 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:25 AM Be it Seymour Hersh of the NYT or the Washington Post the reports of an immenent pre emptive nuclear strike on Iran are more than sabre rattling. This nuclear war has no precedent. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM The official Pentagon statement is that President Bush is not looking at any military solutions in the near future and that the plans reported in the NYT are only contingency plans and are not yet operational. I feel that the diplomatic track record of this administration holds little promise for any non military solutions. Sources in the White House have said that President Bush has used the words "messianic" and "Hitler" in describing the president of Iran. I will have to illustrate the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 09:42 AM http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/potcalling.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 06 - 09:59 AM Precedent = Japan? Not a war, but a completion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:05 AM When I read this kind of idiocy I wonder if the U.S. will survive the remainder of this fool's second term. And I wonder at the idiots who elected this sociopath into office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:42 AM http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushblink.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM In Russia Bush is known by a russian term which was used often in the Communist Party. It roughly translates as "the convienient idiot". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:49 AM The more I look at this the more it looks like George's love child http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushblink.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:54 AM I just heard that some US generals are resigning over the current pre emptive nuke plan on Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:03 AM http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml%3Bjsessionid%3DC3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sShe |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:13 AM Bush just called this breaking story "wild speculation" three times in a row at John Hopkins University. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:17 AM The thinking will likely go along the lines of, "Well, it's either the nuclear option or a protracted ground war." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: PeteBoom Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:17 AM One of these days, the difference between pre-emptive and preventice will be discussed. However, they will not be understood by a fair number of folks... Pre-emptive is striking before an opponent, when a strike from that opponent is imminent - E.g., the Israeli air-force smashing the Egyptian air-force... on the ground... a day or two before the Egyptians were scheduled to do the same thing. Preventive would be keeping the Egyptians from building the aircraft in the first place. Attacking Iran to prevent them from building nuclear weapons would be a preventive strike. I'm certain it would be legal, because George, by the Grace of God, King of America, the Fifth of that name, would say it was. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Bill D Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:20 AM "wild speculation" is when you don't have the actual transcripts of him discussing it. I note his quotation did NOT say "totally untrue" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Janie Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM The report that I heard on "All Things Considered" yesterday was a bit more nuanced than the "Telegraph" link provided by Donuel. (For what its worth.) I don't know who I was listening to on NPR yesterday evening--some one was being interviewed about this story. Perhaps some one else heard it can can supply names? According to the interviewee, the Bush administration is not planning to nuke Iran, but refuses to take that option off of the table as one possibility, and that is what Pentagon officials find so disturbing. (Yea for the Pentagon.)Apparently many in the Pentagon do not think it should even been considered an option, no matter how remote. Some Pentagon officials are considering resignation if it appears the option will begin to be viewed as feasible. The same interviewee opined that Bush is beginning a campaign to prepare the American people for an invasion of Iran--regardless of nuclear options. Write your congressmen and women. Tell 'em to put the brakes on this mad administration. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:19 PM well, if the "nucular" option loses in favor of a ground force invasion, i don't see how that could possibly be implemented, given the wide dispersion of current U.S forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, not to mention nearly forgotten and "discarded" places like Bosnia. ...and this discounts "incidental considerations," like low recruitment numbers, the high cost of current operations and the drain on the economy ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:38 PM Too many people here living in a dream world. Preventing a country from buildind planes, devices, etc.? Give me a break! I am not real happy with everything going on BUT I would vote the same way if given 11/04 again. The Telegraph and NPR sources need to be supplemented by other news sources unless one is trying to preserve and strengten one's bias. Remeber this? "We no longer live in a world where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security." President Kennedy, 1962 Cuban Missle Crisis |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Stilly River Sage Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM Kennedy nearly made a really bad mistake with Cuba. 11/04? I heard the NPR story. "Strengthen one's bias"? You need to speak to the folks who rely on Fox and Rush to get their "news." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,zebco Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM The Cuban missile crisis was a totally unnecessary flirtation with killing 300 million Russians and Americans (and a lot of other people as well). It was largely driven by people like Curtis LeMay, who were hungry to bomb and invade Cuba upon any pretext whatsoever. The USA already had nuclear missiles close to the Russian borders, in Turkey and elsewhere....but they could not bear the thought of the Russians having a similar quick strike capability. Well, what do you call someone who is willing to kill half the people in the world to prevent an opponent from standing on an even playing field? You call someone like that a lunatic, that's what. If America had a friendly island near Russia, would anything in the world suffice to prevent America from putting nuclear weapons there? No. America, in 1962, was apparently willing to risk its own people and the people of the world in order to maintain a double standard over Russia. That is arrogance of a really awesome level, and it's amazing how they could justify it to themselves. Cuba was a Russian ally. Why the hell should a nuclear power NOT be allowed to base nuclear missiles on an ally's territory if the ally allows it? The USA does it wherever they can. Why not Russia? Oh, well...it's simple....the USA is "under God" and is "good". Russia is "evil". You can't allow evil people to exist on a level playing field...(extreme sarcasm) No, only "good" people can be allowed to practice nuclear blackmail and to get away with murder. Fucking incredible. In return for Russia withdrawing from its placing of missiles in Cuba, Kennedy quietly dismantled the American nuclear missiles in Turkey. That was the real deal....you give this, I give that in return. The American public was not told about that part, because the old phony double standard (we're good...they're evil...we won...they lost) had to be maintained as the official version in the American media, in order to preserve the great American illusion of predominance, victory, and unchallengeable strength. Bush pursues that same illusion today. Democrats or Republicans, they all pursue that same illusion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Barry Finn Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:19 PM We've been on this road for some time now & the powers that be are determined to have their way with Iran & the rest of the Mid East. This seems to me as a testing of the waters, to find out where the public stands & where the military, Pentagon, Congress & others stand to see the how, when, where & the whys to pull it off. Where to get the money & soliders from is an after thought. It's all a matter of selling it. As for Bush, he's denied everything he's done so far, why wouldn't he continue & deny this. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,zebco Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:59 PM Ah, but to use tactical nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive attack! That is a whole new ballgame. That is a whole new level of illegality and irresponsibility being considered by this administration. And you're probably right that they are testing the waters to see how people will react to the idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:14 PM I think the idea is probably to encourage the Iranians to push ahead with trying to develop atomic weapons as a way of deterring invasion. The object being to use this as an excuse for an attack on Iran. Very similar to the game played over Iraq really over the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, as a way of tricking people into going along with the invasion. I think that if an attack on Iran is set in motion by the USA it will make what has happened in Iraq seems like a minor hiccup. And neither Tony Blair nor anyone else will be able to deliver the UK as a supporting partner this time, even if they wanted to. Not a chance. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Ebbie Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM A few minutes ago I viewed a video of Wolf Blitzer (CNN) interviewing Seymour Hersch. It was interesting, to say the least. Hersch's position is that when the war department, the Pentagon, put on the table for the Administration all the conceivable options that could negate Iran as a nuclear threat they included the tactical nuke option. Accoring to Hersch Iran's nuclear facility is 75 underground, under hard rock. Hersch said that during the Cold War, the USSR too had its nuclear facilities 75 feet underground under rock, and that the US considered that the only way to break through and take it out was by nuclear means. That has been translated to fit the current situation. Today, of course, we have capabilities that were not available 40 years ago: limited, tactical weapons that seem to some as of limited danger to the rest of the world. For that reason, my guess would be that we are far more likely to utilize the measure. According to Hersch, Bush thinks that it is up to him and him alone, of all the Presidents to come, to eliminate Iran's nuclear capabilities. The Pentagon, according to Hersch, after having listed the nuclear option, then asked the White House to remove that option so that the war department could know that it is NOT being considered. The White House allegedly refused. World opinion, miscalculations, lack of foresight, the morality os such a action- all those and much more would seem not to be seriously considered. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: katlaughing Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM Bush said, "And by the way, I read the articles in the newspapers this weekend. It was just wild speculation, by the way. What you're reading is wild speculation. Which is, kind of a -- you know, happens quite frequently here in the nation's capital." Yeah, he does speculate wildly! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:45 PM The official Pentagon statement is that President Bush is not looking at any military solutions in the near future and that the plans reported in the NYT are only contingency plans and are not yet operational Thats pretty much they said about Iraq in the preceding year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 10 Apr 06 - 03:02 PM I take it that the reference to 11/04 was the last Presidential Election in the USA. GUEST,zebco, on your post of 10 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM With regard to NATO I think the only country that US Forces have ever located Strategic nuclear weapons was the UK. They did deploy tactical nuclear weapons in NATO forward areas during the early part of the Cold War, and that was done for a specific reason, to counter Soviet/Warsaw Pact Chemical and Biological Weapons. The Soviets were told that should their precursor for an attack in the West involve Chemical or Biological weapons NATO's immediate response would be to hit their assembly areas with tactical nuclear weapons. As such I believe that tactical nuclear weapons were deployed in Germany, possibly Italy and in Turkey. The types of missiles deployed by the Russians in Cuba were strategic missiles and the thinking behind their deployment was to reduce the response time of the USA to any attack in Europe. It all came to nought once second and third strike capabilities were developed. You ask a specific question: "If America had a friendly island near Russia, would anything in the world suffice to prevent America from putting nuclear weapons there?" You say "No" zebco, but what about Taiwan? What about Japan? What about South Korea? (I know the latter can easily be ruled out because of the 1953 Ceasefire Agreement to keep the Korean Penninsula nuclear free - The US and South Korea lived up to that committment but as we know the North Koreans who invaded the South in 1950 did not). The US never put nuclear weapons in any of those friendly islands close to both Soviet Russia and Communist China, which rather goes against your arguement. To America, in 1962, and to the rest of the free world it was amazingly easy to justify the stance taken. Don't know if you lived through it zebco, I did. Back to Pre-emptive nuclear strikes and threats thereof - None of the usual suspects has chirped up about this, and I thought that they would have: "The leaders of states who would use terrorist means against us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons of mass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves open to a firm and fitting response on our part. This response could be a conventional one. It could also be of a different kind. Against a regional power, our choice is not between inaction and destruction. The flexibility and reaction of our strategic forces allow us to respond directly against the centers of power. . . . All of our nuclear forces have been configured in this spirit" All of the above from the mouth of President Jacques Chirac of France. Clearly stated in Paris, on the 19th January. He also went on to say: "....that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism. President Chirac says France's nuclear arsenal could deliver a targeted strike. The French president said his country had reduced the number of nuclear warheads on some missiles deployed on France's four nuclear submarines in order to target specific points rather than risk wide-scale destruction. At the same time, he condemned "the temptation by certain countries to obtain nuclear capabilities in contravention of treaties." (i.e. Iran) Not much "wild speculation" about the French intention is there Donuel, Chirac has all but declared that it's the first line of defence. - What no cartoon to hand? Now what did your guys say according to Janie,10 Apr 06 - 11:55 AM "I don't know who I was listening to on NPR yesterday evening- some one was being interviewed about this story. Perhaps some one else heard it can can supply names? According to the interviewee, the Bush administration is not planning to nuke Iran, but refuses to take that option off of the table as one possibility, and that is what Pentagon officials find so disturbing." Just as well they're not working for the French then isn't it. But, not one word, not a whisper, now that's an example of double standards for you zebco. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 10 Apr 06 - 04:02 PM "To America, in 1962, and to the rest of the free world it was amazingly easy to justify the stance taken. Don't know if you lived through it zebco, I did." Yerah. So did I. And today one of the nuclear powers I fear is the USA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 10 Apr 06 - 04:12 PM As of 1997 . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,zebco Date: 10 Apr 06 - 04:48 PM Yes, I lived through it. It was an unnecessary crisis. It risked millions of lives over what was not an attack (which would have been insane and suicidal anyway on the part of both Cuba and Russia), but simply a deployment of weapons onto the soil of a willing ally. The USA deploys weapons onto the soil of any willing ally it chooses, whether or not they are close to Russia. My point about Cuba was this: Cuba was agreeable to having the Soviets place nuclear weaponry on the island. They wanted it done. That was not the case at all with your example of Japan, for obvious reasons...they have already been the recipients of atomic bomb attacks. They were not willing to serve as a base for such weapons. I am not sure what the case was with Taiwan or if the question ever even came up in regards to Taiwan. Yes, it was very easy in 1962 to justify the stance taken by the Kennedy administration. Uh-huh. People had been terrorized and propagandized ever since the late 40's into the idea of a never-ending war between the "Free World" (some of it not free at all) and the Soviets (none of them free at all). The blame for that can be placed equally on both Stalin and the West, as far as I'm concerned. It was, again, an insane situation that menaced hundreds of millions of lives to no useful purpose whatsoever. Further such insane situations, I believe, are just around the corner in the early 21st century, but the playing cards have been shuffled into a slightly different deck. Same insane rationale, different "bad guys" to obsess about. It's a mistake in thinking. It leads nowhere but to disaster. It is completely unproductive, and it is wasting our collective time and our resources while risking the lives of all of us needlessly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: katlaughing Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:19 PM Janie, maybe it was this: Reports this weekend indicate that the Bush administration is stepping up plans for a military strike against Iran. Host Debbie Elliott speaks with Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, about the rhetoric surrounding Iran, and what it all means. Audio available on this page. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 06 - 05:46 PM Yesd, I lived through it. Didn't really expect to. Since I'd spent most of my adult life with Russian Nuclear weapons only a few minutes away, and I knew that the Russians were in the same situation vis-a-vis American nuclear weapons, I could never understand why the Americans got their knickers in such a twist when it appeared that they were now faced with the same thing. If they really believed all that MAD deterrent stuff, they should have been pleased to have the rockets on Cuba, as a reassurance which should reduce the danger of somebody thinking that a first strike by America might be worth trying. And that in turn would reduce the danger if a first strike by the USSR. And on the same basis, they should see the idea of Iran having an effective deterrent as a potentially stabilising development. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Don Firth Date: 10 Apr 06 - 08:25 PM Possible Iranian rational: 1. Bush identifies Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as "The Axis of Evil."Sounds pretty straightforward to me. In the meantime, on this side of the pond, the inmates are in charge of the asylum. When does the next star ship leave for Alpha Centauri? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:53 PM For a free ride Mr. Firth, please remember the password: Nacho delerium Nicto in liquori uteri. Roughly translated from Centurian is: cigarettes and whisky and wild wild women. ......... To get back to earth, this is not the first trial balloon that the neocons have floated regarding their plans for a nuclear war. This is literally the 3rd one in 5 years. It is going to go forward. They are dug in and prepared to wait 2 years for the dust to settle. Speaking of the dust settling, the DU that we spread in the Balkans and Iraq in desert storm and again now has coincided with lung cancer in new epidemic proportions. Although the possibility of radioactive petroleum has already been looked into by the Bush administration and the pentagon, I am fully confident that they have not fully thought through their own best case scenario^. It is up to each of us to think out our own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 06 - 01:46 AM Interesting link Peace, if it still holds true (I realise it was as of 1997) it means that it is getting on for 20 years since the US produced a nuclear weapon. In fact not since the SALT, START agreements reached with the USSR. Timing is a bit off MGOH the Cuban Missile crisis happened before the theory of MAD came into being. Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent was only credible once a second strike capability existed for both sides. That point was truly reached when both sides possessed SSBN's (nuclear submarines capable of firing ballistic nuclear missiles). MGOH reckons that the USA should see the idea of Iran having an effective deterrent as a potentially stabilising development. Now let's see in the 1920's someone wrote a book about what they intended to do given the opportunity, a few years later he got the opportunity developed the means and enacted what he had written with a few modifications and which resulted in turmoil and immense human suffering. In Iran today we have a person in position to act, who has stated clearly what the goal of every Islamist should be, who leads a country that has developed a capable delivery system for ballistic weapons and who now is trying to convince the world that it only wants to develope the capability to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Sorry MGOH, a nuclear armed Iran a stabilising influence - not as long as your arse points downwards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 06 - 08:08 AM "I note his quotation did NOT say "totally untrue" " I'm waiting for Johnny Howard to say it's 'totally untrue', then I will put my head between my legs and kiss my.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST Date: 11 Apr 06 - 08:38 AM The world has good reason to be afraid of the U.S. ... witness Iraq and the subsequent invasion for oil. Anyone that has anything the U.S. wants should be afraid. (Canada you have lots of fresh water ... hmmm) There might also be a political reason for invading Iran: elections in 2008. The rationale being, you don't want to change horses in the middle of the stream. If this scenario is feasible, then there may be some sort of strike against Iran around 2007 - giving Bush some time between now and then to conjure a justification out of thorough and reliable "intelligence reports" (hey if it worked once it can work again) ... So if Bush embroils us in some sort of "intervention" in Iran, around election time the theme can be played that another Republican administration is essential to see this thing through to the end. Just a thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:32 AM "it means that it is getting on for 20 years since the US produced a nuclear weapon" True enough as far as it goes; however, they had about 20,000 of the bloody things, so it's not like they needed to produce any others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 10:38 AM BTW, 1997 was not a magic year: "50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000" Y'all might want some fodder for yer nightmares . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:29 AM Hi Peace, a couple of useful sites, thanks. From that last one since 1945 the US has built 70,000 nuclear weapons covering a range of 65 types. As of 2002 US had stockpiled 10,600 nuclear weapons of various types of which 2,700 were not deployed. The US wishes ultimately to maintain 4,900 weapons for contingency purposes. Seems as though there is evidence of a bit of a trend there. Oddly enough, the one fact that I though would have appeared was number used outside of tests - Since 1945 - None. If the US engaging in a nuclear pre-emptive strike is all you have to worry about, then your world must be in pretty good shape. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 06 - 12:23 PM The Iranian President is probably about as sane and rational as the US President. That is, I admit, a worrying thought. However I'm not aware that he has made any threats about using nuclear weapons against nuclear armed Israel. What he has said is that he would like to see the country wiped off the map - not wiped off the planet, wiped off the map. The same way Palestine was wiped off the map, and more recently the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, British Honduras, the Gold Coast... Maps change. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:10 PM "If the US engaging in a nuclear pre-emptive strike is all you have to worry about, then your world must be in pretty good shape." It's your world too, and it's not the nukes that fall on Iran that will ruin one's day; it's the nukes that get fired in response that will ruin one's day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:31 PM Few points Kevin, 1. Iran cannot threaten the use of nuclear weapons against another nation due primaliy to the fact it hasn't got any YET. It certainly does have the means of delivering them. 2. Palestine is the geographical name of an area in the middle-east it is not a country, it never was. The Palestinians are as much a nation as "Londoners" are. 3. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did say: On his Election - "Thanks to the blood of the martyrs, a new Islamic revolution has arisen and the Islamic revolution of 1384 (the current Iranian year) will, if God wills, cut off the roots of injustice in the world. The wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world." In his October 2005 speech opposing Zionism - He agreed with a statement he attributed to Ayatollah Khomeini that the "occupying regime must be wiped off the map" and referred to Israel as a "disgraceful stain in the Islamic world". These comments were condemned by major Western governments, the European Union, Russia, the United Nations Security Council and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Egyptian, Turkish and Palestinian leaders also expressed displeasure over Ahmadinejad's remark. I do not believe such condemnation would result if all these leaders and their advisors believed that the Iranian President was just talking about changing the names of places. 4. Iranian support for Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah over the last 16 years is as well known as it has been documented. Their primary aim at the time being to derail any peace process. 5. Iran's Nuclear Programme: "With each week that passes, Iran's ayatollahs move closer to their goal of building an atom bomb. This is not misinformed propaganda pumped out by trigger-happy yahoos on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party. This is the opinion of the dedicated teams of nuclear experts attached to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna, whose task it is to sift through the highly complex science surrounding Iran's nuclear programme and to provide a considered judgment to the UN Security Council on the Iranians' ultimate objectives. During three years of painstaking negotiations with Iran, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Nobel peace laureate who heads the IAEA, went out of his way to play along with the charade that Iran's nuclear ambitions were entirely peaceful and designed to develop an indigenous nuclear power industry. This, after all, is a country with known oil reserves in excess of 90 billion barrels, more than enough to meet its energy needs well into the next century. Mr ElBaradei was even prepared to accept at face value the Iranians' shame-faced admission that their failure to disclose the existence of their massive nuclear enrichment plant at Natanz was no more than a bureaucratic oversight. When the inspectors were finally granted admission, they were dumb-founded to find themselves in a 250,000-acre complex containing two vast underground bomb-proof bunkers designed for enriching uranium to weapons grade. Mr ElBaradei is now prepared to concede that the Iranians have run out of excuses, and Teheran has been given until April 29 to implement a total freeze on its nuclear enrichment activities at Natanz and its other key plants, or face the wrath of the Security Council. At the same time the IAEA's nuclear specialists are working on a report that will be submitted to the UN on the same day, in which they will state explicitly their concerns about Iran's nuclear programme." (The West can't let Iran have the bomb - By Con Coughlin) Now Kevin, exactly how do you build and equip a facility the size of Natanz and omit to mention it? The Nuclear NPT required it and Iran is a signatory of that Treaty. Completely peaceful and honourable intentions Kevin - every indication given so far screams out against that being the case. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Wolfgang Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:39 PM "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world", Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani told the crowd at the traditional Friday prayers in Tehran. (August 2001) But I'm sure that was no threat, just a statement of facts about the relative damage a nuclear war would do to both nations. McGrath, why do you you make such a malevolent interpretation of Ahmadinejad's nice words. He has only said Israel should be wiped off the map not wiped off the planet as you clearly realise. And then you go on to make such an extreme interpretation as shown in your historic comparisons. Ahmadinejad most likely only wanted to say that maps should no longer show Israel, like in postwar Germany (on both sides) the maps did not always display what actually was there and stayed there. Wolfgang Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 11 Apr 06 - 02:43 PM Today: The former Iranian President just announced that Iran now has enriched Urainum fuel. Also the price of oil went way up. So much for your sabre rattling George. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 11 Apr 06 - 05:39 PM >>Now let's see in the 1920's someone wrote a book about what they intended to do given the opportunity, a few years later he got the opportunity developed the means and enacted what he had written with a few modifications and which resulted in turmoil and immense human suffering.<< Who is that? Hitler? Why don't you mention him by name?? Let's see why... >>In Iran today we have a person in position to act, who has stated clearly what the goal of every Islamist should be, who leads a country that has developed a capable delivery system for ballistic weapons and who now is trying to convince the world that it only wants to develope the capability to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.<< So let me get this straight: Hitler caused mass suffering and this Iranian guy wants nuclear capability. So, you say, we know that Mr. Iran is going to cause mass suffering because Hitler did? Care to explain that? Moreover, Hitler did it without a bomb. And moremoreover, the Iranian hasn't actually done anything! So you're comparing a guy who caused mass suffering without a bomb to a guy who wants nuclear capability who hasn't done shit. but one is as bad as the other? Am I the only one looking around trying to find someone who understands what the hell you're taling about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 11 Apr 06 - 05:52 PM The pot always looks blackest from the kettle's side...and vice versa. Both Iran and Israel have threatened each other. It looks to me like Israel is the one far more likely to carry out its threats. That's simply because they are better able to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:15 PM And also has a documented past of doing such things - they bombed the Iraq nuclear facilities - clearly an act of war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:18 PM Yes, they did. And they had the good sense to do so before there was any nuclear fuel in it. That is planning. Good planning. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 06 - 06:21 PM And judging from today's announcement, that time may be past soon... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 06 - 07:12 PM I understand Ahmadinejad's remark as a very stupidly expressed affirmation of support for a Right of Return for Palestinians. If implemented this would be likely to lead to a situation where Israel's poplulation was more or less eqully made up of Jews and Arabs. That's how it should have been all along, if the 1948 war had not resulted in ethnic cleansing. I think that is probably not going to come about. But it is an outcome which has always been favoured by some Israelis, both Jews and Arabs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 11 Apr 06 - 07:30 PM "remark as a very stupidly expressed affirmation of support" or as a fuck up (intentional?) in the translation... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:42 PM I'm with McGrath on this one. Since when do you lob nuclear missles at a country who has not harmed you or your country? Has America gone mad? Does the rest of the world really have to put up with this? Every nation is in jeopardy. Agree with the U.S. or else... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: number 6 Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:44 PM or else... better start building a bomb shelter in your back yard now. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 12 Apr 06 - 03:00 AM Dianavan, Chirac of France has been much more forthright on this than the US, but not one word, now why is that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Ernest Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:22 AM Teribus, this is a Bush-bashing thread, not a Chirac-bahing or Iran -bashing one ;0) Can everyone please tell me what you think about the peaceful use of nuclear enerrgy - especially if it would happen in your neighborhood? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Gurney Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:29 AM Any country that has a constitutional government and a serious and dedicated military will certainly have contingency plans for fulfilling their defensive function. They wouldn't be earning their salt if they didn't. I'd bet that the US has contingency plans for war with the European Union, never mind with their likely enemies. This is not planning a pre-emptive strike. This is doing your job, if you are a brass-hat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 12 Apr 06 - 05:18 AM Good point Ernest, I suppose that does answer my question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Wolfgang Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:53 AM Ahmadinejad has been very clearly understood by the people he did address. When he said it there were chants of "Death to Israel" and "Death to the USA". This man is dangerously nuts in my eyes. On the other hand, the whole (very few exceptions) Bush approach to the war on terror is dangerously wrong. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Janie Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:56 AM Ernest, That is another really complex issue. The cost benefit analysis of nuclear vs. fossil fuel power plants has not really been done, although I think there are some environmentalists who are beginning to look at it. Would definitely be interesting to hear peoples thoughts or to learn more about it. Why don't you start another thread for that discussion? Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Apr 06 - 01:55 PM So a lot of people in Iran don't like Israel and they don't like the USA? That's not evidence they are planning a war of aggression against them. There is strong evidence that the USA is currently supporting and financing Sunni Baluchi insurgents in Iran, who have a similar agenda to the Taliban who were given the same kind of backing when they were fighting the Russian backed government in Afghanistan. Which was, as itbturned out, a very bad call. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a rotten basis for policy-making. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Ernest Date: 12 Apr 06 - 02:18 PM McGoH: Have you noticed that the sentence "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" could easily be applied to the attititude of some people here towards GWB? Anything the US government does is viewed much more critically here than the politics of the Iranian government. Janie: iI asked this question in this thread because I suppose the majority here is contra nuclear energy - but has a much more laisser-faire attitude to Irans nuclear energy programme. This doesn`t seem very consistent to me and does certainly weaken their arguments. Regards Ernest |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Janie Date: 12 Apr 06 - 02:28 PM OK. I'll go start a thread--I might learn something! Or at least get directed to some laymans' sites with good science to learn more. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM >>Anything the US government does is viewed much more critically here than the politics of the Iranian government.<< Well, duh, guess why. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:35 PM I'm wholly opposed to nuclear technology as a way of producing energy with current techology - and to nuclear weapons. But I would be dead against some foreign country menacing the country in which I live with sanctions, up to and including war, unless it gives up its nuclear technology. And I think I'd feel the same way if I lived in Iran. I think if people here are more concerned about what the USA and the UK get up to than about the Iranian government it's because the USA and the USA have a record of engaging in aggressive foreign war, and Iran has not. At least not since they got whopped by the Greeks at Marathon and Salamis. Also, on the biblical principle that we should sort out the planks we can feel in our own eyes rather than the bits of grit we think might be in the other bloke's eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,AR282 Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:45 PM >>I think if people here are more concerned about what the USA and the UK get up to than about the Iranian government it's because the USA and the USA have a record of engaging in aggressive foreign war, and Iran has not.<< For me, it's because I live in the U.S. so I just happen to know and care a lot more about what my govt is doing than anyone else's. I'll even go so far as to say that if you live in America and care more about what the Iranian govt is doing rather than America's, you have your head up your ass. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 Apr 06 - 08:57 PM "we should sort out the planks we can feel in our own eyes" Problem is that too mnay people DON'T feel that... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 12 Apr 06 - 09:01 PM "Has America gone mad?" Some of us foreigners might consider that a moot question... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Ernest Date: 13 Apr 06 - 04:31 AM Guest AR282: this is about foreign politics. So one of the sides whose position you have to consider is a foreign one. Ignoring that would be much more sticking one`s head in places where it doesn`t belong. McGoH: Admittedly I am not an expert in Middle east history, so I cant tell you what the reasons of Iran for not starting a war have been in the past. Maybe they simply didn`t have the means to (this is changing now), maybe they have been too busy fighting among themselves, maybe they had peaceful rulers in the past. Even if the last one had been the case - the current government does not appear to be that way. So I don`t think you have a strong argument here. And it is not only Iran vs. USA/UK. Its Iran vs. UN/IAEA. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 06 - 08:10 AM The foreign policy of the United States of America is bound by the following - Commitments to NATO, any attack on any NATO country is an attack on all NATO countries. - Specific bi-lateral commitment to guarantee the Sovereignty and security of the State of Israel. - Specific bi-lateral commitment to guarantee the security of Taiwan and protection from invasion by Communist China. Israel does not have the means to threaten a pre-emptive strike against Iran to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. The Iranians are fully aware of this, they after all built the sites (note plural) in such a way that the IAF could not replicate it's attack against the Iraq facility in the early 1980's. Ernest is perfectly correct in stating that this at the moment is a dispute between Iran and the UN/IAEA. By the bye, to those who think that nuclear weapons would not be used against Israel on the reasoning that fall-out would affect neighbouring Arab countries and the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. The Iranians are not Arabs and generally do not give a damn about them, witness to that is the Iranian Government's treatment of it's Arab population in the south-west of the country. As fundamentalist Islamists such a death would guarantee entry into paradise. The only time that atomic weapons have been used was against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, only sixty-one years ago. What are the current populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? And for how long did they cease to be functioning cities after the bombs were dropped? I would reckon that to the likes of Iran's President and the Ruling Council of 12 Old Gits even uninhibitability for 60 years would be a small price to pay for removing, now how did he put it - That disgraceful stain in the Islamic world (i.e. Israel), especially as it would be others that were paying that price. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:39 AM I am bemused by the US ranting over Iran refusing to obey the UN Security Council after the US thumbed its nose at the UN SC and invaded Iraq... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:57 AM And equally acquiescent with regard to Iran's failure to honour it's obligations under the terms and conditions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, Foolestroupe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM Every opinion expressed here is a reflection of a long established prejudice, and therefore, entirely predictable. Same old nonsense. People think they are fair and objective. They are not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM I don't generally go in for cut-and-pastes, but this is a short one. From a BBC background briefing on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Are the main nuclear powers complying with the treaty? Many nations without nuclear arms see the continued existence of huge stockpiles among the five declared nuclear powers as the main problem with the treaty. Article VI of the treaty says: "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." The US, in particular, has caused concern with its plans to develop and test new weapons, including anti-ballistic missiles, the earth-penetrating "bunker buster" and perhaps some new "small" bombs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Ernest Date: 13 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM True, Little Hawk. But so are our discussions about the definition of folk msic, guitar brands or Shatner. What do you suggest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: GUEST,Jaze Date: 13 Apr 06 - 02:15 PM My biggest fear would be the reaction of China and Russia-both strong allies of Iran and neither too cozy with the US. The US could not possibly hold out against them and the rest of the angry world It would be suicidal. Not to mention downright stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 13 Apr 06 - 03:56 PM I would not have believed it if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes. The Iranian government put on a stage show complete with dancers holding what was supposed to be vuals of Uranium. They danced around and and held it up high in a choreography that may have been borrowed from Cats. Basicly they were singing "were a nuclear power were a nuclear power na na-na naah naah" . Anyway, Rice is pushing for a strong UN sanction against Iran while FOX news continues to demonize and marginalize the UN. Iran has asked to become a member of the human rights commission. We are not members...anymore. The funny thing is that John Bolton has pulled us out of the human rights Commission so we will not be subject to evil human rights commission findings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Donuel Date: 13 Apr 06 - 06:14 PM BTW The dance of the " Unanium vials" took place in front of a backdrop of a picture of white doves against a pale blue sky. 48% CNN Americans favor war with Iran In another poll... 58% CNN Americans Do not trust Bush to make correct decision concerning Iran. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 06 - 07:20 PM What are "CNN Americans" when they're at home? I mean, are those genuine rigorously conducted polls, with all the checks and balances they are supposed to have, or are they just Mickey Mouse efforts - people ringing-up or clicking an online button as often as they feel like it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM Ho! Ho! Well, the "Axis of Evil" drama rolls on as required by the controlled media. Ernest, since we are all prejudiced, what I would like to see is a few more people being self-observant enough and honest enough about themselves to realize their own subjectivity and admit to it. If they did, they would then develop a far greater measure of humor and compassion. They would be far less ready to rush off to war upon some pretext. They would be far less ready to judge others as "evil" or "stupid", because of a difference in culture or opinion. I'd like to see some of the most fanatical arguers on these threads, some of them besides myself, admit to the fallibility of their own viewpoints once in awhile. It would be refreshing. People who are always certain that they are 100% right are really dangerous when they're in command of countries and armies. They're just annoying and obnoxious the rest of the time. They strongly resemble the people they call "enemies". Funny about that... ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM McGrath of Harlow - 13 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM Being awfully selective here aren't we Kevin |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM That is the nature of a prejudiced opinion, Teribus. It is highly selective. Look in the mirror for a change, mate. There you will see the very thing you constantly do battle with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:04 PM Not at all Little Hawk, the principle difference between you and me is that I am prepared to look at different situations from different angles, you are only prepared to look at them from your own selected point of view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 10:11 PM You have me confused with yourself, Teribus. Have you not noticed that I am quite able to make fun of the foibles of both liberals AND conservatives, although I am, as Dylan put it, "liberal to a degree"? More like radical, actually. Is is your total one-sidedness in most debates that I find so disturbing. I am decidedly pro-Indian, but: if you examine my posts you will find that I have pointed out many times that the Indians were far from innocent or perfect, since they practiced torture, treachery, intertribal warfare, and indeed suffered from many of the same faults and vicious tendencies as those who eventually displaced them. The only reason I side with the Indians in a general sense is that they were on that land first. They were the ones who were being invaded. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Peace Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:00 PM LH: Trilobites were (t)here first, or amoebas, or ferns. The Earth belongs to all "God's creatures" IMO, and suggesting that one people deserve land because they happened to get there first means we are all gonna have to leave the friggin' planet because sooner or later the trilobites, et.al., are going to make their demands known. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:05 PM Peace, "we are all gonna have to leave the friggin' planet " I can go along with that, but we will have to make our own habitats in space- all the existing planets might have occupants, now or someday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:10 PM LOL! Well, Peace, I certainly would not want to discount the trilobytes. What I mean is, that when a group of people aggressively invade another people's land my sympathies normally lie more with the invaded than the invaders. It seems like a fairly normal reaction to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: beardedbruce Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:12 PM LH, So, you would have been sympathetic to the Germans in 1945? Every invasion that I know of has some "justification" by the invading side... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Apr 06 - 11:20 PM We've already discussed that one into the ground on other threads, BB, and I have answered it fully. Please don't ask me to again. Or....don't you remember? It's really not that hard to figure out if you just think about it calmly for a minute or two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:02 AM Little Hawk - 13 Apr 06 - 10:11 PM "Is is your total one-sidedness in most debates that I find so disturbing." And normally on this forum on who's side are the big battalions LH? I merely argue from a different perspective to the majority. Oddly enough it might surprise you to know that I have never been a member/supporter of any political party and in my entire life I have only voted on three occasions and I have absolutely no interest in politics whatsoever. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:15 AM That is interesting what you say, Teribus. I've never belonged to any political party either. Never had the slightest desire to. I usually do vote, but I do it with tongue firmly planted in cheek all the while. ;-) I don't really believe in political parties...meaning, I think they were a bad idea from the getgo. They too easily lend themselves to corruption and control by special interest groups and wealthy backers. I'd rather see a democratic system with no political parties whatsoever, just independent candidates, and finance all their campaigns equally from a public fund. Vote for the one whose ideas and qualifications seem best, and do away with the damn parties altogether. I think it would be a far better way of forming a responsible and truly representative government. I don't follow you when you say you are entirely uninterested in politics. If so, why do you post so much on political threads? Maybe I am misunderstanding your definition of the word "politics"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:19 AM "I have only voted on three occasions" Ok very probably not an Aussie then... you get fined if you don;t vote here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Little Hawk Date: 14 Apr 06 - 01:21 AM Really? Wow. That's surprising. By God, if they had a fine for not voting in Canada or the USA there would sure be one hell of a lot bigger voter turnout. LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Ernest Date: 14 Apr 06 - 03:25 AM Little Hawk, I do agree with your posting from 13. April 06, 9:18. We all have our opinions and prejudices here. After all, this is no Alzheimers forum - we all have our experiences. The problem starts when people start "campaigning" when there is no election coming up (mostly useless anyway because there are people from various parts of the worldin this forum). As long as people present arguments this is a great way to check your own opinion: sometimes you have to concede that somebody else has a point, sometimes you are not convinced by someones arguments and your initial position is even strenghtened. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Apr 06 - 06:03 PM "Awfully selective" The point I was making was that Iran isn't the only country which can be reasonably accused of being in breach of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the quote was there to indicate a couple of bigger fish. And the BBC site to which I gave the link put that in context. Presenting Iran as being uniquely at faulty in regard to the treaty - now that is a bit over selective... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 15 Apr 06 - 02:31 AM Did I present Iran as being uniquely at fault in regard to the treaty? I drew attention to the fact that according to the IAEA, Iran currently is not honouring it's commitments in relation to the Nuclear NPT. The BBC article that MGOH links mentions the following countries: - North Korea, who pulled out of the nuclear NPT to announce it was going to manufacture nuclear weapons. It did this only after it's secret weapons programme became known to the outside world. - India, Pakistan and Israel, all nuclear NTP Treaty non-signatories so they cannot possibly be held to account for NPT non-compliance. - USA, the 'new' weapon that the US is 'supposed' to be developing that applies to the subject matter of this thread is the B61-B11, the so called nuclear bunker buster. There is nothing new about it, it takes an existing tactical nuclear warhead and matches it to an existing earth penetrating bomb casing. Trials to determine the ability of the warhead to withstand this type of delivery have not been all that successful, the weapon has not been tested and Congress has refused funding for any further development programme, so it would appear to be a bit of a dead duck. Seymour M. Hersh's article (www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact) covers it quite well. The one thread that does run through that article is that everybody referred to and interviewed by the author of that article is totally convinced that Iran does have a nuclear weapons programme running, only the time scale to completion varies (From 5 to 10 years). The BBC article is an overview of the 2005 UN review of the Nuclear NPT. The article misses reporting on what the Nuclear NPT's biggest fault is. The Nuclear NPT as it stands allows countries to enrich uranium to provide fuel. In terms of hardware and technology that gets you about 90% of the way there to acquiring weapons grade material. This is what North Korea took advantage of years ago and is the what Iran is taking advantage of now. That part of the treaty has to be tightened up. Peace provided some very interesting and highly relevant links with regard to existing stocks of weapons held by the US. I commented on the disarmament trend post SALT and START Treaties, that all halted the minute India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons. It stopped both in the USA and in Russia - note only America is castigated for not disarming. Of the other original nuclear powers China hasn't disarmed or decommissioned a single weapon, neither has France, under the SALT and START Treaties the weapons held by the UK and by France were considered too few in number to consider until such time as the super powers were about to reach parity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Teribus Date: 15 Apr 06 - 03:42 AM Peace's first link (As of 1997) detailed US nuclear weapons, here's what else is suspected of existing officially, starting with who holds the most (Correct as of 2002 - Source, Natural Resources Defense Council): Russia (Formerly USSR): 7,200 Active - 16,000 Total United States of America: 5,735 Active - 9,960 Total Peoples Republic of China : 400 Active France: 350 Active UK: 200 Active India: Between 40-50 Active Pakistan: Between 24-48 Active North Korea: Between 0-10 Active Of the above only Russia and the United States have subjected their nuclear forces to independent verification under various treaties and agreements. Numbers above detailed as 'Active' indicate total number that make up the stockpile of operational weapons per country, not the number of operational weapons deployed for use by that country. The balance of the total (i.e. Total - Active) are weapons that exist and are stockpiled awaiting dismantling and destruction. Israel does not appear in the above list of nuclear armed countries although it is suspected that Israel may possess somewhere between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons. This however has never been either confirmed or denied by the Israeli Government. The estimates of the number of weapons that Israel might possess is based upon the amount of fissile material which has likely been produced, and the amount of fissile material needed per warhead depends on estimates of a country's proficiency at nuclear weapon design. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Our pre emptive nuclear strike From: Joe Offer Date: 15 Apr 06 - 04:55 AM I have a very low opinion of George W., but I cannot believe that he would seriously consider using nuclear weapons for any purpose. He may be stupid, but he's not THAT stupid. I also think it's unlikely that he would attack Iran or Syria - but he IS stupid enough that he could prove me wrong on that. -Joe Offer- |
