more from iran

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

or its leader


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/24/un-assembly-ahmadinejad-idUSL1E8KO5BL20120924

[MicroBalrog]

Can we strike Iran? Or can we decide that we will not strike Iran? Or can Iran get its nuke already? Anything so we would not hear of this again.

[TommyGunn]

If Iran wants a nuke it will no doubt get one.  Heck, I'm surprised they don't have one by now.
How long did it take America to develop them?  And we had to work from scratch.
A Hiroshima type bomb is not hard to make.

[Regolith]

If Iran wants a nuke it will no doubt get one.  Heck, I'm surprised they don't have one by now.
How long did it take America to develop them?  And we had to work from scratch.
A Hiroshima type bomb is not hard to make.

The theory has been floating around for a while; the problem is the engineering. It requires some very advanced and very precise equipment to do make one, and you kind of have to have a high-tech society to begin with in order to get those things. Iran is operating at a disadvantage because they started with a society that was a few generations, technologically, behind the west, and it takes a while to make up that disadvantage.

The other problem is material. There aren't many places that will sell Iran the stuff needed to make either uranium 235 or plutonium, or will provide them with it straight up, and the places that will don't generally have a lot of it themselves.

[lysander6]

The problem is not the bomb, the engineering feat is airborne delivery to a precise location but a Ford F350 could do so via ground routes.  Even the Chechens supposedly obtained suitcase nukes in the late nineties under int'l muj auspices during the consolidation of power while escaping the Russian vice.

The Shahab-3 CEP is estimated at 30-50m.

The nuclear calculus has to take into account that the response will be massive to a signature strike that can be forensically traced to its origin.  The Iranians can talk and bluster all they want but I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it.  A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.

[Scout26]

And Ahmadinejad is just blustering, just like those folks in Cairo and Bengahzi were upset over a movie trailer...


These folks are "True Believers".  They are not playing some power politics game.  They mean what they say, and if we don't take them serious (and stop their nuclear development, there will be double flash signatures all over the middle east.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it.  A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.



my mothers family would disagree

[longeyes]

The problem is not the bomb, the engineering feat is airborne delivery to a precise location but a Ford F350 could do so via ground routes.  Even the Chechens supposedly obtained suitcase nukes in the late nineties under int'l muj auspices during the consolidation of power while escaping the Russian vice.

The Shahab-3 CEP is estimated at 30-50m.

The nuclear calculus has to take into account that the response will be massive to a signature strike that can be forensically traced to its origin.  The Iranians can talk and bluster all they want but I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it.  A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.

There is a quote--see italics--for the ages.  The advent of nuclear weapons created the reality of culturecide.  Imagine a world without London, Rome, Paris, and New York, and all that would imply.  These weapons have the power to kill a nation's soul and obliterate its history.  They are not just bargaining tools and, yes, they WILL be used again.  All weapons are used eventually.

[lysander6]

my mothers family would disagree

Regrets, were they the victims of a bombing?

[Scout26]

Remember we are talking about people that routinely convince others (of their ilk) to strap explosives to themselves and then go blow themselves up in the largest crowd of Israelis they can find.  Then pay off the families.  There were 19 people that willingly flew aircraft into buildings.  They join the American, Afghan (and previously, Iraqi) police and army to conduct suicide attacks on Americans.

And you seriously believe that once they have a working nuke, they are NOT going to use it on Israel?  Really?!?!?!


 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Regrets, were they the victims of a bombing?

if they had got it first they'd have used it

[Balog]

Remember we are talking about people that routinely convince others (of their ilk) to strap explosives to themselves and then go blow themselves up in the largest crowd of Israelis they can find.  Then pay off the families.  There were 19 people that willingly flew aircraft into buildings.  They join the American, Afghan (and previously, Iraqi) police and army to conduct suicide attacks on Americans.

And you seriously believe that once they have a working nuke, they are NOT going to use it on Israel?  Really?!?!?!


 

There's a world of difference between convincing some sap to blow himself up, and blowing yourself up. I tend to think politicians are politicians the world over: they want power and advantages for themselves and their families and are happy to exploit True Believers to get it, but are rarely TB themselves.

[AZRedhawk44]

Remember we are talking about people that routinely convince others (of their ilk) to strap explosives to themselves and then go blow themselves up in the largest crowd of Israelis they can find.  Then pay off the families.  There were 19 people that willingly flew aircraft into buildings.  They join the American, Afghan (and previously, Iraqi) police and army to conduct suicide attacks on Americans.

And you seriously believe that once they have a working nuke, they are NOT going to use it on Israel?  Really?!?!?!


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

19 hijackers.

15 are Saudi.
1 is Lebanese.
2 are United Arab Emirates.
1 is Egyptian.


None are Iranian.

No evidence that Iranians are impersonating Afghans to take a place on joint security forces in A-stan.



Look, I don't have a buddy-fest going on with Iran.  I don't really care too much one way or another about them.  All I care about is keeping our country's nose out of additional wars that prove to be yet another jumping off point to invade yet another place.  

Look at it from an intergenerational perspective, like the Cold War.

Who is our next major foe if we keep this up?

We're building a western bulkhead to strike into China's western frontier.

We keep this up, we're going to start WWIII.

We win by winning the economic war, not by invading everybody under the sun.

I don't think Iran is going to be any more of a threat than Pakistan, even if they do obtain the Bomb.  Heck, India can keep Iran in check, independent of the US and Israel.  They have a troubled history with Islamic extremism as well, and have enjoyed many wars with Pakistan over the Kashmir region.  Now with both parties having the Bomb, Kashmir is pretty darn quiet.

In order for MAD to have any moral efficacy, one must first establish firm ground as the defender rather than the aggressor.

The US has not established that foundation in regards to Middle East peace.  Right now from any objective perspective, Iran is attempting to deflate the imbalance of power by putting MAD into its own hands.

[longeyes]

It took 2500 years for us in the West to arrive where we are, about the best mankind can hope for, with all its attendant blood and tears.  If we value that, if we wish to preserve what's good, we will act like men who understand what we have to lose and what we must do.

[RevDisk]

Even the Chechens supposedly obtained suitcase nukes in the late nineties under int'l muj auspices during the consolidation of power while escaping the Russian vice.

Those are more myth than not, btw. Yes, I am very familiar with atomic demo charges. They are equally the equivalent of a semi-truck loaded with modern explosives. More of a radiological hazard than nuclear weapon hazard. Plus nukes have a self-life. Any nuclear weapon made during the USSR days would need an overhaul by now. Still the risk of strapping normal explosives to it to make a radiological weapon, but you have the same risk from medical radiological sources.

I would suggest the bomb's power evaporates quite literally on detonation and takes all the stored political capital with it.  A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.


my mothers family would disagree

Folks are able to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki these days.

But yes, nuclear weapons are overhyped. They are rather destructive. But Operation Meetinghouse, firebombing of Tokyo, was quite a bit more effective than nuclear weapons. If you gave me the choice, I'd take Hiroshima or Nagasaki during nuclear attack over Tokyo during the firebombing. Of course, the Hibakusha are not always treated very kindly. Korean hibakusha severely so.

I have family from Japan as well. Good number of them moved over to the US. In their opinion, nuking Japan was the best thing that could have happened. It severely interrupted the insanity, which is the only description one could give the Imperial military. The details of said insanity are actively trying to be wiped from the history books in modern Japan. But in fairness, many educators have worked very hard to keep Imperial war crimes in the books and classrooms.

[kgbsquirrel]

There's a world of difference between convincing some sap to blow himself up, and blowing yourself up. I tend to think politicians are politicians the world over: they want power and advantages for themselves and their families and are happy to exploit True Believers to get it, but are rarely TB themselves.

What happens when the politician, and possibly true believer, is nearing the end of their natural life and doesn't give a fig about anyone else surviving past them as long as they make a huge mark in the history books on their way out of this world? The current Grand Ayatollah of Iran is 73 and is reputedly in poor health.

[MicroBalrog]

What happens when the politician, and possibly true believer, is nearing the end of their natural life and doesn't give a fig about anyone else surviving past them as long as they make a huge mark in the history books on their way out of this world? The current Grand Ayatollah of Iran is 73 and is reputedly in poor health.

And Iran's general would obey this out of...?

[kgbsquirrel]

And Iran's general would obey this out of...?

The General doesn't have to. Just one of the "True Believer" pawns under his control.

[longeyes]

"But yes, nuclear weapons are overhyped. They are rather destructive. But Operation Meetinghouse, firebombing of Tokyo, was quite a bit more effective than nuclear weapons. If you gave me the choice, I'd take Hiroshima or Nagasaki during nuclear attack over Tokyo during the firebombing."

Why, yes, they are "rather destructive."

And the choice is not Hiroshima or Tokyo.  Those were and remain, to most of us in the West, far-off, foreign places.  Not New York, not Chicago, not Los Angeles, not Peoria.  Not Rome, Paris, or London, or Vienna.

If you think the West can lose its historic capitols and not be spiritually maimed, perhaps terminally, I think you have played in technocrat land too long.  This is not about damage assessment calculations and the weighing of gain versus loss, it's about whether survival will not only matter but make sense.  That kind of thinking--we'll get by somehow--is dangerous.

I, for one, do not wish to live in a world that has lost the core of its history.

[lee n. field]

A nuclear bombs present utility is all in the threat and not the use.

If all you got is the one. 

[Balog]

What happens when the politician, and possibly true believer, is nearing the end of their natural life and doesn't give a fig about anyone else surviving past them as long as they make a huge mark in the history books on their way out of this world? The current Grand Ayatollah of Iran is 73 and is reputedly in poor health.

What would've happened if Clinton got syphillis from one of the whores he was banging and decided to launch the nukes against Russia? What if we came up with wildass speculation to justify whatever our positions are?

[RevDisk]

If you think the West can lose its historic capitols and not be spiritually maimed, perhaps terminally, I think you have played in technocrat land too long.  This is not about damage assessment calculations and the weighing of gain versus loss, it's about whether survival will not only matter but make sense.  That kind of thinking--we'll get by somehow--is dangerous.

On 9/11, we lost 2,996 folks. We've probably killed well over a hundred thousand civilian Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other places. Not always directly or intentionally, but dead is dead.

Perhaps I have been in technocrat land for too long. Nuke our capital? I suspect Americans would respond with "Burn them. Burn them all." rather than any sort of emo response. That'd eventually happen, but it'd take more than a few years. And 99.99% of the damage done to America since 9/11 has been through our own government.

Ayep. Faith in Americans is dangerous. Because the greatest boatlift, shaming even Dunkirk, that occurred on 9/11? It was done by primarily private citizens. No plan, no "orders", etc. One call, and EVERYONE hauled. Yep, yep. No way Americans could ever deal with bad things happening.

Again, I have my issues with Japan. But we did WORSE things than nuking them, in addition to nuking them, and they're fine now. Couple memorials, some folks with health issues, but the majority of them are absolutely fine folks and doing well enough. They rebuilt and mostly moved on. Folks are generally more adaptable when the chips are down than properly given credit. Once in a while, you have a Katrina response. Usually? Folks act like even BETTER people in a crisis than not.

[purequackery]

I have only questions.

If Israel preemptively attacks Iran's nuclear facilities, is Iran bluffing about retaliating against U.S. regional interests based on the idea that Israel wouldn't attack without at least tacit approval from the U.S.?  Russia and China have said that they will defend Iran against attack.  Does that include preemptive attack against Iran's nuclear facilities?  Where does the UN Security Council fit in?

If Iran is let alone and develops nuclear weapons, will they use them to annihilate Israel as Ahmadinejad has promised?  What previous nuclear weapon state, including North Korea, has made unqualified statements about wiping another country off the map?  If Iran develops and uses a nuke, Israel will have to nuke in retaliation.  Can political negotiations prevent superpowers from getting involved when two nations, both having defence pacts with superpowers, get into a nuclear exchange?

[Blakenzy]

Everyone's favorite Brit interviews Ahmadinejad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4thIsiCYqMg

[agricola]

Everyone's favorite Brit interviews Ahmadinejad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4thIsiCYqMg

Apologies if this has been posted before, but here is the UK's response to Morgan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJtrRwOi2xo

the definition of "countryside"