Iran dug tunnel for military nuclear work

[Adam Smith]

Lets Play Clue

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. 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.

As someone who has worked on this very problem in transportation security, I can confidently say that you have no clue what you are talking about. Suppose that somebody stuffs a nuke into a marine container and it blows up in New York or Los Angeles tomorrow. OBL steps up and says "Ha ha, we've done it again, when are you infidels going to accede to our demands?" He's done us the courtesy of assuming responsibility, but its been three years and we still haven't caught him, right?

So lets figure out where AQ got the bomb. Start by looking for physical evidence. Ooops, the ship, container (which one of 2000 containers on the ship?), documentation, and any other even remotely related evidence have been vaporized. But we know where the ship came from ... and based on shipping routes, the container could have gotten on anywhere between the Persian Gulf and Korea. So AQ got the bomb from ... Iran? Pakistan? North Korea? Former Soviet Union? Ayatollah Mustard in South Asia with the Detonator?

[Odin]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Not all Europeans are the loony hippies who thinks the US is the root of all evil, a few vocal extreme leftists (like Tripledoc) make it look that way (yes, I am a leftist, but I'm a democratic socialist, not a rabid marxist wacko. ).

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

Well, the technical specificiation of the bomb would be a good sign- the Russians don;t exactly have every and any old designs out there lying about- yield size would be a good indication, specially since a nascent nulcear power will not have very powerful bombs, and certainly nothing into the hundred kiliton range. The smaller the bomb, the more I think you can see if it was a uranium or plutonium device, and you can expand your search thusly.

But then, we can just as well play the game from the other side: If a nuke went of in Chicago and the US begun looking for where to retaliate, would they really look at Russia? NO, cause there is nothing they could do about it- even pakistan would not be the firt target, cause they are an ertzwhile US ally- hence if the US needed to hit someone back, Iran and NK would be the long and short list no matter what. Hence it does not pay for Iran to give over a device to any terrorist because even if they were NOT the source, they would get the blame (just look at the Iraqi example)-and given the US did not give a hoot about Muslim opinion when it invaded Sunni Iraq, why would they all of a sudden care about Muslim opinion in hitting Shiite Iran?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

and given the US did not give a hoot about Muslim opinion when it invaded Sunni Iraq, why would they all of a sudden care about Muslim opinion in hitting Shiite Iran?

You really think an invasion, of a regime even most in the arab world admitted was pretty despicable, in which the US marched in promising to rebuild the country and democratize, in which there were something like 1400 civilian deaths, many of which were NOT the result of US arms, and no more than handful of those were deliberate, and NONE of those were authorized by the US govt, and in which the US govt has tied itself into knots over some incidents of humiliation and abuse of prisoners, is, or would be considered to be, equivalent to nuking of a major Iranian city, with upwards of a million civilian deaths?

Surely you dont think that nuking Iran would have as little impact as invading Iraq has had. You may think the admin thinks so - I realize you think theyre idiots. I dont agree with them on everything, but I dont think theyre that far out.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


You really think an invasion, of a regime even most in the arab world admitted was pretty despicable, in which the US marched in promising to rebuild the country and democratize, in which there were something like 1400 civilian deaths, many of which were NOT the result of US arms, and no more than handful of those were deliberate, and NONE of those were authorized by the US govt, and in which the US govt has tied itself into knots over some incidents of humiliation and abuse of prisoners, is, or would be considered to be, equivalent to nuking of a major Iranian city, with upwards of a million civilian deaths?

Surely you dont think that nuking Iran would have as little impact as invading Iraq has had. You may think the admin thinks so - I realize you think theyre idiots. I dont agree with them on everything, but I dont think theyre that far out.

Who said the retaliation would be nuking an Iranian City? I have not.

If the attack was extremely destructive then an eventual nuking would be generally accepted if begrudgingly- just as our attack vs. Afghanistan was generally supported after 9/11.

A more likely response vs. say Iran would be to a nuking would be massive military attacks against the regime and an invasion to topple and remove the regime.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Who said the retaliation would be nuking an Iranian City? I have not.

If the attack was extremely destructive then an eventual nuking would be generally accepted if begrudgingly- just as our attack vs. Afghanistan was generally supported after 9/11.

A more likely response vs. say Iran would be to a nuking would be massive military attacks against the regime and an invasion to topple and remove the regime.

You seemed to imply that US reaction would be suicidal to the regime. As current events in Iraq show, elements of an overthrown regime can transform themselves into an insurgency, with the hope of outlasting the US and restoring the old regime. While I am optimistic wrt Iraq, nothing is certain. In Iran, which is a much larger country, and a different kind of regime, its not at all clear that US sponsored regime change would mean the end of the game for the mullahs.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Who said the retaliation would be nuking an Iranian City?

It's MAD, MAD, I tell you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
You seemed to imply that US reaction would be suicidal to the regime. As current events in Iraq show, elements of an overthrown regime can transform themselves into an insurgency, with the hope of outlasting the US and restoring the old regime. While I am optimistic wrt Iraq, nothing is certain. In Iran, which is a much larger country, and a different kind of regime, its not at all clear that US sponsored regime change would mean the end of the game for the mullahs.

I am sure that maybe Saddam gets some Schadenfreude out of the current insurgency-but our invasion was fatal to his regime.

Besides, NUking a single city in Iran would NOT mean the end of a Mullah regime either, so for the US to get justice for a nuking, it would have to either:

a. Invade and catch those it felt responsible
b. Indicriminately nuke the entire state.

B. is never a real option unless we were talking retalitory strike after a full blown massive nuclear offensive against the US (which we are not), so only regime change ala Taliban and Saddam would do- how efficient the US was at it is irrelevant to what the course of action would be.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


It's MAD, MAD, I tell you.

Its better if we don't get our hair mussed.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


Its better if we don't get our hair mussed.

For deterrence or for our hair?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I am sure that maybe Saddam gets some Schadenfreude out of the current insurgency-but our invasion was fatal to his regime.

Mohammad al Duri is at large, and may be playing a leading role in the insurgency, as indeed are other Former Regime Elements. In any case the Iranian regime is less centered on one man, and may be better connected in Iranian society thant he Baathists were.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I am sure that maybe Saddam gets some Schadenfreude out of the current insurgency-but our invasion was fatal to his regime.

Besides, NUking a single city in Iran would NOT mean the end of a Mullah regime either, so for the US to get justice for a nuking, it would have to either:

a. Invade and catch those it felt responsible
b. Indicriminately nuke the entire state.

B. is never a real option unless we were talking retalitory strike after a full blown massive nuclear offensive against the US (which we are not), so only regime change ala Taliban and Saddam would do- how efficient the US was at it is irrelevant to what the course of action would be.

It IS relevant to the question of whether the Iranian mullahs fear it. As you have stated, there are two course of actions, one involving nukes, and one involving invasion. The first is itself deterred, since it would lead to a clash of civs. The second would leave the mullahs in the lead of a popular insurgency, likely to regain power 2 to 3 years after the US invasion.

Now Im not saying passing a nuke to terrorists isnt RISKY for the mullahs. But its NOT suicidal.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Mohammad al Duri is at large, and may be playing a leading role in the insurgency, as indeed are other Former Regime Elements.

They were not The leader of the regime, The decision maker who would be the one to say, decide giving WMD's to terrorist was a wise action.

In any case the Iranian regime is less centered on one man, and may be better connected in Iranian society thant he Baathists were.

Which still says nothing about regime survival - decisions are not made on some metaphysical plane, but by people in power.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
It IS relevant to the question of whether the Iranian mullahs fear it. As you have stated, there are two course of actions, one involving nukes, and one involving invasion. The first is itself deterred, since it would lead to a clash of civs. The second would leave the mullahs in the lead of a popular insurgency, likely to regain power 2 to 3 years after the US invasion.

You keep saying how widespread the state is-so nuking any one city would never get all mullahs, and perhaps not a single mullah would be afraid of any one attack. Any attack would be a "war of civs"-there is no good option involving vengeance once nukes are involved-one is left to chose the best out of bad options.

Now Im not saying passing a nuke to terrorists isnt RISKY for the mullahs. But its NOT suicidal.

The only Mullah's that matter are those in power, cause they would control the nukes-and that limited group is in grave danger. Some low level Mullah in Quom would not be in a position to decide to give a state asset like a nuke to anyone.

And besides, do you even think there is anything we could do to stop the mullahs from getting nukes when you don;t think we can even deal with them if we decided to go all out?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


They were not The leader of the regime, The decision maker who would be the one to say, decide giving WMD's to terrorist was a wise action.

Im not sure who the figure in Iran would be. Not the President, unless they change the system from what it was under Khatami. Maybe the head of the expediency council? Maybe the majority of the expediency council? The point is its more of a collective regime, than Iraq. There MAY not be a single regime leaders whose likely (future) arrest would deter in the present. If youre a ruling mullah, now, you have to think if youre more likely to end up like Saddam or like Al Duri. Its not 100% youll end up like Al Duri, but its not 100% you'll end up like Saddam either (oh, and we havent gotten Mullah Omar either, last I heard.) So it depends on how much you like risk. And how much you, as the West are willing to risk that an Iranian decision maker is particularly unriskaverse. If you think that Irans nukes would help the regional power balance,as some seem to think, that may be a risk worth taking.