-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Iran Nukes
- Thread starter Fly Navy
- Start date
Brett327 said:
Absolutely true. Israel realized this a long time ago and has since poured their time and effort into perfecting the Arrow missile-defense system rather than preparing for war with Iran or an Osiraq-type strike on their facilities. Someone mentioned the possibility of a ground war with Israel? I really just can't imagine any scenario in which that seems likely. A few in which it would be extremely unlikely, maybe...
On the subject of Iranian sovereignty--sure, they have sovereignty, but their being signatories to the NNPT directly facilitated their acquiring of nuclear technology. Breaking the treaty forfeits the "it's our country; we can do what we want" claim, as the technology certain is not theirs.
IRfly said:
The NPT states that the five (at the time) nuclear states shall not transfer weapons, explosive devices, or technology to non-nuclear weapon states. While it does state that those other signers agree not to undertake weapons/expl. devices development, it doesn't specify they are forbidden from receipt of the technology (nevermind the fact that Iran has done this largely on their own, with some educational help from other nations and some open help from an non-signer of the NPT, Pakistan). The onus is on the five nuclear signers. Non-nuclear states are allowed to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but agreed to declare it to the IAEA and allow their inspectors routine access -- who, were fully in place before Iran broke their seals on their equipment.
Like I said, I'm definitely not a huge fan of a radical state having the potential to develop nuclear weapons, but Iran IS following all the rules and treaties they've agreed to...
McNamara said:
This is probably a simplification of things but this might help,
Remember, that there are three distinct groups that are involved in the "insurgency" (Perhaps its easier to think of three different insurgencies). You've got the Sunni's (the reminents of the Ba'ath party, republican guard, fedayeen sadaam etc,) the Foreign fighters ("Al Qaeda in Iraq" or whatever Abu Musaab Zarqawi is calling his group these days, as well as groups of individuals from other Arab states like the Wahabbis) and the Shi'ites ( people like Muqtada Al Sadar and his followers). While their overall goals are doubtlessly different, some the means each group uses are similar (ie attacking Coalition forces).
The weapons comming from Iran were/are almost certainly bound for the Shi'ites. Why? Iran has been Iraq's arch enemy for a long time- that and the majority of the population of Iraq are Shi'ites.
With the fall of the Saddam and the Ba'ath government there was a power vaccum (and still is to some extent) that Iran moved to fill it and exert its own influence in the affairs of reconstruction Iraq- similar to how Pakistan exerts its influence in Afghanistan by supporting the southern tribes after the fall of the Taliban, or how it supported the more religiously conservative (ie Wahhabis, and the likes of UBL) members of the Muja-hadeen during the Soviet occupation.
Probable example of Iran exerting Influence early: Al Sadar's uprising in Najaf early after the fall of Saddam.
As for the use of the weapons:
Likely against US and coalition forces to further press for a withdrawl- where Iran would doubtless move to further shape Iraqs political arena.
Against Sunni members of Iraq's government, in retaliation for attacks against Shi'ite members.
Against Sunni elements of the insurgency, as well as foreign fighters.
squeeze said:
Fair enough argument, but I don't think that Iran has done it mostly on it's own...Unless I'm very much mistaken, were not several of their largest reactors built by Russia? (Although, as you pointed out, the onus is on Russia, rather than Iran.) Also, and I could again be mistaken, Iran neither truthfully declared its capabilities and intentions to the IAEA until the information had already leaked out, nor did it allow their inspectors access until enormous pressure was brought to bear. By accepting Russian technological support under the auspices of the treaty and then not following the terms of the treaty, Iran found itself in violation. Does this all really mean anything? Probably not.
Concur. NPT does not prohibit them from nuke power or an enrichment program. They have stated their intent to not make weapons, so it's a non-issue WRT NPT. Now, obviously we shouldn't believe or trust them on that detail, so their @sses are going to be under a microscope. This will be an interesting test of European/UN resolve to manage a potentially treacherous diplomatic situation. It's going to be an interesting century.squeeze said:
Brett
The U.N. is nothing more than a modern day League Of Nations, doomed to failure due to inaction and sissiness.
AllAmerican75 said:
Look, man, I hate to get on your case, but we can all turn on Fox News anytime we want...
The U.N. has got serious problems...for the United States. For most countries it works just fine--meaning that it's where they go to find allies against what they perceive as U.S. hegemony. While I personally am no fan of the U.N. (its rank hypocrisy, especially dealing with Israel, turned me off a long time ago), let's remember that not all of its inaction is due to the "sissiness" of "the other guys." And, by the way, by when should we expect the complete failure to which it is doomed?
Brett327 said:
Big credibility issue. Iran has huge oil reserves and the largest (or 2nd largest after Russia, I can't remember) natural gas reserves in the world. Nuclear power is several times more expensive as an "energy source." And again, if it's so innocent, why didn't they just keep us all updated all along?
IRfly said:
that is incorrect on many levels of power generation. yes, initial investment is higher, but the cost of upkeep, energy production, emission control, and fuel costs are typically lower than coal/oil. nevermind that nuclear power is virtually emissions free (save for the solid-waste fuel).
don't try to make a case against nuclear power -- there are already enough uninformed mouthpieces doing so today. make a case against Iran having nuclear power if you must. it's pathetic that the US is doing nothing to develop nuclear energy technology while the EU and much of the developing world are surpassing us.
squeeze said:
Sorry...Should have been more clear. For Iran, with its massive reserves of fossil fuels, nuclear power is several times more expensive as an energy source and will continue to remain so for the foreseeable future. Of course, the mullahs could simply be among the most forward-thinking people in the world, hedging against the day that their fossil fuel will run out--in about eighty years...
--a dedicated fan of nuclear power