Does Chirac's slip reflect France's real position on a nuclear Iran?

[Barnabas]

omg!!!! there are secret nuke destroying weapons!!!

[LordShiva]

Maybe when he said "bomb," he actually meant "bomb" (the kind that travels by bomber), in which case it would be rather easy to stop.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Is SDI about to actually work?

Looking good so far. Rueters

U.S. missile defense maturing, latest test a success
Mon Jan 29, 2007 8:14pm ET161

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Within a year, the U.S. missile defense system should be able to guard against enemy attacks, while testing new technologies, the deputy director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Monday.

The United States activated the ground-based system last summer when North Korea launched one long-range and six short-range missiles.

North Korea's intercontinental Taepodong 2 missile fell into the Sea of Japan shortly after launch but the short-range tests appeared successful, said Brig. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, deputy director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency.
Reuters Pictures

O'Reilly said there would be no formal announcement that the system was operational. He predicted the capability to defend against enemy missiles and to continue testing and development work would be achieved within a year.

"It's just a matter of maturation," he told reporters after a speech hosted by the George C. Marshall Institute, a public policy group.

O'Reilly said work by North Korea and Iran on long-range ballistic missiles underscored the need for a viable U.S. missile defense system.

The war between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah militants last summer also highlighted the dangers of ballistic missiles and their use by non-state actors, he said. "We know we must be prepared for all contingencies."
O'Reilly said the missile defense system, which includes sea-based and ground-based interceptors, and powerful X-Band radar systems, achieved success in 14 of 15 flight tests.

Through the end of 2007, the program will focus on protecting the United States from threats from the Middle East and North Korea, expanding coverage to U.S. allies and boosting protection against shorter-range threats.

In 2008 and beyond, there would be increased focus on countering unconventional attacks and increasing the U.S. inventory of interceptors and sensors, O'Reilly said.

RUSSIA IS WARY
Reuters Pictures
Photo

Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow

On Saturday, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), built by Lockheed Martin Corp, intercepted a target shot from a barge. It was the first test of THAAD since its move to the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii.

Two more THAAD intercept tests are planned for 2007, along with three tests of the Aegis Standard Missile-3 interceptors against short- and medium-range targets, O'Reilly said.

The agency also plans two tests of long-range ground-based interceptors in late spring and early fall.

The United States has 14 interceptors in Alaska and two in California, primarily to counter North Korea. O'Reilly said the number in Alaska would grow to 21 within eight months.

By 2011, plans call for some 40 interceptors in Alaska and four at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, he said.

He said negotiations were just beginning with Poland to host up to 10 ground-based interceptors and with the Czech Republic about fielding an advanced radar station.

Asked about the concerns of Russian officials, O'Reilly said the United States was talking with Moscow and hoped to convince it that placing U.S. missile defenses in eastern Europe could also enhance Russia's security as well.

He gave no timeline for completing negotiations with Poland and the Czechs, but said the United States was "always looking at all our options" if either country chose not to proceed.

"We'll have to see how it unfolds," O'Reilly said.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Looking good so far. Rueters

Not really, actually...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

14 of 15 not bad.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Do you mean their arsenal of strawmen?

Besides, I don't know what you assume, but I suppose both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have enough to lose to keep MAD intact even if they had nuclear weapons.

The arsenal that M Chirac posits would not be a threat. So Iran has one or two nukes. Theres no threat there of the nukes getting into the hands of terrorists. If there were, hed presumably be worried about Iran having one or two nukes, but he says he is NOT. But he IS worried about Egypt and KSA having nukes. I asked why, since presumably MAD applies as well to to them as to Iran. You stated that that would be a worry because such nukes could get into the hands of terrorists. If THAT is why Chirac fears proliferation, then he must believe that Egyptian or Saudi nukes are MORE likely to end up in terr hands than Iranian nukes, and Im not certain why he would thing that (i can come up with a few hypotheses, but Im not certain)

Another possibility is that Chirac thinks prolif to Egypt and KSA would lead Iran to a bigger arsenal and then MAD might not apply. Or alternatively, that in the uncertainty, and changing relative positions of an arms races, MAD would not apply.

One forgets the dangers that the USSR and the USA saw at the time when their nukes were deliverable only be aircraft of by rockets vulnerable to a first strike. MAD really came into its own with hardened silos, and sub launched ballistic missiles, which made a second strike more secure. Its not clear that MAD is nearly as reliable in the conditions of the ME today as it was during the more strategically stable parts of the Cold War. I think Chirac realizes that, even if some folks dont.

[TCO]

Free Quebec!!!

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
14 of 15 not bad.

Under unrealistic conditions...

I don't think it'll remain impossible forever, but there are some very real problems in hitting a ballistic missile in descent phase...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Under unrealistic conditions...

I don't think it'll remain impossible forever, but there are some very real problems in hitting a ballistic missile in descent phase...

So who should I beleive, some Hopkins Physics aspiring PHd, or M. Le President de la Republique Francaise?

[Ecthy]

Last time I checked Iran had a rather advanced missile program.

[KrazyHorse]

Me. I was right about Iraq's CBN program, and had almost exactly the same prediction as to timeframe of Iranian nuclear weapons as the leaked Israeli report.

[Pekka]

Well, should Iran get the bomb and USE it, say, on Israel, if the EU doesn't act with fierce military power to destroy Iran, it puts itself into a really bad spot. That is, EU would need to strike Iran hard and immidiately. If not, it would be like the opposite, not doing anything would be a hostile act against the West. Self mutilation.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Under unrealistic conditions...

I don't think it'll remain impossible forever, but there are some very real problems in hitting a ballistic missile in descent phase...

Of course you're correct hence my "looking good so far" as opposed to saying it was a done deal. But I do suppose this is the correct way of doing these kind of things rather than sending a live full fledged and armed nuke heading towards San Francisco. On second thought....


But on the other hand you were asking will SDI going to work anytime soon.

Operational within 1 year according to this article.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Me. I was right about Iraq's CBN program, and had almost exactly the same prediction as to timeframe of Iranian nuclear weapons as the leaked Israeli report.

well then, if Chirac is basing his position on a statement about SDI that is categorically wrong, can we not just dismiss him and move on?

[Barnabas]

Would iran nuke jerusalem? I dont think so since it is too sacred, they would nuke Tel Aviv I guess