Iran dug tunnel for military nuclear work

[Winston]

This parallel to India and Pakistan does not work as an argument. There, both countries could be (and have been) going at eachother without nuclear deterrence, so it has probably increased the security of both countries.

In the case of Israel and Iran, only one side would realistically try to wipe out the other side in a conventional war, were there no nukes. If Iran leaves Israel alone (as it will, due to Israel's nuke capability), it has no risk of being attacked by Israel whatsoever. In fact, if Iran behaves itself and remains non-agressive, it does not need any nuclear deterrent at all. That is not the case with Israel, which is why they need their nukes. But all other countries in the Middle East don't - as long as they're non-agressive vis-a-vis Israel. Which may be the problem...

[Agathon]

Interesting to know we lived in different 20th centuries. Governments act to protect their percieved vital interests. Always have and for the foreseeable future they always will.

And if it continues, we are all dead.

That kind of thinking leads to war, death and terrorism. We have better ways of resolving our conflicts, it is almost never worth killing people or despoiling the environment.

In fact, it's immoral to think that way. Other people and other nations do not exist for the purpose of serving us, or as tools for the promotion of our interests.

The fact that many people do think that way is neither here nor there, the point is that such attitudes inevitably lead to ruin. The obvious solution is to build trust by a system of international rules and the supply of means for their enforcement.

The Americans of all people were smart enough to realize this, which is why they created the UN. We are still waiting for people to wake up to the fact that it is the only reasonable solution. Of course it is not a perfect solution, but it is the best that we can do.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Agathon

I know that -- but people thought it was the end of the world when India and Pakistan both obtained nuclear weapons.

MrFun is exactly right.

Relations between India and Pakistan have actually improved since the nuclear standoff, because each knows that war is not worth the cost.

I hate nuclear weapons, but even I would admit that they have done a good job of preventing WWIII thus far.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Agathon
And this coming from an Israeli?

Oh the hypocrisy....

Huh? The article came from a German magazine.

[Dinner]

How long until we have German, Japanese, Canadian, Australian, Spanish, Italian, Belarusian, Kazakhstan and Ukrainian nuclear weapons?

Germany, Japan, Canada, Spain, Italy and Australia never had nuclear weapons while Belaruss, Kazakstan, and the Ukrain transfered their nuclear weapons back to Russia in the 1990's.

[Agathon]

Huh? The article came from a German magazine.

Sorry.. misunderstanding. Siro posted the article, I was referring to him.

[aneeshm]

I don't get it . Iran could hurt the US much more seriously by just sitting there and using the Euro instead of the dollar for oil transactions , and by converting their reserves to the Euro , along with putting up all the US securities it has for sale , thereby decreasing their value .

Now is also the perfect time to do it , as the US is currently incapable of waging a seriously effective war against Iran just now .

Why don't they just do it ?

[Dinner]

I doubt Iran has a big stash of t-bills to sell. Certianly not more then the other central bankers would buy to hold up the value of the mountain of t-bills they're holding. Iran could switch to demanding Euros however much of it's foreign debt is in the form of dollar dominated loans made by east Asians. They need to earn dollars to so they can continue paying their debts.

That said I see a slow move over to the Euro but it will only be a partial move and it will be spread out over a long period of time.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Iran Suspends Uranium Enrichment, E.U. Suspends Disbelief
by Scott Ott
(2004-11-22) -- Iran today said it had suspended uranium enrichment as part of a deal negotiated with several European Union countries which, for their part, have agreed to suspend disbelief.

"It's like going to a stage play," said an unnamed French official familiar with the negotiations. "In the theatre we know that the people on stage are just actors but, for the sake of entertainment, we suspend disbelief. It's make believe and we all feel good about ourselves."

In addition to freezing uranium enrichment, Iran also announced it would destroy its stockpiles of sand.

http://www.scrappleface.com/

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Agathon
And this coming from an Israeli?

Oh the hypocrisy....

My evil side wants to see the US invade, just so I can get vindicated yet again!

[lord of the mark]

1. re "israeli hypocriscy"

Israel has repeatedly offered to enter into dialogue with ALL powers in the region, INCLUDING Iran, toward a nuclear free middle east. Problem is, the Iranians wont sit in the same room with Israelis. See Israel recognizes Irans right to exist, while Iran calls for the destruction of Israel. This is the assymetry between Israel and Iran. (Iran apologists on three "Iran couldnt realistically destroy Israel, yada, yada" - Maybe so, but it still introduces a complication, to say the least)


2. Irans is justified in seeking nukes, or maybe everyone is.

Fine, glad to know the opinion of you poly tubbies. However that is NOT the stated position of the UK, France and Germany, which in public at least still hold the NPT as enforceable. If they want to toss aside the NPT, or do so specially for Iran, let them do so publicly (and see the reaction in the US, and even in Europe). However they have not. Instead they state their confidence that Iran is NOT seeking nuclear weapons, and that it is bargaining in good faith, and so the matter should not be turned over to the UNSC. Is THAT position viable???

3. What to do - fairly obvious. No need for the 3rd Infantry division. Let the Euro 3 break off the charade of negotiations, and refecommend the IAEA refer the matter to the UNSC, where economic sanctions can be voted. Let them refrain from trade deals with Iran. Iran is alreadly ina modest degree of domestic ferment, based largely on their high rate of unemployment. Let sanctions begin to bite, and watch what happens.

4. Iran can back out of the NPT - let them. If they do so, Russia cant supply them technology, under the NPT. Will Russia defy the NPT as well? And will the Euro 3 pursue trade deals with Iran if it leaves the NPT?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MrFun



I know that -- but people thought it was the end of the world when India and Pakistan both obtained nuclear weapons.

:

Its gone as well as it has in part because of herculean diplomatic efforts, particularly on the part of the US (for which we of course get no credit, since our diplomacy is ignored when it cant be portrayed as "cowboy") and because Pervez Musharaff has survived in Pakistan. By the skin of his teeth, I might add.

You want real fun, read some websites that follow the Pakistani Urdu language press. Or the speeches of Hamid Gul, the former head of the ISI, chief patron of the Taliban, probably still in contact with Al Qaeeda. It makes the blood run cold.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon

I would say that the leaders of these countries have a sworn duty to protect their citizens. If they decide that Iran not having nukes is needed to accomplish this, then what do you expect them to do? Give in to some hairbrained notion of equality of rights among countries?

And I would say that this me-first manner of thinking has been completely discredited by the events of the 20th century.

The United States and Israel already have adequate protection against Iranian nuclear weapons in the existence of their own arsenals. If the Iranians decide to waste money on nuclear weapons, they will find themselves in exactly the same situation as every other nuclear power: such weapons have no offensive use, they are only good for deterrence.

Of course people will say that the Iranians are mad enough to use them in a first strike. But people said that about the Soviet Union. It was bull then, and it's bull now.

Or the old, "they will give them to terrorists" crap. No-one has yet managed to provide sound reasoning as to how a nuclear terrorist attack on a western city would serve the national interest of Iran. The whole point of terrorism is that the terrorists want something. In order for the victim to be aware of this, the terrorists must make it known who was responsible. If that happens it won't be too hard to find out where they got the bomb from, and that would inevitably mean a massive retaliatory strike against that country.

If a nuke blew up in Chicago tomorrow, and AQ claimed credit, would there be any way of knowing if A. It came from Iran B. It came from Pakistan C. It was smuggled out of Russia ? There would of course be lots of info from the CIA and western intell, but that would be dismissed around the world. If the US were to retaliate based on info the US possesed, but which would be entirely disbeleived in the muslim world ("muslims could never do such a thing, the Mossad did it") and which would be suspected in Euroland and elsewhere, this would likely set off the clash of civilizations, a global conflagration, in which the US would have few and reluctant allies. The US might well be deterred in this situation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Agathon
[Or the old, "they will give them to terrorists" crap. No-one has yet managed to provide sound reasoning as to how a nuclear terrorist attack on a western city would serve the national interest of Iran.

Its hard for me to see how the current regime serves the national interest of Iran. It only takes one mullah who beleives that Allah will come to the rescue.....

[BeBMan]

To the opening post, I can understand that they want nukes, but that they dig tunnels is just evil