s largest oil reserves, develop nuclear power for “peaceful” uses with it’s associated high infrastructure costs? Additionally the ability to build this capacity must be imported since the locals can’t. Why?
The short answer is that it is going to be used to build weapons. If it was used to generate power you wouldn’t bury it and you would allow international inspections. Combine this behavior with the public statements made by the leadership of Iran and you would have to be looking the other way to not see the obvious.
What to do about it is a politcal consideration. If your comfortable with a state, that publicly supports terrorism, becoming a nuclear power, then I would propose that position is not wise. They may or may not use it but merely having the ability is a risk that we in the US cannot take. The Europeans shouldn’t either but they are too weak to oppose Iran. The Russians and Chinese have no fear because the Iranians aren’t stupid enough to go after them. Both Russia and China would retaliate against them without discussion or political fear.
The US, being an open society, creates doubt about our position. This emboldens our enemies. What Bush is trying to make clear is that our position is firm. No nukes. We prefer that you give them up but you’ll give them up one way or the other.
[quote]doogie wrote:
They’ve buried most of it. They learned from Iraq’s mistakes.[/quote]
Deep enough to resist your “Daisy Cutter” bunker busting bombs?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Why would a country, that has some of the world’s largest oil reserves, develop nuclear power for “peaceful” uses with it’s associated high infrastructure costs? Additionally the ability to build this capacity must be imported since the locals can’t. Why?[/quote]
Well Canada has enormous oil reverses in the Albertan oil sands and we still developed nuclear and hydro power.
Although I do agree that Iran’s main objective is nuclear weapons, not just nuclear power.
Maybe they don’t want too because they’ve got too many interests tied up in the region.
I doubt Iran could resist an offensive from the European Union if such a thing ever occured.
They’d probably count on them to oppose any U.S. action againt Iran…
The same position tells them that they need nukes to be truly independent. If they don’t want to be the next Iraq, they have no choice but to develop some.
With “pre-emptive” war, the U.S. has shown that it will attack regimes that it deems dangerous. Having already been named in the Axis Of Evil; Iran probably sees little choice but to pursue nukes if it wants to avoid getting “liberated” soon…
The daisy cutter was a vietnam era fuel air expolosive device used to clear landing zones in the jungle. Also used to clear massive holes in Republican Gueard positions in GW1 and too scare the crap out of them. It accomplished both.
We replaced it with the MOAB. Massive Ordinance Air Blast I think was the proper name. (mother of all bombs in grunt speak) It is roughly twice the size.
The new Bunker Busters are designed specifically for that purpose. Coupled with GPS guidance they can burrow deep into mountains to get these facilities. Often they will use multiple devices to progressively burrow deeper. All hitting the same spot. Scuttlebutt says we have a small nuke version also.
These were not available in late 2001 and early 2002 when the US first thought about taking Iran’s capability out.
It’s my belief the US will exhaust diplomatic efforts before using force. Since the Iranians seemed destined to play this out I see it as all but inevitable that we will have to use force. My guess, mid to late 2007. If they give the technology to a terrorist organization it will happen immediately and would be total and not limited to just military targets.
[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
Why would a country, that has some of the world’s largest oil reserves, develop nuclear power for “peaceful” uses with it’s associated high infrastructure costs? Additionally the ability to build this capacity must be imported since the locals can’t. Why?
Well Canada has enormous oil reverses in the Albertan oil sands and we still developed nuclear and hydro power.
Although I do agree that Iran’s main objective is nuclear weapons, not just nuclear power.
The short answer is that it is going to be used to build weapons. If it was used to generate power you wouldn’t bury it and you would allow international inspections. Combine this behavior with the public statements made by the leadership of Iran and you would have to be looking the other way to not see the obvious.
What to do about it is a politcal consideration. If your comfortable with a state, that publicly supports terrorism, becoming a nuclear power, then I would propose that position is not wise. They may or may not use it but merely having the ability is a risk that we in the US cannot take. The Europeans shouldn’t either but they are too weak to oppose Iran.
Maybe they don’t want too because they’ve got too many interests tied up in the region.
I doubt Iran could resist an offensive from the European Union if such a thing ever occured.
The Russians and Chinese have no fear because the Iranians aren’t stupid enough to go after them. Both Russia and China would retaliate against them without discussion or political fear.
They’d probably count on them to oppose any U.S. action againt Iran…
The US, being an open society, creates doubt about our position. This emboldens our enemies. What Bush is trying to make clear is that our position is firm. No nukes. We prefer that you give them up but you’ll give them up one way or the other.
The same position tells them that they need nukes to be truly independent. If they don’t want to be the next Iraq, they have no choice but to develop some.
With “pre-emptive” war, the U.S. has shown that it will attack regimes that it deems dangerous. Having already been named in the Axis Of Evil; Iran probably sees little choice but to pursue nukes if it wants to avoid getting “liberated” soon…[/quote]
Pookie,
Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to renounce terrorism and try detente with the US. The Iranian people are very pro-US. The regime in power is not.
I disagree with your assesment of the European capability. It does not force project well without US support. I do agree that the Russia and China will side with Iran against the US. In fact they are counting on it.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I have not attacked you at all. The fact that you perceive simple questions as attacks is strange to me.
Purely for illustrative purposes, let me ask you a simple question. Zap, did you finish high school?[/quote]
Good one.
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
My not pointing not that Iran has ben working on nukes long before we invaded Iraq is watering down your argument?
Yes. I agreed their program had been in place predating Bush. What I said was that an announced policy of preemptive war and an actual preemptive invasion of a neighboring state had accelerated events and pretty much zeroed out any possibility of a negotiated outcome.
This is nothing like saying Bush’s speech caused Iran to try to get nuclear weapons, which was your mischaracterization of my position.
…[/quote]
My point(as I have stated before) is that Iran is not accelerating or redoubling their program.
That is transparent propaganda aimed at getting people to turn against Bush and his powerful policies.
We only know what they choose to let us know about their programs.
It is sheer fantasy to think we ever could negotiate with Iran on this issue.
[quote]hedo wrote:
Pookie,
Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to renounce terrorism and try detente with the US. The Iranian people are very pro-US. The regime in power is not.[/quote]
I’m sure it would be. The problem is that the people in power are in power. They know they’ve been targetted for eventual regime change; and they’ll do what they need to do to prevent it. Nukes must appear to be way to prevent U.S. intervention. Since Germany has already stated it wouldn’t support the use of force, they know a U.N. multilateral action is out of the question.
They’d probably “force project” better if they’d stop bickering amongst themselves. It would also help if the german chancellor kept his big mouth shut.
[quote]pookie wrote:
hedo wrote:
Pookie,
Wouldn’t it be easier and cheaper to renounce terrorism and try detente with the US. The Iranian people are very pro-US. The regime in power is not.
I’m sure it would be. The problem is that the people in power are in power. They know they’ve been targetted for eventual regime change; and they’ll do what they need to do to prevent it. Nukes must appear to be way to prevent U.S. intervention. Since Germany has already stated it wouldn’t support the use of force, they know a U.N. multilateral action is out of the question.
I disagree with your assesment of the European capability. It does not force project well without US support. I do agree that the Russia and China will side with Iran against the US. In fact they are counting on it.
They’d probably “force project” better if they’d stop bickering amongst themselves. It would also help if the german chancellor kept his big mouth shut.[/quote]
The german chancellor cannot keep his mouth shut, he has an upcoming election.
He is also not going to do or say anything that has a chance of being interpreted as support for the Bush administration. The only thing he could do that would hurt him more politically is if he raped a sheep on the stairs of the Reichstag.
Zeb, nice of you to take the following exchange out of context, and into another thread, and suggest that I’m being insulting…
[quote]
Zap to another:
I have not attacked you at all. The fact that you perceive simple questions as attacks is strange to me.
Vroom to Zap:
Purely for illustrative purposes, let me ask you a simple question. Zap, did you finish high school?
Zap to Vroom:
Good one.[/quote]
Why do you persist in misquoting me in an attempt to prove your points?
Honestly, do you simply overlook the circumstances in your haste to attack me, or do you actually perform quotes out of context on purpose though it is a blatant deception?
I’m serious, this behavior is far more inappropriate than simple name calling and insults… which occurs all the time around here.
Are you truly that amoral?
Hi vroomy 
(looks around)
Are going to do our thing over here now? Um okay…
The fact that you are constantly reminding me (and others) that “this or that” is far worse than your constant name calling tells me something. It tells me that you are now very conscious of your nasty ways. (I have to take some credit for this). Does this mean that you are going to stop calling people nasty names?
Well, I dunno…old habits die hard…
(As vroom wonders from thread to thread looking for his favorite foil, ZEB the sun sets quietly over T-Nation. Tune in tommorow for the continuing saga of “ZEB vs Vroom.”
Night pal
On what doogie wrote:
Collection and jamming: collect their communication transmissions for intel value; jam their transmissions to disrupt their ability to communicate. I was 35D3R5M: Tactical Intelligence Officer, Electronic, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare subspecialties.
If you were a wheeled vehicle mechanic, I understand why you might not know some of the more esoteric terminology.
What are you citing the Discovery Channel on, whether or not nuclear weapons produce fallout? Or whether or not C&J means collection and jamming? What’s your point exactly?
I offered at least one solution to use before we use a nuke: covert ops combined with diplomacy. Pookie suggested the use of conventional bombs instead of nukes, which at the very least would keep fallout to a minimum (nukes have fissionable material in them as do nuclear facilities; to use a nuke would exponentially increase the destruction and fallout).
Fallout is created when earth, people, animals, buildings and other things get reduced to ash and sucked up into the giant fiery mushroom cloud. The that particulate matter is borne aloft by upper-level winds which believe or not can make it to the western hemisphere, where the US lies (since you don’t seem to give rat’s ass about the eastern hemisphere).
Maybe a stronger weapons inspection program backed up with the threat of military force, etc, etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Nukes should always be a weapon of absolute last resort.
Your turn. Why don’t you come up with a solution that doesn’t pollute the planet?
WMD
[quote]ZEB wrote:
(As vroom wonders from thread to thread looking for his favorite foil, ZEB the sun sets quietly over T-Nation. Tune in tommorow for the continuing saga of “ZEB vs Vroom.” [/quote]
Cue music: Whoops! Error 404: Not Found
[quote]pookie wrote:
iscariot wrote:
Err…question.
I’ve yet to hear or read anywhere, from any source, anything even vaguely conclusive to the effect that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme.
Actually, if we’re speaking in terms of the ostensibly logic presented, it goes something like this.
[1]Iran is developing a programme to provide it with Nuclear Power.
Yes, everyone is pretty much in agreement on that point.
[2] Iran hates the USA
Safe bet.
[3] Conclusion: Iran is developing a nuclear weapons programme to attack the USA…
The conclusion doesn’t follow directly from [1] and [2].
[/quote]
I didn’t say it was MY conclusion, I said this was the logic posited on this forum as proof that Iran was going to develop a weapons programme - not, to my mind, the most stable, or cohesive, of arguments.
[quote]Iran is building facilities that will allow it to enrich uranium. Now, you can enrich uranium to a level of 3-5% for use in commercial nuclear reactors OR you can enrich it to 20% and above (up to 80-85%) for use in nuclear weapons. The facilities Iran is building would allow them to do either one. Enriching uranium to those levels is not necessary if nuclear reactor are your only goal.
[/quote]
True. But not the point. If everyone was OK with simple enrichment to 3-5% then the US would limit it’s rhetoric simply to ‘OK, prove your point’; but they haven’t; US rhetoric has been, you cannot develop nuclear power because you might also develop a nuclear weapons programme.
Frankly, from a position where the US already has a nuclear weapopns programme and power I think it’s a bit rich telling other countries what they can and can’t have.
Of course there is the astoundingly brilliant argument put forth that the USA is a stable country with the world’s best interests at heart…and that it is not ‘they’ who are the threat. Guess that whole threat thing depends on whose side you’re sitting on and who’s potentially point existing
missiles at whom…now who’s seen as the threat?
Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t - frankly though, if they did, who could blame them?
[quote]hedo wrote:
Why would a country, that has some of the world’s largest oil reserves, develop nuclear power for “peaceful” uses with it’s associated high infrastructure costs? Additionally the ability to build this capacity must be imported since the locals can’t. Why?
[/quote]
Frankly, if you had massive oil feilds and there were other countries with nukes etc, who wanted to take them off you, what would your first action be? I mean, is that why countries like the US have nukes, solely in a defensive capacity? [/sarc]
Who is the US to determine who has the big toys and who doesn’t?
…and don’t answer this in terms of ‘you’re attacking the US etc’ b/s - simple question. Similarly dn’t bring the UN into this, or the AEC, along the lines of the US enforcing their will, because the US ignores international bodies whenever it wants…so…under what legislative framework does the US have the right to tell a sovereign country what it can or can’t develop…
[quote]iscariot wrote:
…and don’t answer this in terms of ‘you’re attacking the US etc’ b/s - simple question. Similarly dn’t bring the UN into this, or the AEC, along the lines of the US enforcing their will, because the US ignores international bodies whenever it wants…so…under what legislative framework does the US have the right to tell a sovereign country what it can or can’t develop…
[/quote]
For good or bad, might makes right in the real world.