Iran dug tunnel for military nuclear work

[Edan]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I suppose you missed the part where they were conducting their program in a tunnel under half a mile of rock?

Apparently, I did miss that.

The magazine said that according to the intelligence documents, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei personally issued a directive at the start of October to build the secret tunnel.

That suggests that they haven't yet been conducting their program in that tunnel.

I also couldn't find anything about the depth of the tunnel. Cite?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Good luck.

I suppose you missed the part where they were conducting their program in a tunnel under half a mile of rock?

Bunker busters would finish that in a hurry, if we could find it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Nobody is answering the question.

Iran: What the **** are we going to do about it?

I'm going to mail them a giant card signed by dozens of people, calling for nuclear disarmnament and world peace, with lots of pretty flowers drawn on it.



flower power

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Bunker busters would finish that in a hurry, if we could find it.

No they couldn't

[Sirotnikov]

From what I read in newspapers, its a production system which is spread out in dozens of secret sites, usually under hundreds of meters of rock or concrete.

I doubt Israel or the US could get 50% of that, even using their entire bomb stock.

[GePap]

Iran begun work on nukes when the Shah was in power- I think that if the Shah had remained in power Iran would already be a nuclear power like Pakistan. There is no rational reason why the Iranian regime should not seek nukes- they are in a bad neighborhood, they have unfriendly regimes all around, several of which are nuclear powers, and their vast supplies of oil mean that a sactions regime against them for an infraction of the NPT is not likely to happen any day. If the Iraninans really want it, they could just simply opt out of the NPT- they have the right.

A military attack will simply delay the program, but can;t stop it. Only a full sacle invasion could, and that is not going to happen.

I doubt an internal regime change would really end Iran's nuclear ambitions- we have India as a fine example of a democracy saying screw it, we want nukes too.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon
Unless you think these two countries have some divine right to stick their nose in everyone else's business (which is what Shrub seems to think), you can't blame countries like Iran for wanting to protect themselves.

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?

Maybe in a perfect world, but not the real one.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Iran begun work on nukes when the Shah was in power- I think that if the Shah had remained in power Iran would already be a nuclear power like Pakistan. There is no rational reason why the Iranian regime should not seek nukes- they are in a bad neighborhood, they have unfriendly regimes all around, several of which are nuclear powers, and their vast supplies of oil mean that a sactions regime against them for an infraction of the NPT is not likely to happen any day. If the Iraninans really want it, they could just simply opt out of the NPT- they have the right.

A military attack will simply delay the program, but can;t stop it. Only a full sacle invasion could, and that is not going to happen.

I doubt an internal regime change would really end Iran's nuclear ambitions- we have India as a fine example of a democracy saying screw it, we want nukes too.

All this is true. It does not however address our right to act in our self interest. If we decide that they are a threat to us, then how can we not act in some manner to oppose this?

[GePap]

Originally posted by PLATO


All this is true. It does not however address our right to act in our self interest. If we decide that they are a threat to us, then how can we not act in some manner to oppose this?

I am a firm believer in deterence, and I sure as hell do not think that Iranian nukes are a threat to the US itself- maybe to our regional interest, but no the US. As for the tired "terrorist" arguement- the Iranians used Chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war- if Iran wanted to pass any WMD capability to Hizbullah, they have had 16 years to do it, and as of today no one has even claimed they have.

As for acting in our self interests- I don;t think we have the ability to stop a drive by Iran to make nukes, nor are we willing to do anything that might make the Iranians less jumpy right now, so we should plan for a future with Iran as a nuclear state.

[Pekka]

I would still say Iran getting nukes is a grave mistake. First NK, now Iran, they basically say FU we'll get them anyway. Well that is what always happened with countries getting them, so this is nothing new. But this sets a pretext to other nations as well, hostile or not. Hey, if you're not a hostile country, ****, I bet no one even bothers to write about it, since hostile ones only get 'well, damn it that's bad!'.

That also leads to a simpel point that yet another country posesses the cabability. And they are now also able to pass the technology to other folks, who are not yet capable but willing. They can form blocks if another country gets nukes and at that point, it doesn't matter what we think or say, we're in a stalemate or even at losing point of possible nuclear confrontation. Basically, it won't get any better in the future. It can only get worse, nuclear wise. So I'm all for action. What ever it takes. Well, not what ever it takes, but let's just say I wouldn't protest if they were gunned down and smashed. The nukes that is. And the future ability for some years to come.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
As for acting in our self interests- I don;t think we have the ability to stop a drive by Iran to make nukes, nor are we willing to do anything that might make the Iranians less jumpy right now, so we should plan for a future with Iran as a nuclear state.

I agree. I do think that our self interest and regional interest dictate that we make it as politically and economically difficult as we can however.

The face of the ME changes yet again when they become a nuclear state. Unfortunately, it will probably lead to a declared Israeli state...and then a very unfortunate arms race.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Pekka
I would still say Iran getting nukes is a grave mistake. First NK, now Iran, they basically say FU we'll get them anyway. Well that is what always happened with countries getting them, so this is nothing new. But this sets a pretext to other nations as well, hostile or not. Hey, if you're not a hostile country, ****, I bet no one even bothers to write about it, since hostile ones only get 'well, damn it that's bad!'.

And why should anyone have nukes? As long as the five nuclear powers decide to keep them, as they all have, and three states are allowed to have them free of consequence the arguements for stopping others can solely be based on past regime behavior.

That also leads to a simpel point that yet another country posesses the cabability. And they are now also able to pass the technology to other folks, who are not yet capable but willing. They can form blocks if another country gets nukes and at that point, it doesn't matter what we think or say, we're in a stalemate or even at losing point of possible nuclear confrontation. Basically, it won't get any better in the future. It can only get worse, nuclear wise. So I'm all for action. What ever it takes. Well, not what ever it takes, but let's just say I wouldn't protest if they were gunned down and smashed. The nukes that is. And the future ability for some years to come.

Except that no one is about to invade Iran, and that is what it will take, unless the regime decides it does not need nukes.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Pekka
That also leads to a simpel point that yet another country posesses the cabability. And they are now also able to pass the technology to other folks, who are not yet capable but willing. They can form blocks if another country gets nukes and at that point, it doesn't matter what we think or say, we're in a stalemate or even at losing point of possible nuclear confrontation. Basically, it won't get any better in the future. It can only get worse, nuclear wise. So I'm all for action. What ever it takes. Well, not what ever it takes, but let's just say I wouldn't protest if they were gunned down and smashed. The nukes that is. And the future ability for some years to come.

The world does not have the will to act. As usual, world politics will be reactive, not proactive.

If the nuclear states would band together and declare "No More!" and show the political and military will to back it up, then there might be progress. Fat chance, however.

[GePap]

The only problem I see is that at some point I do fear a military attack on Iran's nuclear installations will be carried out- which will slow down Iran but will also allow the regime to crack down hard internally by claiming to be under attack, and the Iranians will act out in Iraq.

[Pekka]

"And why should anyone have nukes?"

Who knows. Don't think we know everyones mindset and logics. There just might be none.

"Except that no one is about to invade Iran, and that is what it will take, unless the regime decides it does not need nukes."

no one will invade Iran. And in the future, no one will invade Iran.