Iran's Manhattan Project Speeding Ahead (what

[Tiger Ace]

They are operational in the sense in an emergency we can use them, testing is still ongoing(AFAIK) and the results are good but not good enough.

Faqa has acess to IDF journals, maybe he knows more.

[NapoleonGH]

"But is Iran capable of building enough nuclear-armed missiles to overwhelm that theatre ballistic missile shield the Israelis have in place, because if they can't, then they will have no deterrant against Israel."

So far as I know they cannot shoot down a Sheehab-3 or the soon (Reletively) to be made Sheehab-4

[Crown]

I don't understand; are you asking whether Iran can have enough for a first strike, or retaliation strike?

Both, actually. Note my use of the word "deterrant"

*shrug*

Offence is a wee-bit easier than defence. All Iran needs is 2-3 to get through and Israel is fucked. It just cannot absorb damage that well (due to its small size and high population density).

It's a little hard to give a definate answer to a nebulous question.

[Ma Deuce]

Offence is a wee-bit easier than defence. All Iran needs is 2-3 to get through and Israel is fucked. It just cannot absorb damage that well (due to its small size and high population density).

Of course, there's also the factor that Iran has to pay for all the missiles and warheads it buys, meanwhile the only limit to how many ABMs Israel can buy is how many The Great Sugardaddy is willing to pay for...

[Chmee]

Offence is a wee-bit easier than defence. All Iran needs is 2-3 to get through and Israel is fucked. It just cannot absorb damage that well (due to its small size and high population density).

Of course, there's also the factor that Iran has to pay for all the missiles and warheads it buys, meanwhile the only limit to how many ABMs Israel can buy is how many The Great Sugardaddy is willing to pay for...

My money is on that well drying up faster than Iran's ....

[ali-sama]

you doint; need nukes to hurt israel. i mean the country is so small. israel and iran need to tlak things out diplomaticlaly. also with the usa. military action will only bring disaster for all parties.

[Ma Deuce]

israel and iran need to tlak things out diplomaticlaly. also with the usa. military action will only bring disaster for all parties.

The EU (who have far better relations with Iran than either the US or Israel) has been trying to negotiote with Iran for months concerning their nuke program, but that's been going nowhere so now they're exasperated and on the brink of siding with the US in seeking UN action against Iran.

And it's kind of hard for Israel to "talk things out" with a country that hates their living guts and continues to fund terrorism against them.

But really, I don't see the point of more negotiation: Iran is clearly hellbent on getting nukes one way or another, and I doubt anything anyone says or does is going to dissuade them, especially with that zealot they have for a president now.

[Chmee]

israel and iran need to tlak things out diplomaticlaly. also with the usa. military action will only bring disaster for all parties.

The EU (who have far better relations with Iran than either the US or Israel) has been trying to negotiote with Iran for months concerning their nuke program, but that's been going nowhere so now they're exasperated and on the brink of siding with the US in seeking UN action against Iran.

And it's kind of hard for Israel to "talk things out" with a country that hates their living guts and continues to fund terrorism against them.

But really, I don't see the point of more negotiation: Iran is clearly hellbent on getting nukes one way or another, and I doubt anything anyone says or does is going to dissuade them, especially with that zealot they have for a president now.

As long as the Israelis won't even discuss reducing their own nuke arsenal (much less acknowledging publicly that they have it), why on earth would any other player in the region agree to tie their own hands and cede permanent strategic superiority to the Israelis? You might as well ask the Iranians to shift to a 100% pork diet and make Britney Spears their President. They're going to behave like any other nation with regional military rivals, and refuse to accept inferiority as a permanent status. Expecting something else is just wishful thinking.

[Beowulf]

It's not in their best interests to have nuclear bombs, because M.A.D. isn't a valid theory. Especially when you can't possibly have the number of nuclear devices required for the Mutual part of M.A.D. All it insures is that if they ever use their nukes, they are Assured Destruction. Worst case in a conventional war is that the leaders are deposed. Worst case in a nuclear war is a self-lit parking lot.

MAD may not be valid, but detterence is. Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike if they are capable of glassing Tel Aviv, and neither is the United States. Much like North Korea, Iran is developing a detterent that will not ensure the destruction of the enemy, but will make the cost of attacking them too high.

Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike anyways. What could be gained from going to war, not only against Iran, but every country they have to fly over to get to Iran.

Answer: to keep Iran from being able to launch a nuclear strike against Israel. NK is not going to be attacked, not because it has nukes, but because it has enough artillery to flatten Seoul from behind the DMZ, with disasterous effects on the world economy, and because SK doesn't especially want the war to go hot again.

If they want nuclear power, fine. But you don't need to use enriched uranium to make a reactor. And Iran doesn't need nukes.

[ali-sama]

It's not in their best interests to have nuclear bombs, because M.A.D. isn't a valid theory. Especially when you can't possibly have the number of nuclear devices required for the Mutual part of M.A.D. All it insures is that if they ever use their nukes, they are Assured Destruction. Worst case in a conventional war is that the leaders are deposed. Worst case in a nuclear war is a self-lit parking lot.

MAD may not be valid, but detterence is. Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike if they are capable of glassing Tel Aviv, and neither is the United States. Much like North Korea, Iran is developing a detterent that will not ensure the destruction of the enemy, but will make the cost of attacking them too high.

Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike anyways. What could be gained from going to war, not only against Iran, but every country they have to fly over to get to Iran.

Answer: to keep Iran from being able to launch a nuclear strike against Israel. NK is not going to be attacked, not because it has nukes, but because it has enough artillery to flatten Seoul from behind the DMZ, with disasterous effects on the world economy, and because SK doesn't especially want the war to go hot again.

If they want nuclear power, fine. But you don't need to use enriched uranium to make a reactor. And Iran doesn't need nukes.

then neither do israel, pakistan, india, ussr the usa and other coutreis.
it is the rule of survival.
if your neighbours started pakcign guns and are hostile to you. do you sit idly by and not buy one yourself?
does that make sence to you?

[ali-sama]

added note.
if iran wanted to take out israel. it coudl right now. it has missels capable of reachign every major city and reducing it to rubble. sure israel can launch nukes in retaliation. but considering the diffrences in size. it woudl be a no win sit for israel. their going trhough a cold war atm. let them get over it. both are fanatical goverments. do you really care if a moron threathens another moron?

[Chmee]

Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike anyways. What could be gained from going to war, not only against Iran, but every country they have to fly over to get to Iran.

Answer: to keep Iran from being able to launch a nuclear strike against Israel. NK is not going to be attacked, not because it has nukes, but because it has enough artillery to flatten Seoul from behind the DMZ, with disasterous effects on the world economy, and because SK doesn't especially want the war to go hot again.

If they want nuclear power, fine. But you don't need to use enriched uranium to make a reactor. And Iran doesn't need nukes.

Again, you're asking Iran to use a different strategic playbook than everyone else in history. You don't evaluate your needs based on potential enemies' current political intent, you evaluate your needs based on their capabilities. Israel has sufficient missile/warhead capability to vaporize Tehran, Tehran doesn't have a reciprocal capability for Tel Aviv, and so long as that's the case they're going to seek that reciprocal capability. How do they know whether a loony zealot government will hold Israel's keys in 10 or 20 years? Nations do not accept potential enemies having trump cards ... never have, never will. Hoping they'll base their strategic doctrine on accepting what nobody else (certainly not us) accepts is pointless daydreaming.

[The Kernel]

Israel isn't going to attack Iran in a first strike anyways. What could be gained from going to war, not only against Iran, but every country they have to fly over to get to Iran.

It's still an option; Israel has a rather substantial nuclear arsenal and now any sort of preemptive strike is out the window. Not to mention preventing hostilities with Iraq.

As for the talk of the Israeli missile shield, it is largely irrelevent. A missile shield is a last ditch attempt to stop a missile attack, it is not a foolproof missile barrier. Israel isn't going to discount a nuclear Iran just because of a missile shield.

Answer: to keep Iran from being able to launch a nuclear strike against Israel. NK is not going to be attacked, not because it has nukes, but because it has enough artillery to flatten Seoul from behind the DMZ, with disasterous effects on the world economy, and because SK doesn't especially want the war to go hot again.

Where did I say that NK's detterance relies on nukes? Their conventional weapons is what I was referring to, they prevent SK or the US from trying to invade. NK wants nukes for an entirely different purpose (probably as a bargaining chip).

If they want nuclear power, fine. But you don't need to use enriched uranium to make a reactor. And Iran doesn't need nukes.

Apparently, they think they do. And we are not in a position to stop them in the UN.

[Axis Kast]

As long as the Israelis won't even discuss reducing their own nuke arsenal (much less acknowledging publicly that they have it), why on earth would any other player in the region agree to tie their own hands and cede permanent strategic superiority to the Israelis? You might as well ask the Iranians to shift to a 100% pork diet and make Britney Spears their President. They're going to behave like any other nation with regional military rivals, and refuse to accept inferiority as a permanent status. Expecting something else is just wishful thinking.

Yes and no.

Of course, you raise a valid point. Any Iranian politician or military commander is going to publicly embrace the logic you’ve just cited. Their economists are also going to celebrate the possibility of selling whatever oil and natural gas they “save” by meeting domestic generation with nuclear power.

But you’ve still got to ask yourself: if Israel didn’t have a nuclear bomb, would that preclude Iran’s present day behavior? Probably not. Iran’s desire to possess an atomic device isn’t solely contingent upon its hostilities toward Israel. A nuclear bomb is simply a useful weapon. Argentina and Brazil didn’t pose existential threats to one another during the 1970s and early 1980s – yet both pursued atomic weapons. South Africa couldn’t have precluded racial unrest by exploding a nuclear device over Luanda – but they were ready to use the bugbear of their nuclear program to commit “reverse blackmail” against Western nations reluctant to back their conventional forays across the Jump Line.

In any case, regardless of whether an Iranian might feel threatened by a neighbor, it still isn’t in our best interests to allow them to continue their program. For one thing, Iran is clearly no friend of the United States – some of their military forces maintain unofficial liaisons with “rogue” elements known to have ties to al-Qaeda. It is also fairly clear that they hoodwinked us by feeding us false intelligence on Iraq, and it’s a good bet that they have done their part to stir up some of our present troubles. Their conventional military might and our force commitments elsewhere in the world precludes punishment, but even if we can’t act to scold them, we can be wary of their future intentions. Indeed, we must be.

Unfortunately, Iran has every incentive to continue its programs. The IAEA is a monitoring body; it has no coercive power whatsoever. The Europeans can threaten sanctions, but that only works if (1) they maintain a united front, or (2) they go through the United Nations. In the former case, those sanctions will mean next to nothing anyway, since Iran will simply forge ahead with its nuclear ambitions and then criticize the sanctions as worthless once they do explode a functional weapon. In the later case, if Russia or China chose to veto, then nothing changes anyway. If, for some reason, they abstain or support sanctions, then Iran still has free reign to do what it will behind closed doors. The regional politics and Iran’s military might make military options distinctly unattractive. And so we arrive at a point of impasse, much to my chagrin.

At this point, I even have to wonder if we could launch a successful decapitation strike. Do we have sufficient knowledge of their infrastructure – is it really that identifiable – that we could launch a few waves of bombers and cruise missiles and then call it a day (even accepting that we’d need to make a difficult-to-hide emergency deployment of extra troops we probably don’t have to the Iraqi border with Iran to ensure that Iran doesn’t attempt a conventional counter-attack)?

[Elfdart]

For one thing, Iran is clearly no friend of the United States – some of their military forces maintain unofficial liaisons with “rogue” elements known to have ties to al-Qaeda. It is also fairly clear that they hoodwinked us by feeding us false intelligence on Iraq, and it’s a good bet that they have done their part to stir up some of our present troubles.

I boldfaced those words because I'm convinced it's a new record for Most Weasel Words In A Single Sentence. "Some" Iranians have "unofficial" liaisons with "rogue" types who have "connections" to Al-Qaeda. You could substitute the name of any organization from the Bush White House to the March of Dimes for "Al-Qaeda" and that would just as technically true -and just as fatuous and meaningless.

They didn't hoodwink the US at all. The Bush Junta knew it was peddling lies to start the war with Iraq. They weren't fooled one bit.

Finally, "our" present troubles were caused by a deranged Don in a vile crime family who decided to invade Iraq. The Iranians had nothing to do with it.

[Axis Kast]

You could substitute the name of any organization from the Bush White House to the March of Dimes for "Al-Qaeda" and that would just as technically true -and just as fatuous and meaningless.

Red herring.

Iran continues to permit liaisons between elements of their standing military forces and the “al-Quods” or Jerusalem Force, who are essentially state-backed terrorists, and the al-Qaeda network.

Just because they are (probably) beyond easy punishment doesn't mean they didn't commit a grievous offense against the United States.

They didn't hoodwink the US at all. The Bush Junta knew it was peddling lies to start the war with Iraq. They weren't fooled one bit.

Prove that the United States initially believed Chalabi to be feeding them false or misleading information.

Finally, "our" present troubles were caused by a deranged Don in a vile crime family who decided to invade Iraq. The Iranians had nothing to do with it.

Red herring. It’s fairly certain that Iran has done nothing to help stem the violence in neighboring Iraq. In fact, it’s a good bet they have facilitated the influx of foreign fighters.

[Elfdart]

You could substitute the name of any organization from the Bush White House to the March of Dimes for "Al-Qaeda" and that would just as technically true -and just as fatuous and meaningless.

Red herring.

Iran continues to permit liaisons between elements of their standing military forces and the “al-Quods” or Jerusalem Force, who are essentially state-backed terrorists, and the al-Qaeda network.

Just because they are (probably) beyond easy punishment doesn't mean they didn't commit a grievous offense against the United States.

You could say the same thing about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, even more so.

They didn't hoodwink the US at all. The Bush Junta knew it was peddling lies to start the war with Iraq. They weren't fooled one bit.

Prove that the United States initially believed Chalabi to be feeding them false or misleading information.

False assumption. Chalabi was a single rung on the burglar's ladder. John Pilger acquired video of both Colin Powell and Kindasleazy Rice in 2001 saying that Iraq had no WMD (the main bullshit reason for the war).

Finally, "our" present troubles were caused by a deranged Don in a vile crime family who decided to invade Iraq. The Iranians had nothing to do with it.

Red herring. It’s fairly certain that Iran has done nothing to help stem the violence in neighboring Iraq. In fact, it’s a good bet they have facilitated the influx of foreign fighters.

The only way Iran could "stem the violence in Iraq" is by sending in about a million troops and Ku Kluxing vast numbers of Iraqis. Iran has no interest in giving weapons or other aid to the Sunnis, who are the main rebels. Iran can simply "run out the clock", wait for the US to leave and gain control of the Shiite regions. Why the fuck would they arm Sunnis who (a) hate their guts and (b) would turn on them when the US leaves? If there was a widespread Shiite rebellion, you'd have a point. But there isn't. Funny thing about this war is that Iran and Iranian-backed Shiites in Iraq are the big winners. If there is a democracy, the Shiite fundies will have Sharia Law all over Iraq. So much for that "freedom" bullshit FGalkin was babbling about. If not, they will split off and join Iran. Either way, Teheran will be in the driver's seat.

[Axis Kast]

You could say the same thing about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, even more so.

Red herring.

First and foremost, the problems posed by Pakistani and Saudi Arabian ties to al-Qaeda do not negate those posed by Iranian ties. Any single criminal is no less guilty in the presence of his peers.

False assumption. Chalabi was a single rung on the burglar's ladder. John Pilger acquired video of both Colin Powell and Kindasleazy Rice in 2001 saying that Iraq had no WMD (the main bullshit reason for the war).

Red herring. The United States was fed lies by Chalabi, at the direction of Iran. Clearly, Iran directed an intelligence operation against the United States. It is no friend of ours, and, evidently, will not hesitate to do us a bad turn when it can.

The only way Iran could "stem the violence in Iraq" is by sending in about a million troops and Ku Kluxing vast numbers of Iraqis. Iran has no interest in giving weapons or other aid to the Sunnis, who are the main rebels. Iran can simply "run out the clock", wait for the US to leave and gain control of the Shiite regions. Why the fuck would they arm Sunnis who (a) hate their guts and (b) would turn on them when the US leaves? If there was a widespread Shiite rebellion, you'd have a point. But there isn't. Funny thing about this war is that Iran and Iranian-backed Shiites in Iraq are the big winners.

I believe it was the 9/11 Commission report that identified Iranian border control as being less than flawless. It’s also clear that the Iran-Iraq border is one huge sieve that Iranian intelligence has obvious reasons for wanting to cross. As you’ve pointed out, it behooves them to try and prop up the Shiites as best they can.

But, getting back to brass tacks, it’s still a pisser that they’re going to get a nuclear bomb unless we actually do start flinging the hot metal. Of course, it might be nice to implement sanctions. If they're going to sting us, we might as well swat back.

[Ma Deuce]

added note.
if iran wanted to take out israel. it coudl right now. it has missels capable of reachign every major city and reducing it to rubble.

No, they can't. Right now they could probably only land about the same number of missiles in Israel as Saddam did in '91, and Iran's Shehab-3 (their only missile that can reach Israel) missiles have similar-sized warheads as the al-Hussein (modified Scud) missiles used by Iraq. Meawhile Israel has 50 Jericho II missiles capable of reaching Tehran, all of which likely have a nuclear warhead.

John Pilger acquired video of both Colin Powell and Kindasleazy Rice in 2001 saying that Iraq had no WMD (the main bullshit reason for the war).

Frankly, I regard John Pilger as a total nutcase in the same league as Galloway (I came to this conclusion reading his articles written during the Afghanistan war), so I'd check for myself if he told me the sky is blue. Until I get another source for that claim other than Pilger, I'm having a hard time believing it.

[The Kernel]

Red herring.

Iran continues to permit liaisons between elements of their standing military forces and the “al-Quods” or Jerusalem Force, who are essentially state-backed terrorists, and the al-Qaeda network.

Just because they are (probably) beyond easy punishment doesn't mean they didn't commit a grievous offense against the United States.

Your argument seems to center around the concept that if any nation performs an act that undermines our interests, that is enough to justify any unilateral action against them. The US could cook up similar arguments about any fucking nation in the world.

Hell, we could even make this argument about the US itself, after all we do allow domestic terrorists like the militias to congregate, therefore the US itself is an enemy of the US! Man the missile silos, it's time to purify America!

[Axis Kast]

Your argument seems to center around the concept that if any nation performs an act that undermines our interests, that is enough to justify any unilateral action against them.

No; my argument centers around the fact that the Iranian government has done nothing to eliminate or suppress clear contacts between its official military forces and known terrorist organizations that have committed acts of war against the United States of America. That’s akin to some militia group in the United States striking targets in Mexico and then going underground, all while Washington continues to keep open contacts with them via the Air Force, which feeds them weapons and information on an irregular basis. Mexico would consider that pretty damn hostile. I consider that pretty damn hostile when it happens in Iran. Just because we might not be able to wipe that issue off the table with a well-timed air strike doesn’t mean we don’t need to talk about our options. If we can’t find a worthwhile response, okay, but let’s not sit and twiddle our thumbs without at least thinking how to counter these travesties.

[SirNitram]

A momentary injection of chemistry and physics into this fearmongering. The site in question has only converted mined and milled uranium ore into Uranium Tetraflouride so far. Okay, pretty scary. oooo. Problem: Uranium Tetraflouride is not exactly a terrifying material. You need, as the article stated, UF6(Uranium Hexaflouride) to make the fission plants and the primitive bombs go.

Getting from UF4 to UF6 means working with pure flouride. Worse, the article suggests it's a gas process. Flouride gas is, IIRC, 125 degrees. Ouch. Not the nicest or most material-friendly enviroment, and certainly not user-friendly. Worse, once you have that UF6 in your hot little hands, don't let it touch air. Why not? UF6 reacts quickly with water.. Yes, water vapor too.. And turns back into oxide and Hydrofluoric acid.

So what does this chemistry lesson mean? Well, Iran can do basic chemistry thus far. They have another big bottleneck ahead with that machinery that the IAEA unsealed, though, and they simply aren't producing all that much(That 37 tons that can become a few hundred pounds of useful shit? From the news reports of the time, it took between three and four months to do that.). And apparently, Iran's conversion plant is indiginous.. China sold them blueprints, but the Clinton administration helped shut down the rest of the sale.

UF6 is handy for both reactors and bombs. So we now have a country that can produce a few dozen pounds of fission reactor fuel a month. If their untested UF4-UF6 equipment works and no one screws up.

[Axis Kast]

Well, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder just denigrated President Bush's declaration that "all options remain on the table" - that's not a direct quote - vis-a-vis the Iranian nuclear situation. Ostensibly, Bush was referring to possible military action, when and if appropriate. Apparently hoping to score points from Germans opposed to the ongoing War in Iraq, Schroeder has suggested that the results there were evidence enough that military action doesn't work.

Personally, while I understand Schroeder's desire to score points with German voters and keep his own country from participating in any such military action (even armed with nuclear weapons, Iran would not be a direct threat to Germany), I think his position shouldn't be misconstrued as a really very useful one for the United States, which has much more reason to fear Iranian aggression in the region.

[Netko]

Only one small question: what aggresion? They aren't going to use nukes, as neither has Pakistan used them and they are arguably similar types of tyranical goverments - Pakistan even had revolutions occur while armed with nukes. I would need some serious proof of hostile intent to think Iran is getting the nuke for anything else then defense against a invading army.

Besides, they can't reach the US - no ICBMs remember? The only US thing they can hit is a army base in Iraq or Afganistan - a pinprick that awakens the giant, not exactly something that is in their intrest.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Are you conveniently forgetting Israel? They certainly don't need a reason to feel threatened and they are most certainly within range of any real ballistic missile with a nuke warhead, even if they have their ABM up and running.