Iran Nuclear Standoff

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Sadly we are actually strengthening his domestic position by publicly berating him. About a year ago, he was loosing public support, due to his failing economic and social polices. He then preformed the 'ol bait and switch (i.e. divert the public attention from something of substance you don't want it focused on, by providing it with an emotional knee jerk issue instead) started making an increasing number of provocative statements against the USA and the Western in General again. We fired back allowing him to frame the context of this confrontation coming off at home as the little guy standing up to the big bullies on the block, and suddenly lo and be hold, his stock has risen with the people on the street ever since. The best, though by no means ideal, course of action here is to just ignore the little twerp. We should continue to focus on the real problem here, the Islamic leadership.

Make no mistake about it, most Iranians especially the young (those in their 30s, or under), which make up the largest demographic, want greater social, economic and political autonomy. In part this is due to two key factors; a) they do admire the freedom, and general life style, they see in the West, b) they are too young (or even were not alive at all) to remember the Islamic revolution of the late 1970s early 1980s, thus there isn't the same degree of unwavering religious attachment/devoted as expressed by older segments of the population. By this same token however this demographic look next door and see the mess in Iraq, and fear what could happen to their country as a result of Western intervention. They might desire change, but they also want relative stability, and they'd prefer any change to come from within rather than without.

[cycloneye]

TEHRAN, Iran — The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said Saturday that the country had produced its first nuclear fuel pellets for use in a heavy water reactor, which is still under construction.

The uranium oxide pellets are made using a process separate from the uranium enrichment at the heart of a standoff between Iran and the U.S., which accuses the clerical government of secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

But the Arak reactor, which began construction in central Iran in 2004, is a concern to the West because the spent fuel from a heavy-water facility can be used to produce plutonium, which in turn can be used for a nuclear weapon. U.N. inspectors last visited the reactor in July, and Iran has said it hopes to have Arak up and running by 2009.

"Fuel pellets to be used in the 40-megawatt Arak research reactor have been produced," Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh said, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Iran is developing Arak parallel to its better-known light-water reactor program, like the one being built with Russian help at Bushehr. Such light-water reactors use enriched uranium that, at far higher levels of enrichment, can also be used to produce the fissile material for a nuclear weapon.

RelatedStories
Iran's Rogue Action is Common Motivator for Major Players in U.S. Peace Conference Iran insists its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes including generating electricity.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, had no comment Saturday.

Link to information

This is getting more serious as the days and weeks go by.

[artist]

Hybridstorm -WOW! Where do you get all your inside information??

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Hybridstorm -WOW! Where do you get all your inside information??

I've gone back to school recently (starting last year), and am doing a dual major in Political Science and Cultural Anthropology. As such most everything I've learned until recently has been self taught, due to my intellectual curiosity of the subject matter. I've always been interested in current events, history, and the organization of societies. Several of my professors, and fellow students, have said I'm a natural in these fields.

[cycloneye]

IRAN has built a new longer-range missile named "Ashura" with a range of 2000km, the defence minister announced today, the Fars news agency reported.

"The construction of the Ashura missile with a range of 2000km is one of the accomplishments of the ministry of defence," Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar was quoted as saying.

The weapon's range is sufficient to put US bases in the Middle East and Iran's arch enemy Israel within reach. The missile is named after the holy Ashura mourning ceremony that marks the death of Shi'ite imam Hossein

Iran in September unveiled a missile labelled Ghadr-1 (Power), which was said to have a range of 1800km

Link to information

A worrisom development if this is true,because of the Israel factor.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Also Israel is a small country that can absorb only a few nukes without being completely destroyed, where as Iran is a much larger country and as such can absorb a much higher amount before being totally destroyed. If Iran builds say 20 medium yield nukes, it has more than enough ammunition, to have Israel by the short hairs.

[mf_dolphin]

Also Israel is a small country that can absorb only a few nukes without being completely destroyed, where as Iran is a much larger country and as such can absorb a much higher amount before being totally destroyed. If Iran builds say 20 medium yield nukes, it has more than enough ammunition, to have Israel by the short hairs.

Actually that's pretty narrow point of view and omits several facts.

1. Israel already has the capability to destroy Iran from a nuclear point of view. These stockpiles are estimated to be anywhere from 100 to over 400. They also have a much better capability to deliver that capability on target.
2. The sophistication of the Israeli weapons is far greater than what Iran could be expected to produce in the short term. That's an important from the delivery and expected yied perspectives.
3. While geographically much larger, the Iranian and industrial complex and population is clustered in a minimal number of locations. The MAD principal would be in play for sure.
4. It appears you assume that Israel would allow such a capacity to be developed by Iran. I doubt that will happen
5. Israel has a few allies which might just need to be considered in your analysis.

In short, while a nuclear capable Iran is indeed a dangerous situation, having Israel "by the short hairs" is pretty simplistic IMHO.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Still my point is it wouldn't take that many nukes to do the job on Israel; as such I can understand why they are so nervous. Another thing to keep in mind, when every intelligence agency in the world so grossly overestimated Iraq's pre war weapon capabilities, why is everyone so sure these same agencies have pinned Iran's nuclear program down correctly? Could be that Iran already has several nuclear weapons for all we really know.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Oh BTW you left out the possibility of the USA getting involved on the side of Israel and Russia & China getting involved on the side of Iran; in other words WW III. See your right, Iran will not have Israel by the short hairs, with that threat always in the background it will have US ALL BY THE SHORT HAIRS.

[mf_dolphin]

Well there's no doubt that the US would respond to a nuclear attack on Israel. However, I seriously doubt that China or Russia would come to the aide of Iran if they launched a first strike. They would have very little to gain and everything to lose. I do agree that Iran having a nuclear weapon capabilty would place the entire globe under the gun. For that very reason they shouldn't be allowed to build that capability.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I am not talking about a direct nuclear attack (at least not right away), so much as Iran thinking it has leveled the playing field with Israel and for whatever reason engaging them in a future war that draws in USA, Britain, Russia, China and other major countries on one side or another.

[MGC]

I don't see the benefit that China or Russia will enjoy coming to the aid of Iran after a nuclear attack on Israel. If anything, I would hope that they would move to stop the nuclear madness. Iran would be crazy to attack Israel. Israel developed its nukes back in the 70's and has assembled a formidable arsonal. Israel's development of nuclear weapons has protected her from attack from her Arab neighbors since the 73 war......MGC

[mf_dolphin]

I am not talking about a direct nuclear attack (at least not right away), so much as Iran thinking it has leveled the playing field with Israel and for whatever reason engaging them in a future war that draws in USA, Britain, Russia, China and other major countries on one side or another.

Unless my geography is way off, Iran would have a tough time of attacking Israel. It a little matter of a country between them so I don't see your point there. A conventional conflict either on the ground or in the air would be the last thing that Iran should want.

From Israel's past military performance I would think that anyone that entertains attacking them should be committed. Israel has long history of taking the best military hardware from the US, France and England and making it even better. Their own military industrial complex is pretty impressive in it's own right. To be quite frank I don't think Iran has any intention of messing with Israel but instead is using them as a convenient propaganda target and a way of attempting to divert attention. It also serves as a way of reflecting internal attention away from their own crashing economy. It's hard to believe that a country sitting on such vast oil resources is in such poor economic shape.

[Cryomaniac]

I am not talking about a direct nuclear attack (at least not right away), so much as Iran thinking it has leveled the playing field with Israel and for whatever reason engaging them in a future war that draws in USA, Britain, Russia, China and other major countries on one side or another.

Unless my geography is way off, Iran would have a tough time of attacking Israel. It a little matter of a country between them so I don't see your point there. A conventional conflict either on the ground or in the air would be the last thing that Iran should want.

From Israel's past military performance I would think that anyone that entertains attacking them should be committed. Israel has long history of taking the best military hardware from the US, France and England and making it even better. Their own military industrial complex is pretty impressive in it's own right. To be quite frank I don't think Iran has any intention of messing with Israel but instead is using them as a convenient propaganda target and a way of attempting to divert attention. It also serves as a way of reflecting internal attention away from their own crashing economy. It's hard to believe that a country sitting on such vast oil resources is in such poor economic shape.

Apparently, Iran has developed cruise missiles that could hit Israel. A ground attack would be more difficult admitedly.

[mf_dolphin]

Apparently, Iran has developed cruise missiles that could hit Israel. A ground attack would be more difficult admitedly.

But here's the catch from the nuclear standpoint. It's one thing to build a nuclear bomb and a far different thing to build a nuke that can fit on a small missile. They are much more likely to build one for one of their ballistic missiles. The issue is scaling the weapon to fit the delivery mechanism.

For those that are curious here is a list of US nukes starting at the beginning, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html . Take a look at the weight and yield change from the original Little Boy / Fat Man nukes (read Hiroshime and Nagasaki) to the W-84 warhead. The W-84 is the warhead that was developed for our Ground and Sea Launched Cruise missiles. Also look at the yield which is the destructive capacity of the bomb itself. Fat Man/Little Boy were under 20 kilotons. The W-84 is a variable yield (this means you can set the strength prior to launch) of up to 150 kilotons. Folks that means it's almost 10 times as destructive! And that's what we're talking when we throw around the "medium yield" nuke these days. Take a look at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki post-strike pictures one more time and you should get a sense of why we don't want these type of weapons in a lunatics hands.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

With all due respect, you are grossly underestimating the illogical nature of Iran's fundamentalist regime. They think that God is on their side, and any attack on Israel is preordained to succeed. You and I might know differently, but the question is do they know differently. One can not apply logical to the illogical, and hope to understand such behavior.

[Cryomaniac]

Apparently, Iran has developed cruise missiles that could hit Israel. A ground attack would be more difficult admitedly.

But here's the catch from the nuclear standpoint. It's one thing to build a nuclear bomb and a far different thing to build a nuke that can fit on a small missile. They are much more likely to build one for one of their ballistic missiles. The issue is scaling the weapon to fit the delivery mechanism.

For those that are curious here is a list of US nukes starting at the beginning, http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html . Take a look at the weight and yield change from the original Little Boy / Fat Man nukes (read Hiroshime and Nagasaki) to the W-84 warhead. The W-84 is the warhead that was developed for our Ground and Sea Launched Cruise missiles. Also look at the yield which is the destructive capacity of the bomb itself. Fat Man/Little Boy were under 20 kilotons. The W-84 is a variable yield (this means you can set the strength prior to launch) of up to 150 kilotons. Folks that means it's almost 10 times as destructive! And that's what we're talking when we throw around the "medium yield" nuke these days. Take a look at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki post-strike pictures one more time and you should get a sense of why we don't want these type of weapons in a lunatics hands.

I wasn't talking necessarily about a nuclear attack, because I personally think it's unlikely. As for Hiroshima, I will justify that before I try and justify the carpet bombing of Dresden. I do agree that we don't need lunatics with nukes, but a state has too much to lose (i.e. it's existense) for using nukes. If any are used it will be by terrorist groups of some description.

If any state used nukes, it would exist for the length of time it takes for a B2 to fly there from Diego Garcia. A terrorist group is a less obvious single target for retaliation.

[cycloneye]

Folks,I also dont think Iran will launch a Nuclear Weapon to Israel.But what I fear the most about all of this standoff,is that Iran can handle the nukes to islamic terrorists groups and that is the worse case scenario.It would be suicide for Iran to launch nukes.

[HURAKAN]

Iran should knoiw very well what will happen if they do such a thing.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

There are two possibilities here:

A) Iran only wants nuclear capability so that it can strengthen its geopolitical position (including its negotiating position) in the region and the World (e.g. North Korea).

B) Iran wants nuclear capability so that it can bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam, by causing the destruction of the World. In the new world to come Iran, and radical Islam, will be the masters and we (the rest of the human population) will be their slaves. That is what many of them think.

Now I ask you, can we in the West really take the risk that it is B rather than A?