BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Sep 08 - 12:33 PM

With Obama in the White house, we will be in a nuclear war within 6 months.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 09:21 AM

N. Korea seeks removal of nuke plant seals

Story Highlights
IAEA: N.Korea wants to carry out tests at the Yongbyon reprocessing plant

N.Koreans say this will "not involve nuclear material," agency said

N.Korea had agreed to abandon its atomic weapons program for energy aid

S.Korean news agency said N.Korea restoring reactor at Yongbyon

(CNN) -- North Korea has asked U.N. nuclear agency inspectors "to remove seals and surveillance equipment to enable them to carry out tests" at the Yongbyon reprocessing plant, the agency's director-general said.


A South Korean looks at the demolition of a cooling tower at the North's Yongbyon nuclear complex, June 27, 2008.

But Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said Monday that the North Koreans said this will "not involve nuclear material." The news comes amid fears that North Korea may want to resume its nuclear program.

ElBaradei said the agency has "continued to verify the shutdown of the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon and to implement the ad hoc monitoring and verification arrangement, with the cooperation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea."

While not asked to take part in "disablement activities," the agency has observed and documented them.

He said agency inspectors have observed that "some equipment previously removed by the DPRK during the disablement process has been brought back. This has not changed the shutdown status of the nuclear facilities at Yongbyon.

"This morning, the DPRK authorities asked the agency's inspectors to remove seals and surveillance equipment to enable them to carry out tests at the reprocessing plant, which they say will not involve nuclear material."

He said he is hopeful that conditions can be developed for North Korea "to return to the Non-Proliferation Treaty at the earliest possible date and for the resumption by the agency of comprehensive safeguards."

Last week, a South Korean news agency reported that North Korea is restoring a reactor at Yongbyon nuclear complex and no longer wants to be removed from a U.S. list of countries that sponsor terrorism.

Don't Miss
Report: N. Korea conducted missile engine test
North Korea said to be rebuilding nuke plant
In depth: North Korea nuclear tension
Hyun Hak-Bong, a chief North Korean negotiator at six-nation talks, told reporters his country is "thoroughly preparing to restart" the reactor and that reporters would "know soon" when his country would do that, the Yonhap news agency said.

But a senior U.S. diplomat said the announcement could simply be a bargaining ploy in the long-running negotiations aimed at halting North Korea's nuclear program.

The United States had seen no indications North Korea is actually rebuilding its reactor, the diplomat said.

Diplomats have said some of the disabled parts have been moved around from storage since the latest impasse in the negotiations began, but the American diplomat believes that is a negotiating tactic.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Sep 08 - 12:04 PM

Chief inspector: Iran may be hiding secret nukes
Posted 5h 1m ago

VIENNA (AP) — The chief U.N nuclear inspector says Iran may be hiding secret nuclear activities.
Mohamed ElBaradei says it is impossible to guarantee that Iran is not hiding such activities unless it allows his inspectors much broader access and answers allegations that it hid past attempts to make nuclear arms.

ElBaradei is head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He spoke Monday at the opening of the 35-nation IAEA board of governors.

Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze uranium enrichment. While Tehran says it only wants to generate nuclear fuel, there is fear it could use the process to create the fissile core of nuclear warheads.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 06:33 AM

Sep 22, 2008 0:05 | Updated Sep 22, 2008 15:53
Military intelligence: Iran halfway to first nuclear bomb
By HERB KEINON

Iran is halfway to a nuclear bomb, and Hizbullah, Hamas and Syria are using this period of relative calm to significantly rearm, Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, the Military Intelligence's head of research, told the cabinet Sunday during a particularly gloomy briefing on the threats facing the country.

Baidatz said there was a growing gap between Iran's progress on the nuclear front and the West's determination to stop it. "Iran is concentrating on uranium enrichment, and is making progress," he said, noting that they have improved the function of their 4,000 centrifuges.

According to Baidatz, the Iranian centrifuges have so far produced between one-third to one-half of the enriched material needed to build a bomb.

"The time when they will have crossed the nuclear point-of-no-return is fast approaching," he said, though he stopped short of giving a firm deadline. Last week in the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, however, he put the date at 2011.

Baidatz said that neither the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency nor the US and European attempts to get a fourth round of sanctions through the UN Security council were slowing down the Iranian nuclear march.

"The Iranians are pleased that the gap is widening," Baidatz said. "Their confidence is growing with the thought that the international community is not strong enough to stop them," he added.

Baidatz said the Iranians were playing for time, and that time was working in their favor since the longer the process dragged on, the wider the rifts appearing among the countries in the West become. "Iran is in control of the technology and is moving with determination toward a nuclear bomb," he said.

In addition to their nuclear efforts, the Iranians were also deepening their influence in the region through cooperation with Syria and the Palestinian terrorist organizations, as well as being the main arms supplier to Hizbullah and a source of constant attacks on American troops in Iraq. All of this, he said, was part of Iran's efforts to stand at the head of the region's extremist front.

The region's moderates, he said, were limiting their opposition to "just rhetoric."

Baidatz also briefed the ministers on the situation in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority since the beginning of the "calm" in Gaza on June 19, some three months ago.

Baidatz said that while the cease-fire has - for the most part - held, the intelligence agencies were seeing some weakening of Hamas and Islamic Jihad's commitment to it. He said that the cease-fire had led to a significant drop in rocket fire on the western Negev, and that since the cease-fire went into effect, some 15 rockets and 13 mortars had been fired from Gaza into the Western Negev.

Nevertheless, he said that the terrorist organizations were still planning attacks from Gaza, and were recruiting terrorists to go from Gaza into the Sinai, and then back into Israel to carry out attacks or kidnap soldiers.

Regarding kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit, Baidatz said that Hizbullah had stiffened its demands, believing that Schalit was an "asset," and that the price for his release would only increase. "They are not rushing for a solution, and are preventing a renewal of talks on the matter with Egypt." he said.

Hamas and the other terrorist organizations have taken advantage of the cease-fire to rearm and prepare for the next round of fighting, increasing training and continuing to smuggle in raw materials that allow it to increase its rocket arsenal. As a result of of the cease-fire, he said, the threat to the home front and the IDF had increased.

Baidatz said the smuggling from Egypt was continuing, although the Egyptians - with the help of US technology - were also showing better results in detecting the smuggling tunnels. At the same time, the Egyptians were still not dealing with the root of the problem, which was the need to go after Beduin smugglers in Sinai, he said.

Baidatz added that as time went on, Hamas was consolidating its political hold on Gaza, and that he didn't think the Egyptians had much chance of success in mediating an agreement between Hamas and Fatah.

Regarding Israel's negotiations with the PA, Baidatz said the Palestinian Authority was not willing to compromise on core issues, and was opposed to a partial agreement. He said the PA was holding firm to the position that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed, and were continuing to demand an end to all construction in the West Bank.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has recently tried to get the PA to agree to moving negotiations over Jerusalem to another framework, so it did not hold up attempts to come up with some kind of shelf agreement by the end of the year.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 07:35 AM

Washington Post:


Iran Slips Away

Even as its nuclear program accelerates, the impetus to stop it loses steam.

Tuesday, September 23, 2008; Page A20

AMID THE financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iran's nuclear program and Western efforts to stop it have slipped down Washington's list of priorities. That's just what Tehran's ruling mullahs were hoping for. The government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is still stonewalling international inspectors trying to investigate evidence that Iran has secretly worked on nuclear bomb and missile warhead technology. This summer, it rebuffed the latest Western effort to open negotiations -- one whose only precondition was that Iran agree to a six-week pause in adding centrifuges to the 3,800 it has already installed in a uranium enrichment plant. At the same time, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has temporarily lowered its profile, supporting cease-fires by the militant groups it backs in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip and pulling back the "special groups" that were organizing deadly attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq.

The result, as Iran races toward accumulating enough uranium for a bomb, is that the sense of urgency about the threat it poses is lower here and in Europe than it was six months or a year ago. The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency gathered yesterday in Vienna to hear a stern report about Tehran's continuing refusal to answer key questions about the program. A six-member group of permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany will meet this week in an attempt to demonstrate that it can still work together in spite of the growing rift between Russia and the West. But there seems to be little prospect that the Security Council will agree anytime soon on a fourth round of U.N. sanctions -- much less the tough measures that might command Tehran's attention.

What might those measures be? The two most important would be an arms embargo -- which would prevent Russia from supplying Iran with the advanced air defense systems it has reportedly promised -- and a ban on the export to Iran of gasoline and other refined products, which could cripple Iranian transport. But Bush administration officials appear to have all but given up hope that the Security Council would approve such tough action. Instead, they hope mainly for the symbolism of another unanimous resolution that will reinforce Iran's diplomatic isolation and justify unilateral U.S. or European measures, such as a recent attempt to curtail insurance for Iranian shipping.

There's no indication that such steps will change Iranian behavior soon -- nor is a military strike by the United States or Israel likely in the coming months. That means the next major initiative to stop an Iranian bomb will probably be a new effort by the next U.S. president to launch negotiations; Barack Obama has made it a centerpiece of his policy, and John McCain has said he's willing to support talks as well. Both also say they will work to stiffen sanctions. That, of course, is the strategy the United States and European governments have already been pursuing for several years -- without success. Why do the candidates believe they will succeed where the Bush administration has failed? That would be a good topic for Friday's foreign policy debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 23 Sep 08 - 10:04 AM

"Iran insists its nuclear activities are geared only toward generating power. But Israel says the Islamic Republic could have enough nuclear material to make its first bomb within a year. The U.S. estimates Tehran is at least two years away from that stage."


http://www.mail.com/Article.aspx?articlepath=APNews\General-World-News\20080923\UN-General-Assembly.xml&cat=world&subcat=&pageid




Good to know we can wait for the next administration before we worry about this...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 11:55 AM

North Korea's Reverse

The framework for dismantling the world's most dangerous nuclear program is crumbling.

Thursday, September 25, 2008; Page A18

IN JUNE, the Bush administration's diplomacy with North Korea finally produced the video clip negotiators had long hoped for: that showing the demolition of the cooling tower at the Yongbyon nuclear reactor. Now, it appears that that picture, which suggested that North Korea's dismantling of its nuclear infrastructure was irreversible, may have been misleading. Yesterday, the secretive communist regime ejected U.N. nuclear inspectors from Yongbyon and announced that it planned to reactivate a reprocessing plant that produces plutonium for weapons. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, nuclear material may be brought back into the facility within a week.

This provocative action triggered a familiar discussion among experts about what North Korea might be up to. Is it trying to bluff the West and its partners in the "six-party" negotiations into making further concessions? Are hard-liners in the regime of Kim Jong Il trying to reverse its commitment to denuclearize in exchange for economic and political concessions? And is Mr. Kim himself still running the country? The reclusive dictator reportedly suffered a stroke in mid-August and has not been seen in public since.

As always, there are no sure answers to these questions. Yet it seems fairly clear that, even before Mr. Kim's apparent illness, the action-for-action framework signed with North Korea early last year was coming undone, despite the increasingly desperate efforts of the State Department to hold it together. A much-awaited declaration by Pyongyang of all its nuclear programs was accepted by the administration even though the declaration omitted several major elements that U.S. officials had insisted would be included, such as an explanation of work on uranium enrichment. The State Department suggested that such questions could be cleared up by a promised verification process. But Mr. Kim's negotiators promptly rejected U.S. verification proposals while insisting that the administration deliver on the promised removal of North Korea from the State Department's list of terrorism sponsors.

It could be that North Korea simply wants Washington to deliver its largely symbolic political concession before agreeing to a verification regime. But it's more likely that Pyongyang is fundamentally unwilling to accept the full disclosure of its arsenal -- and verification is a step that the Bush administration cannot afford to fudge. U.S. diplomacy should now shift toward reapplying economic pressure on the regime and persuading China and South Korea to adopt new sanctions of their own. Whoever is now in charge of North Korea must be made to understand that a reversal of the denuclearization process will result in the country's economic strangulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 04:00 PM

Iran to launch satellite with own rocket to space

By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 25, 11:29 AM ET



TEHRAN, Iran - Iran plans to launch a satellite into space soon using an Iranian-made rocket, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said.

Iran has in the past launched satellites using rockets built by other nations, but this was the first announcement of such a launch with an all-Iranian made rocket.

Ahmadinejad said the rocket will have 16 engines and will take a satellite some 430 miles into space, according to a state television report Thursday.

The satellite will likely be a commercial one for communication or meteorological research purposes. Iran has never announced plans to launch military satellites.

But the country has long pursued the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

The same technology used to put satellites into space can be used to deliver warheads, which will likely further raise concerns over Tehran's advances in rocketry, especially in Israel.

Earlier this month, Tehran announced that a joint research satellite built by Iran, China and Thailand, was sent into orbit by a Chinese-made rocket. At the time, Iranian officials said the three countries suffer from natural disasters and that the satellite would transmit photos to help deal with such crises.

Tehran sent its first commercial satellite into space on a Russian rocket in 2005. Last month, Iran tested a rocket which it hopes will one day carry an all-Iranian research satellite.

The remarks by the Iranian president came during his meeting with a group of Iranian expatriates in New York, where Ahmadinejad is attending the U.N. General Assembly.

There were no details about what type of satellite the rocket would carry, and Ahmadinejad gave no time frame for the plan.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM

Talkin' to yourself again, Bruce? ;-)

I've told you and told you and told you. It's Liechtenstein. They're next. Only one difference this time though...they're going to win.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:30 AM

Iran students unveil book mocking Holocaust

Sep 26 07:19 AM US/Eastern

Iranians chanted "Death to Israel" as a group of Islamist students unveiled a book mocking the Holocaust in an annual parade on Friday to show solidarity with the Palestinians.
Featuring dozens of cartoons and sarcastic commentary, the book "Holocaust" was published by members of the Islamist Basij militia.

Education Minister Alireza Ali-Ahmadi was present in the capital's Palestine Square for the book's presentation during the annual Quds (Jerusalem) Day parade.

The cover shows a Jew with a crooked nose and dressed in traditional garb drawing outlines of dead bodies on the ground.

Inside, bearded Jews are shown leaving and re-entering a gas chamber with a counter that reads the number 5,999,999.

Another depicts Jewish prisoners entering a furnace in a Nazi extermination camp and leaving as gun-wielding terrorists from the other side.

Yet another shows a patient covered in an Israeli flag and on life support breathing Zyklon-B, the poisonous gas used in the extermination chambers.

Iran does not recognise the Jewish state and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has attracted international condemnation by repeatedly predicting Israel is doomed to disappear and branding the Holocaust a "myth."

The commentary inside the book includes anti-Semitic stereotypes and revisionist arguments, casting doubt on the massacre of Jews and mocking Holocaust survivors who claimed reparations after World War II.

One comment in a question-and-answer format reads:

"How did the Germans emit gas into chambers while there were no holes on the ceiling?" Answer: "Shut up, you criminal anti-Semite. How dare you ask this question?"

In 2006, Iran hosted a conference of Holocaust deniers and revisionists and a mass-circulating Iranian newspaper held a cartoon competition on the subject.

On Friday, tens of thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran, chanting "Death to Israel," declaring solidarity with the Palestinians and calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians.

Demonstrators carried placards which read, "Israel will be destroyed, Palestine is Victorious" and "Holy war until victory," and they torched American and Israeli flags.

The protest follows a fresh verbal attack on Israel by Ahmadinejad.

In an address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, he said "the Zionist regime is on a definite slope to collapse and there is no way for it to get out of the cesspool created by itself and its supporters."

Quds Day was started by the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, founder of the Islamic republic, who called on the world's Muslims to show solidarity with Palestinians on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan.

A mother of six, Zahra Hedayat, 47, said: "It is important to support Palestinians to show the world that Israel is oppressive, and, God willing, one day Muslims will get Palestine back."

The demonstration was held under an official slogan: "The Islamic world will not recognise the fake Zionist regime under any circumstances and believes that this cancerous tumour will one day be wiped off the face of the earth."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 26 Sep 08 - 08:33 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/25/iran.israelandthepalestinians1

"Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear programme.

"Economic sanctions are effective. They have an important impact already, but they are not sufficient. So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear programme," he said.

The revelation that Olmert was not merely sabre-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned Israeli officials had become.

Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an "October surprise" before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an Israeli attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis. "

"Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, tonight reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. Israel prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests". "

"A few days later, Israel's deputy prime minister, Shaul Mofaz, told the paper Yediot Ahronot: "If Iran continues its programme to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The window of opportunity has closed. The sanctions are not effective. There will be no alternative but to attack Iran in order to stop the Iranian nuclear programme." "

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:52 AM

Iran urged to end 'secretive' nuclear ways

Story Highlights
Six-year probe doesn't rule out possibility Iran is running secret nuclear programs

Europe urges Iran to fully cooperate with a U.N probe assessing its nuclear activities

U.N. Security Council has approved resolution critical of Iran

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- A six-year probe has not ruled out the possibility that Iran may be running clandestine nuclear programs, the chief United Nations nuclear inspector said Monday, urging the country to end its secretive ways.

Mohamed ElBaradei, U.N. nuclear watchdog chief, warned of the dangers of a strike on Iran.

Europe also urged Iran to fully cooperate with a U.N probe that is trying to assess its past and current nuclear activities. An EU statement at the opening session of the International Atomic Energy Agency's 145-nation conference declared: "The international community cannot accept the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons."

Iran and ally Syria are among four nations seeking their region's nomination for a seat on the IAEA's decision-making 35-nation board.

Iran is running to counteract a U.S. push to have Afghanistan or outsider Kazakhstan elected over Syria, which is under IAEA investigation for allegedly hiding a secret nuclear program, including a nearly completed plutonium producing reactor destroyed last year by Israel.

If the regional group does not agree on a candidate by the time the conference turns to the issue, there will likely be a vote -- an unusual turn because these meetings normally decide by consensus.

But chief U.N nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, focused on more overriding nuclear concerns about Iran -- its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment and alleged past plans to develop the bomb.

On Saturday, the U.N. Security Council approved a resolution critical of Iran's defiance on uranium enrichment, which can create both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads.

Urging it to "implement all transparency measures ... required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear program," ElBaradei declared: "This will be good for Iran, good for the Middle East region and good for the world."

He also warned the session that his organization was increasingly stretched in trying to carry out responsibilities including nonproliferation and preventing terrorists from acquiring the bomb.

"All is not well with the IAEA," ElBaradei declared, appealing for more money and authority for his agency.

Speaking for the EU, Luc Chatel of France called on Iran to "open the doors of its facilities, to give access to persons and documents, and to answer all the questions posed by (IAEA) inspectors."

The annual meeting allows the agency's member countries to set policies that range from strengthening nonproliferation to carrying on medical and scientific research. But tensions between Islamic members and the West threaten to hamper decision-making.

A tradition of consensus has normally led all sides to bridge sometimes substantial differences and opt for compromise for most of the conference's 52-year history. A vote on any topic is unusual and considered a huge dent in the meeting's credibility.

But frustration among Muslim countries over Israel's refusal to put its nuclear program under international purview, and resistance from the Jewish state to Muslim pressure on the issue, threatens to force a vote for the third year running.

As in the past two years, Muslim IAEA members are expected to put forward a resolution urging all Mideast nations to refrain from testing or developing nuclear arms and urging nuclear weapons states "to refrain from any action" hindering a Mideast nuclear-free zone.

After losing the vote two consecutive years, Islamic nations are threatening to up the ante this year, warning they will call for a ballot on every item, no matter how uncontroversial, unless they get conference backing on the Israeli nuclear issue.

Arab members -- backed by Iran -- this year have again asked conference organizers to include an item on Israel, this time labeled "Israeli Nuclear Capabilities" instead of "Nuclear Threat," as in previous years. That is being protested by Israel.

Focusing on Israel by name "is substantially unwarranted and flawed," said a letter prepared for review by the conference from Israel Michaeli, the Jewish state's IAEA representative.

Sponsors of the item should instead "address the most pressing proliferation concerns in the Middle East," the letter said, an allusion to Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:06 PM

Lethal pastries, BB. It's all about lethal pastries. Watch the Sleeping Croissant! Be afraid. Very afraid. Yes, there are vicious foreigners out there plotting to destroy the land you love, and they do not rest. They toil night and day with but one thought: "Destroy America!" Some are swarthy and have facial hair, but others are pink and nicely shaven and they look like they came from a Hansel and Gretel story. Ah! Those are the ones to really watch out for. They have WMDs hidden, BB, and they mean to use them on YOU. Scranton, Schenectady, and Albuquerque (did I spell that right?) are in extreme peril. Why will no one listen????

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:25 PM

LH,

I suggest that you read "On the Beach" , "Level Seven", and "Alas, Babylon".


Then remember that all were written 40 years ago, or so, and that biological weapons have made great "advances". I don't think that any nation's "neutrality" is going to withstand the next major ( "World" ) war.

Estimated causualties of GTW would be 140,000,000 Americans and 20,000,000 Canadians dead within 60 days... similar numbers ( actually, higher percentage for Europe) for the rest of the world.

And those are the OPTIMISTIC estimates.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:28 PM

Oh, "A Canticle for Liebowitz" might also help...

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 01:51 PM

I don't think that any nation's "neutrality" is going to withstand the next major ( "World" ) war either, BB.

However, I think that the next major world war, if it happens, is going to have been caused by the USA, through the very kind of political attitudes that you yourself are tacitly supporting.

In other words, I think the USA is the author of its own misfortunes...just as Germany, Italy, and Japan were in the 30's and 40's.

And I think you are unwittingly assisting a propaganda effort that leads in a disastrous direction. I think you are unwittingly assisting people who are leading their country into committing outright aggression and destabilizing the entire world, and thereby risking another world war.

It has happened before, and it quite likely will happen again, only this time the USA is going to be the major perpetrator.

People just don't get it. They always think their own country must be "the good guy". Well, countries change roles back and forth as the decades and centuries go by. They all get to be the honest defender sometimes. They all get to be the lawless aggressor at other times. But their people never see them as the lawless agressor when that happens. They believe the home propaganda.

You are one who believes the home propaganda. You're on the wrong side this time, BB, in this great struggle of nations. You (as a collective political nation) are the perpetrators of this dangerous situation in the world, not the innocent victims of it. You are not the defenders of liberty and freedom. You are not the defenders of democracy. You are not the defenders of international law and justice. You are the great aggressor nation of this present era...and you persist in accusing other much smaller nations of your own crimes and your own criminal intentions. And then you attack them.

That is the same technique Hitler used, and his people believed him. It's the Big Lie. The majority of any populace will always believe their own government when it tells them that some other country is to blame for a war starting. Always. It's the easiest thing in the world to make them believe it.

That's how your government is fooling you. You have not BEEN attacked militarily by any other government or any other nation. You ARE the attackers of other governments and nations, and you constantly threaten further such attacks.

In your case, the threats are very real ones, and the world knows it. In Hitler's case also, the threats were very real ones, and the world knew it. When superpowers threaten, they are foreshadowing what they intend to do. They are preparing the public mindset to support military action. When small powers threaten, they are simply doing what a frightened dog does...they are barking as loudly as they can to keep their own spirits up and hopefully to dissuade a potential attacker from attacking. They're bluffing.

The USA, like Hitler, does not have to bluff. It possesses enough lethal power to carry out its threats, and it has repeatedly demonstrated the will to do so. Israel, likewise, does not have to bluff, and never does, because it possesses enough lethal power to carry out a threat. Iranians are the people who have the most reason to fear the near future, because they are being threatened by the superpower, and the superpower does not utter idle threats. Nor does Israel. Israel has several hundred atomic weapons, and the means to deliver them to the target.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 02:04 PM

LH,

I agree with one of your points:

" Israel has several hundred atomic weapons, and the means to deliver them to the target. "

The problem is that I disagree with the rest- it will be a nation like Iran, or North Korea, that thinks it can use a WMD on its enemies and get away with it. ( Yes, I know that they would have to be crazy, but they are)

This will cause retaliation, and then further retaliation ( as China realizes that it no longer has access to oil from the Middle East, or Russia decides to settle a few more accounts [after all, the US did nothing in Georgia, why should it react to a bomb on Chechnya?])

NO ONE will want it to become world-wide- but look at 1914 and tell me that nations will not miscalculate the reactions of other nations.

The US HAS gone to the UN, and the US HAS allowed the EU to negotiate with Iran- Care to show me the results that would justify the risk that has now increased from 15 years away from a nuclear bomb to one year away?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:15 PM

Yes, well, it's very convenient to say that your neighbour is "crazy" if you want justification for breaking into his house and committing premeditated murder on him, BB.

"I had to do it. He was crazy and he was out to get me."

Hitler probably thought the Poles were crazy too.

Your assumption that Iranian and North Korean leaders are "crazy" is convenient for your policy because it allows you not to treat them as you would treat normal human beings, but to merely exterminate them like rats or other vermin. It justifies planned aggression on your part.

It sounds a lot like the justifications Hitler used to exterminate Jews and various other people to me, in that it is a closed circle that defies logic or moral responsibility.

Did you know that the leader of Korea has a little sign on his desk as a constant reminder? It says (in Korean), "It's about survival, stupid!"

They are well aware of the risks, and I'm sure the Iranians are also.

North Korea wanted the bomb so that it would not BE attacked by a larger nation. That is why smaller nations want the bomb. They want it as a deterrent, so that they can negotiate from some position of relative equality rather than live like a beaten dog on its knees waiting for the ax to fall. That is why Pakistan wanted it too. None of them will ever use it unless they are simply at the final extremity of desperation, in my opinion, meaning: not until they are attacked in such a way as threatens their total defeat and annihilation.

Only he who has overwhelming firepower can dare to use the bomb first. That means primarily: the USA, Israel (in its own region), and Russia. Perhaps China.

They are the people who feel (relatively) free to use the ultimate weapon if they want to, because they think they can get away with it...under certain limited circumstances, such as hitting a nation like Iran which doesn't have it yet. They think they can get away with it, because no one will dare initiate full scale hostilities with them on that level.

And if they want to do it...well, it's simple. Just accuse the Iranians or someone small power of being "crazy", and you have your justification to commit genocide, don't you? And who can ever prove afterward whether or not the Iranians were in fact "crazy"? Or whether they ever would have done what you say they were thinking of doing? The dead cannot testify in their own defence, can they?

I agree with you that once even one nuke is used by anyone, all bets are off. It could lead to a succession of unpredictable reactions among different nations, and that could spiral into a world war. Undoutedly. So could a conventional war with Iran that does not involve any nukes. It's all very dangerous.


It works exactly like civil law, Bruce. You cannot just go and kill your neighbour, say "He was crazy, that's why I did it. He was planning to kill me, you see..." and expect the judge and the police to see it your way. They will arrest you and charge you with murder. They will also probably think you are crazy, and with considerable justification! Your lawyer may try an insanity plea, in fact, when you go to trial.

Unfortunately, the world has no higher authoritative courts or police structure who are able to arrest the USA or Russia or Israel if they commit such an attack. They are, in effect, a law unto themselves, merely because they are militarily powerful and no one can stop them if they decide to act.

That is the problem in a nutshell. We live in a lawless world. It pretends to have rule of law between nations, but that's a fiction. Just as in the time of Greece or Rome, naked power rules the affairs of nations. They quote international law when it suits their plan. They ignore it when it doesn't...or they cynically pretend to be upholding it even as they violate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:22 PM

"None of them will ever use it unless they are simply at the final extremity of desperation, in my opinion, meaning: not until they are attacked in such a way as threatens their total defeat and annihilation."


Not according to what Iran has stated.


As for the neighbor analogy, in my neighborhood, we are NOT allowed to have WMD or threaten to destroy our neighbors. If we do, we get hauled off to jail.

So, we can haul Iran off to jail?????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:50 PM

Mutual threats have been repeatedly hurled in all directions, BB, by Iran, the USA, and Israel. If it was a situation in a town the police would arrest ALL those making such threats. They would arrest the USA, Iran, and Israel, and put them all on trial for uttering death threats in an unlawful fashion.

They have all said, in effect, "if you do so-and-so...or if I think you might do it...I'm going to kill you". That is a death threat, and it's illegal in civil law. It should also be illegal in international law (and it is in fact), but there's no neutral authority to enforce that law.

You can't have a lawful town if there is no neutral police force to enforce the laws equally.

As for open assault, the USA has openly assaulted and invaded other nations with its armed forces. That is a far greater crime than merely uttering death threats.

To put it simply, if the Iranians behaved as you do (meaning the American government you support) you would THEN have adequate cause to be as upset about them as you seem to be. You would then have total justification for war (assuming you had the power to undertake it with any hope of success).

Look, if ANY nation acted like the USA does in launching "pre-emptive" wars (wars of choice) and was NOT a military superpower with greater firepower than anyone else in the world, then many other nations in the world would soon go to war against it and crush it (like they did Saddam in 1991). You don't seem to get that. Hitler didn't get it either. People like Hitler, Bush, Cheney, Saddam, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin...they never get it. All they believe in, really, is "might makes right".

They are their own justification in their own eyes. Other people don't have to see it that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM

Fine. The US will wait until after Iran uses the bomb on Israel, watch the entire Middle East go up in mushroom clouds, and then tell the EU and China it has to go to Russia for oil.

But I doubt that the remaining (alive) 30% of the world population will say that the UN had done its job...




And you ignore that Iran has violated its NPT obligations. To NOT enforce them is to say that there is no need for international agreements or consequences for violating them.

Next thing you know you'll be saying that it is OK that Canada exports asbestos in violation of UN laws....

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:24 AM

Bet on Israel bombing Iran
By Robert Baer

Monday, September 29th 2008, 8:44 AM

Are we going to have an October surprise, an attack on Iran by either the Bush administration or by Israel to stop the regime from becoming a nuclear power?

It could happen - and alter the dynamics of the presidential race in the blink of an eye - but only if Israel pulls the trigger. Don't expect the United States to drop bombs anytime soon. The reason: Iran has us over a barrel.

According to Britain's Guardian newspaper, Bush earlier this year nixed an Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Reportedly, the President said no because we couldn't afford Iranian retaliation against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or Iran closing down Persian Gulf shipping. Nonetheless, cynical speculation is now swirling in some quarters that with the financial collapse working against McCain - and Bush's legacy coming into focus - the President might reconsider. Could that tail really wag the dog?

RELATED:AHMADINEJAD TELLS NEWS THERE ARE GAYS IN IRAN
Probably not. The fundamental global power dynamics have not changed. Iran has successfully blackmailed us. Iranian Silkworm missiles could close down Gulf oil exports in a matter of minutes, taking about 17 million barrels a day of oil off world markets. Americans could suddenly be looking at the prospect of $10-$12 for a gallon of gas. If the collapse of Wall Street doesn't push us into a depression, that would. And Bush is right: An angered Iran could punish us with thousands of extra casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Iranian-trained, armed and funded fighters flow back into the war zones with a vengeance.

So, giving the go ahead to Israel would just not be worth it.

But none of this changes the fact that Israel - on its own, without U.S. complicity - is moving closer to a decision to attack Iran, almost by the day.

RELATED:A WAKEUP CALL ON IRAN'S NUKES
What many Americans miss is that Iran is a threat to Israel's very existence, not an imagined danger used by politicians for political advantage. Every Israeli city is within range of Iranian/Hezbollah rockets. To make matters worse, since the July 2006 34-day war, Hezbollah may have as much as trebled the number of rockets it has targeted on Israel.

Meantime, Hezbollah has become the de facto state in Lebanon. And lest we forget, Israel lost that July 2006 war to Hezbollah, pulling its troops out of Lebanon without having obtained a single objective. In other words, Israel no longer has its deterrence credibility, the fear that it can decisively retaliate against its enemies.

Israel knows that international diplomacy against Iran up until now has been a farce. Iran called Bush's bluff, ignored sanctions and continued its nuclear program with impunity. And if the Israelis needed another psychological kick in the pants, last week North Korea announced that it is back to building a bomb, likewise with impunity.

Finally, Israel has to calculate that American influence around the world is on the wane. Americans are tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, after the war in Georgia, Russia is opening up its flow of weapons to Iran.

Couple all of this with Israel's suspicion that Iran is within only a few short years of having a nuclear bomb, and Israel knows time is not on its side. It is starting to believe that it has no choice but to change its fortunes with arms.

This much is certain. Whether the President is named Bush, McCain or Obama, he will either have to prepare for war in the Gulf or find a way to bring Iran back into the nation-state system. The day of reckoning is near.

I myself think a deal can be cut with Iran. During the last 30 years, Iran has gone from a terrorist, revolutionary power to far more rational, calculating regional hegemon. Its belligerence today has more to do with a weakened United States and Israel than with any plans to start World War III.

The question is what price Iran would exact for a settlement. Or more to the point: Would we prefer to take our chances with an Israeli surprise?

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 30 Sep 08 - 07:27 AM

Point of discussion: The terms of the Lebenon ceasefire ( UN brokered) were that

1. Israel would withdraw ( which it did)
2. Hezboallah would not be resupplied ( which it was)
3. Hezboallah would release the two Israelis kidnapped ( which they did not)


Now, WHY SHOULD ISRAEL pay any attention to the UN, which has demonstrated that it has no intention of standing behind its resolutions or agreements?????

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 12:20 PM

PLEASE note before comments that this was *NOT* a US Plane!





Iran Fighters Force Plane To Land

3:49pm UK, Tuesday October 07, 2008

Iranian news agencies sparked fears of an international stand-off by reporting that a US fighter jet had been forced to land after flying into their country's airspace.

Plane forced down by Iranian air force was a Falcon jet

Reports that the jet was a US warplane with military personnel on board were contradicted by other sources inside the country, which said its nationality was in fact Hungarian.

Reports said five people were interrogated, but allowed to leave the following day after it became clear their trespass into Iranian airspace had been a mistake.

They added that the interrogation revealed that they had strayed over the border unintentionally en route to Afghanistan.

However, the Pentagon denied that any of its aircraft were missing and it later emerged that the plane was a Falcon passenger jet.

The plane is said to have entered Iranian airspace from Turkey despite repeated warnings by the Islamic Republic Air Force.

Reports said the jet was flying low in an attempt to slip under Iranian radar before being made to touch down.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 07 Oct 08 - 02:48 PM

further on last story. Think maybe the Iranians are trying to get a reason to attack?????



From Times Online October 7, 2008

Iran creates international panic after claiming US plane violated airspace
(Seth Wenig)

An Iranian news agency sparked fears of an international standoff and left the Pentagon scrambling to identify its planes today after it reported that a US jet had strayed into its territory and been forced to land.

The semi-official Fars News Agency this afternoon said that five US military officials and three civilians were interrogated at an unnamed Iranian airport after accidentally straying into the Islamic Republic's airspace.

They were released after it was established that the plane had not entered the territory intentionally, the agency said, adding that it did not know when the incident had happened.

After hastily investigating the claims, however, the Pentagon poured scorn on them.

The US said that all of its planes in the Middle East had been identified and none had recently been missing or involved in any incident.

"According to the combined air operations centre, all our aircraft are accounted for and we have no reports of any aircraft landing in Iran," US Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Ryder said.

As the story unfolded, a senior Iranian military official told Iranian state television's Arabic-language channel Al-Alam that what was said to be a military jet was, in fact, a private Hungarian business aircraft and that no Americans were on board. It added that the incident dated back to September 30.

"The airplane is now being confirmed as a light transport plane with no Americans onboard," US military spokesman Lieutenant David Russell said.

"From what I am seeing, it was a Falcon business jet. We have accounted for all our aircraft and none are missing."

Tensions between Iran and the United States have been running high in recent years with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline Iranian President, refusing to stop enriching uranium.

The US suspects Iran is trying to create nuclear weapons and the UN has imposed sanctions on Tehran. However, Iran says uranium enrichment is for energy use only.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 08:08 AM

Diplomats: NKorea bans UN staff from nuke complex

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
33 minutes ago



VIENNA, Austria - Diplomats say that North Korea has made all of its Yongbyon nuclear facilities off limits to international inspectors.

The diplomats say the North's decision was made recently but declined to offer details. The diplomats demanded anonymity Thursday because their information was confidential.

The reported move expands the area that the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are no longer allowed to monitor.

Pyongyang already barred agency personnel from its plutonium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon last month, when it made good on threats to restart its weapons-producing atomic program.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 11:24 AM

North Korea prepares to restart nuclear facility

By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
19 minutes ago



VIENNA, Austria - North Korea announced Thursday that it is preparing to restart the facility that produced its atomic bomb, clearly indicating that it plans to completely pull out of an international deal to end its nuclear program.

North Korea told the International Atomic Energy Agency that it was stopping the process of disabling its main nuclear site and barring international inspectors from the Yongbyon facility, the agency said.

Pyongyang "informed IAEA inspectors that effective immediately access to facilities at Yongbyon would no longer be permitted," the U.N. nuclear watchdog said.

North Korea "also stated that it has stopped its (nuclear) disablement work," its statement said.

"Also, since it is preparing to restart the facilities at Yongbyon, the DPRK has informed the IAEA that our monitoring activites would no longer be appropriate," the statement said, referring to the north by its formal acronym.

But the statement said the IAEA's small inspection team would remain on the site until told otherwise by North Korean authorities.

Pyongyang already barred agency personnel from its plutonium reprocessing facility at Yongbyon last month after telling them to remove IAEA seals from the plant in a reversal of its pledge to disable its nuclear program in return for diplomatic concessions and offers of energy aid.

But Thursday's statement was the clearest indication to date that the North planned to abrogate the deal, said a senior diplomat linked to the IAEA who demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to comment to the media.

The North was to eventually dismantle the complex in return for diplomatic concessions and energy aid equivalent to 1 million tons of oil under a February 2007 deal with the U.S., South Korea, China, Russia and Japan.

But the accord hit a bump in mid-August when the U.S. refused to remove North Korea from its list of states that sponsor terrorism until the North accepts a plan for verifying a list of nuclear assets that the Pyongyang regime submitted to its negotiating partners earlier.

"Let's just wait and see over the next several days. We're reviewing the situation and I am talking to my colleagues and when we have an announcement, we'll have an announcement," U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told reporters in Washington when asked about the announcement.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbuce
Date: 09 Oct 08 - 12:57 PM

North Korea said to be deploying missiles

By Mark Heinrich and Jack Kim
1 hour, 12 minutes ago



VIENNA/SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea deployed more than 10 missiles on its west coast apparently for an imminent test launch, a South Korean newspaper said on Thursday, and Pyongyang halted U.N. monitoring of its nuclear complex.

The potentially destabilizing moves followed reports that the United States had offered to remove North Korea from its terrorism blacklist this month in an effort to keep a nuclear disarmament pact from falling apart.

It would be an unprecedented test if North Korea fired all 10 of the surface-to-ship and ship-to-ship missiles. Intelligence sources quoted by the Chosun Ilbo paper said they thought the North may launch five to seven of them.

North Korea has forbidden ships to sail in an area in the Yellow Sea until October 15 in preparation for the launch, an intelligence source told the paper.

A South Korean defense ministry official declined to comment on the report but said the government had no indication of unusual activity in the North.

The United States urged North Korea not to do anything, including launching missiles, that would make matters worse. "We would urge North Korea to avoid any steps that increase tension on the peninsula," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

He said actions by Pyongyang in the last month had not been helpful, but added: "What they have done thus far is reversible. They can take a different set of decisions. We urge them to do so."

The halt to U.N. monitoring throughout the Yongbyon nuclear complex was a significant step toward scrapping the pact to dismantle its atomic bomb programed, officials and diplomats said at the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

"The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) has today informed IAEA inspectors that effective immediately, access to facilities at Yongbyon would no longer be permitted," IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire said in a statement.

"The DPRK also stated that has stopped its disablement work, which was initially agreed upon within the Six-Party Talks," he said.

"Since it is preparing to restart the facilities at Yongbyon, the DPRK has informed the IAEA that our monitoring activities would no longer be appropriate. IAEA inspectors will remain in Yongbyon pending further information by the DPRK."

KOREAN NUCLEAR PLANS

Two weeks ago, the reclusive Stalinist state expelled the monitor team from Yongbyon's plutonium-producing plant, kernel of its atom bomb capability, and vowed to start reactivating the Soviet-era facility shortly.

At the time, Pyongyang let the IAEA continue verifying the shutdown status of other parts of Yongbyon. The IAEA's tools included surveillance cameras and seals placed on equipment.

Exactly two years ago, North Korea alarmed the world by conducting its first nuclear weapon test.

The pact appeared to unravel last month after Pyongyang, angry at not being removed from a U.S. blacklist of sponsors of terrorism, vowed to rebuild the largely dismantled Yongbyon.

North Korea has a history of timing its missile launches during periods of increased tension or negotiation to signal a hard line, analysts say.

U.S. nuclear envoy Christopher Hill visited Pyongyang last week in a bid to convince North Korea to return to a disarmament-for-aid deal and halt plans to restart an aging nuclear plant that makes bomb-grade plutonium.

Kyodo news agency, quoting unidentified Japanese government sources, said Hill agreed that Washington would not make verification of Pyongyang's uranium enrichment programed

or proliferation activities a condition of delisting.

The United States suspects North Korea has a parallel uranium enrichment programed in addition to its plutonium-producing reactor in Yongbyon and that it has proliferated nuclear technology to Syria.

The United States put North Korea on its list of state sponsors of terrorism for the 1987 midair bombing of a South Korean airliner over the Andaman Sea that killed 115 people.

Admiral Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, said he had not seen any increased military activity in North Korea, "nor have we responded in any way with any military posture changes."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Oct 08 - 12:29 PM

The President Who Will Deal With Iran
By Michael Gerson
Friday, October 10, 2008; Page A19

A specter is haunting the presidential race -- and it is not just the economy. It is the specter of a nuclear Iran.

Economic downturns are wrenching but cyclical. Nuclear proliferation is more difficult to reverse, creating the permanent prospect of massive miscalculation and tragedy. America's next leader may be known to history as the president who had to deal with Iran.

This topic received glancing attention in the second presidential debate. Barack Obama called a nuclear Iran "unacceptable." John McCain said it would raise the prospect of "a second Holocaust." But neither man seriously confronted the choices ahead.

Days earlier, at an event at the Nixon Center here, the former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations, David Kay, delivered a bleak assessment of Iranian capabilities and intentions. The Iranian regime, he argues, is about 80 percent of the way toward its nuclear goals -- perhaps two to four years from "effective, deployable weapons."

Kay believes that the reaction to this threat by both political parties is unrealistic. By simply saying a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, America is set up for a choice between "suicide" (a disastrous military attack on Iran) and "humiliation" (a galling acceptance of the unacceptable). Instead, Kay calls for a new round of "skillful diplomacy" to persuade Iran to stop at what he calls "virtual capability" -- a global recognition that it could produce nuclear weapons in short order, without all the drawbacks caused by actually producing those weapons.


But this would be the third major attempt at diplomacy, not the first. Russia has offered Iran enriched nuclear material for use in its civilian nuclear plants in exchange for abandoning its fuel-enrichment program. Iran refused, demonstrating, at the least, that it wants the technical know-how -- the "breakout capability" -- to produce nuclear weapons. The Bush administration has offered direct, face-to-face talks with Iran if it would merely suspend (not abandon) its enrichment program. This also has been turned down. Another diplomatic effort -- perhaps offering normalized relations and the lifting of sanctions in exchange for Iran's full cooperation -- might further isolate Iran if it refuses the deal. But even many supporters of such an initiative admit that Iran is likely to refuse.

So Kay seems resigned to a policy of containment -- holding Iran directly responsible if it transfers nuclear weapons to terrorists, providing nuclear guarantees to our friends in the region so they don't feel pressured to develop their own. Past nuclear proliferation to nations such as France and India, he argues, proved less destabilizing than many first feared.

The problem with this approach? Iran may be a different proliferation threat from any we have faced before. The regime cultivates ties to violent nonstate proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories. While in some ways calculating, its leaders also seem drawn toward dangerous terrorist adventures -- such as blowing up U.S. troops in Beirut or Jewish community centers in South America. Iran's religious radicalism introduces an unpredictable element of irrationality. And some future conflict between a nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel could easily and quickly escalate.

What are the alternatives? Attempting to destabilize the Iranian regime from within -- by covert action and support for dissidents -- does not seem realistic on a four- or five-year timeline. American capabilities in this regard are limited, and Iranian repression of reformers is ruthless.

So if a nuclear Iran is truly unacceptable, we may be left with the use of military force. And this seems credible only under narrow circumstances. As Gary Samore, my colleague at the Council on Foreign Relations, points out, Iran can move from breakout capability to the development of nuclear weapons in only two ways. It can do the final enrichment of weapons-grade material at some secretly constructed facility with a few thousand hidden centrifuges -- a difficult and risky proposition. Or it can quickly convert its known centrifuges for such production. This would probably take a few weeks and require the expulsion of international inspectors. During this short time lag, Iran's intentions would be fully revealed, and the case for bombing its facilities would be strongest.

This may be the true test of the next president: a few days to make one of the most consequential decisions in modern history. It is difficult to imagine why anyone would covet the responsibility for that choice -- but it is necessary to discern who is best prepared to make it.

[e-mail]

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 19 Nov 08 - 07:29 PM

Iran increases stockpile of uranium
By Daniel Dombey in Washington and James Blitz in London

Published: November 19 2008 18:01 | Last updated: November 19 2008 23:00

Iran is forging ahead with its nuclear programme, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog reported on Wednesday, deepening the dilemma facing US president-elect Barack Obama over his campaign promise to engage with Tehran.

The latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency reveals that Iran is rapidly increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium, which could be rendered into weapons-grade material should Tehran decide to develop a nuclear device.

Timeline: Iran's nuclear development -
Nov-19The agency says that, as of this month, Tehran had amassed 630kg of low enriched uranium hexafluoride, up from 480kg in late August. Analysts say Iran is enriching uranium at such a pace that, by early next year, it could reach break-out capacity – one step away from producing enough fissile material for a crude nuclear bomb.

"They are moving forward, they are not making diplomatic overtures, they are accumulating low enriched uranium," said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst at the Eurasia Group, a risk consultancy in Washington. "These guys are committed to their nuclear programme: if we didn't know that, they just told us again."

The IAEA report also says there has been a breakdown of communication between the agency and Iran over alleged research on an atomic weapon. "The Iranians are making good progress on enrichment but there is absolute stone-walling on past military activities," said Mark Fitzpatrick of the International institute for Strategic Studies. "It's very disappointing."

The progress chalked up by Iran increases the difficulties for Mr Obama, who campaigned on promises of talking to America's enemies, although during the election he scaled down his initial vow to meet Iran's leaders to a more general commitment to consider doing so if it advanced US interests.

"Obama faces a real dilemma," said the Eurasia Group's Mr Kupchan. "He must decide whether to pursue diplomacy quickly in light of rapid Iranian progress or whether to wait in the hope of a more moderate Iranian leadership after Iran's June presidential election."

European diplomats have responded favourably to Mr Obama's suggestion of US engagement with Iran, although they are keen to avoid unilateral US actions that would rip up the approach fashioned by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

IAEA officials said relations between the organisation and Iran had deteriorated so much there had been no contact between them for over two months, UN officials said on Wednesday.

"We had gridlock before but then at least we were talking to each other. Now it's worse. There is no communication whatsoever, no progress regarding possible military dimensions in their programme," a senior UN official said.

Ahead of Wednesday's report, Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, the Iranian president, signalled that his country would press ahead with its nuclear program.

In a speech broadcast on TV, he said the US and its major allies wanted to deprive Iran of "honor and independence" by pressuring the country into halting its uranium enrichment work.

"Now the great powers are disappointed, as they have not the least bit of hope to break the Iranian people down," he said. "If great powers seek to take over Iran's rights, Iranian people will slap them so hard that they won't find their way back home."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 06:27 AM

Iran Produces Enough Uranium to Build Nuclear Weapon
Thursday, November 20, 2008

Iran has now produced roughly enough nuclear material to make a single nuclear bomb, according to atomic experts analyzing the latest report from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

To date, Iran had enriched about 1,400 pounds of low-enriched uranium suitable for nuclear fuel, according to two confidential reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency that were obtained by The Associated Press.

Several experts told The Times the milestone was enough for a bomb, but Iran would have to further purify the uranium fuel and put it into a warhead design — a technical advance that experts in the West are unsure Iran has been able to achieve.

"They clearly have enough material for a bomb," Richard L. Garwin, a top nuclear physicist who helped invent the hydrogen bomb and has advised Washington for decades, told the newspaper. "They know how to do the enrichment. Whether they know how to design a bomb, well, that's another matter."

The report found the Islamic Republic was installing, or preparing to install, thousands more of the machines that spin uranium gas to enrich it — with the target of 9,000 centrifuges by next year.

The report on Iran — which also went to the U.N. Security Council — cautioned that Tehran's stonewalling meant the IAEA could not "provide credible assurances about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities." And it noted that the Islamic Republic continued to expand uranium enrichment, an activity that can make both nuclear fuel or fissile warhead material.

While that conclusion was expected, it was a formal confirmation of Iran's refusal to heed Security Council demands to freeze such activities, despite three sets of sanctions meant to force an enrichment stop.

Iran denies weapons ambitions, and Syria asserts the site hit more than a year ago by Israeli warplanes had no nuclear functions. But the two reports did little to dispel suspicions about either country.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog agency also said Wednesday that a Syrian site bombed by Israel in 2007 had the characteristics of a nuclear reactor.

The documents were being shared with the 35 nations on the IAEA's board.

On Syria, the agency also said that soil samples taken from the bombed site had a "significant number" of chemically processed natural uranium particles. A senior U.N official, who demanded anonymity because the information was restricted, said the findings were unusual for a facility that Syria alleges had no nuclear purpose.

The same official characterized U.N. attempts to elicit answers from Tehran on allegations that it had drafted plans for nuclear weapons programs as at a standstill.

The Syrian report said "it cannot be excluded" that the building destroyed in a remote stretch of the Syrian desert on Sept. 6, 2007, was "intended for non-nuclear use."

Still, "the features of the building ... are similar to what may be found in connection with a reactor site," it said, suggesting facility's size also fits that picture.

The report took note of Syrian assertions that any uranium particles found at the site must have come from Israeli missiles that hit the building, near the town of Al Kibar. And it cited Damascus officials as saying the IAEA samples contained only a "very limited number" of such particles.

But the report spoke of a "significant number of ... particles" found in the samples.

The senior U.N. official said "the onus of this investigation is on Syria" and noted that the traces were not of depleted uranium — the most commonly used variety of the metal in ammunition, meant to harden ordnance for increased penetration.

Satellite imagery made public in the wake of the Israeli attack noted that the Syrians subsequently removed substantial amounts of topsoil and entombed the building in concrete. But the report also suggested similar activities at three other Syrian sites of IAEA interest.

"Analysis of satellite imagery taken of these locations indicates that landscaping activities and the removal of large containers took place shortly after the agency's request for access," it said.

Beyond one visit in June to the Al Kibar site, Syria has refused IAEA requests to return to that location and examine the three other sites, citing the need to protect its military secrets.

In addition, said the report, "Syria has not yet provided the requested documentation" to back up its assertions that the bombed building was a non-nuclear military facility.

Iran denies such plans, saying it wants to enrich for a future large-scale civilian nuclear program. But suspicions have been compounded by its monthslong refusal to answer IAEA questions based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: goatfell
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 08:19 AM

or should that be the world

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 08 - 02:25 PM

Iran has got an election in June. All the signs are that Ahmadinejad is liable to lose, because he's been doing a lousy job as president domestically. (Sounds familiar?)

His best chance of winning is if posturing by the outside world builds him up, and makes it feel unpatriotic to vote against him.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 09 Dec 08 - 03:16 PM

Dec 8, 2008 20:08 | Updated Dec 9, 2008 15:23
Report: Iran rocket arsenal tripled in 2008
By JPOST.COM STAFF


In a sign that Iran is taking military measures to ward off the threat of an attack on its nuclear facilities, the country has tripled the number of long-range rockets in its arsenal, Channel 10 reported on Monday.

According to the report, Iran possessed 30 Shihab-3 missiles at the beginning of 2008. Currently, the country claims to have over 100 over long-range missiles capable of hitting Israel.

While the ability of the Islamic Republic to strike any point in Israel has long been known, this latest build-up potentially points to an Iranian intent to launch a protracted counter-strike against those who seek to destroy its nuclear program.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the report.

Last summer, Iran held a massive missile exercise during which it claimed to have launched an improved version of the Shihab-3, known to have a range of 1,300 kilometers. The Iranian Fars News Agency Web site reported that the Shihab-3 had recently been equipped with an advanced guidance system that significantly improves the missile's accuracy and can correct its flight plan in midair.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:13 PM

Obama's atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel

By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Iran, Nuclear, Barack Obama   

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

But America's nuclear guarantee to Israel could also be interpreted as a sign the U.S. believes Iran will eventually acquire nuclear arms.
Secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton had raised the idea of a nuclear guarantee to Israel during her campaign for the Democratic Party's nomination for the presidency. During a debate with Obama in April, Clinton said that Israel and Arab countries must be given "deterrent backing." She added, "Iran must know that an attack on Israel will draw a massive response."
Advertisement

Clinton also proposed that the American nuclear umbrella be extended to other countries in the region, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, if they agree to relinquish their own nuclear ambitions.

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 03:15 PM

more from above:

Obama said this week that he would negotiate with Iran and would offer economic incentives for Tehran to relinquish its nuclear program. He warned that if Iran refused the deal, he would act to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Granting Israel a nuclear guarantee essentially suggests the U.S. is willing to come to terms with a nuclear Iran. For its part, Israel opposes any such development and similar opposition was voiced by officials in the outgoing Bush administration.

"What is the significance of such guarantee when it comes from those who hesitated to deal with a non-nuclear Iran?" asked a senior Israeli security source. "What kind of credibility would this [guarantee have] when Iran is nuclear-capable?"

The same source noted that the fact that there is talk about the possibility of a nuclear Iran undermines efforts to prevent Tehran from acquiring such arms.

A senior Bush administration source said that the proposal for an American nuclear umbrella for Israel was ridiculous and lacked credibility. "Who will convince the citizen in Kansas that the U.S. needs to get mixed up in a nuclear war because Haifa was bombed? And what is the point of an American response, after Israel's cities are destroyed in an Iranian nuclear strike?"

The current debate is taking place in light of the Military Intelligence assessment that Iran has passed beyond the point of no return, and has mastered the technology of uranium enrichment. The decision to proceed toward the development of nuclear arms is now purely a matter for Iran's leaders to decide. Intelligence assessments, however, suggest that the Iranians are trying to first accumulate larger quantities of fissile material, and this offers a window of opportunity for a last-ditch diplomatic effort to prevent an Iranian bomb.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Dec 08 - 06:00 PM

I do not really see what good Obama offering Israel this does. I would not imagine for a second that Iran would launch any sort of attack involving nuclear weapons that could be traced directly to Iran. That is too clear cut and they could not wriggle out of the terrible retribution that would come their way.

The danger in Iran's secret/covert/call-it-what-you-will nuclear weapons programme is that it is used to arm others and they carry out the attack. Two fairly small devices smuggled into the country and detonated in Haifa and Tel Aviv, no finger-prints, no smoking gun, nothing to connect the attack to any Sovereign State. Those who supported the attack can draw the international communities notice to the fact that their stockpiles remain intact, because the secret programme that created those weapons and the material to make them has not been totally transparent. They can prove and have it verified by the Russians, the Americans and whoever that no missiles were launched, no aircraft left their bases. So what is the reaction of the world going to be? Israel is already in ruins, bulk of the population dead. Collateral damage would also include a significant number of Palestinians dead, but those who direct and support the terror attacks on Israel from afar have never cared a toss about the lives of Palestinians, they will be regarded as being blessed and "in Paradise" as is the due of every true martyr. In such circumstances I can just imagine the degree of posturing that would be done internationally and the ever so sincere rationalising that would be argued in order to justify the fact that nothing will be done, the UN would settle upon setting up another totally ineffective and impotent Hariri type enquiry under threat of Security Council Veto by France, Russia and China, for anything more forceful.

The only way that the US offer of protection against a nuclear strike, once Iran had acquired a weapon would be to state loud and clear that it was now in Iran's best interest to make absolutely certain that nothing was ever launched at Israel ever again, otherwise on detection of launch, or in the event of an explosion within Israel's borders, Iran would be held responsible and attacked. Maybe then Hezbollah might have to return some of the 40,000 rockets to Tehran, and then maybe the material to make the Kassam's would not be smuggled through the tunnels into Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 17 Dec 08 - 05:43 PM

Israel issues new warning on Iranian nuclear arms

Dec 17 03:26 PM US/Eastern


JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak is warning that if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, it could try to attack the United States.
Barak said the world should press Iran to stop it from building nuclear weapons.

He spoke at a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. He said, "If it built even a primitive nuclear weapon like the type that destroyed Hiroshima, Iran would not hesitate to load it on a ship, arm it with a detonator operated by GPS and sail it into a vital port on the east coast of North America."

Indicating the possibility of a military strike, Barak said, "We recommend to the world not to take any option off the table, and we mean what we say."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:15 AM

For the sake of Bobert and others that may not understand what "ORBIT" means, a spacecraft that can reach orbit is capable of hitting anywhere on the Earth's surface...

"George Bush- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Dick Cheney- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Teribus- 2700 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"BB- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft

"Saws- +- 5300 miles away" In range of an orbiting spacecraft





Iran says it sent own satellite into orbit
AP - Tuesday, February 03, 2009 7:40:14 AM
By NASSER KARIMI

APIran has successfully sent its first domestically made satellite into orbit, the country's president announced Tuesday, claiming a significant step in an ambitious space program that has worried many international observers.

The satellite, called Omid, or hope in Farsi, was launched late Monday after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the order to proceed, according to a report on state radio. State television showed footage of what it said was the nighttime liftoff of the rocket carrying the satellite at an unidentified location in Iran.

The reports were not immediately verified by outside observers. Some Western observers have accused Tehran of exaggerating the capabilities of its space program.

Iran has long held the goal of developing a space program, generating unease among world leaders already concerned about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One of the worries associated with Iran's fledgling space program is that the same technology used to put satellites into space can also be used to deliver warheads.

The United States and some of its allies suspect Iran is pursuing a covert nuclear program. Iran denies the charge, saying its atomic work is only for peaceful purposes such as power generation.

Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that the satellite, which he said had telecommunications capabilities, had reached its orbit and had made contact with ground stations, though not all of its functions were active yet. The launch was intended to be a message of peace and friendship to the world, Ahmadinejad told state television. "We need science for friendship, brotherhood and justice," he said.

The announcement of the Omid's launch came as officials from the U.S., Russia, Britain, France, Germany and China were set to meet Wednesday near Frankfurt to talk about Iran's nuclear program.

The group has offered Iran a package of incentives if it suspends uranium enrichment and enters into talks on its nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council has imposed sanctions to pressure Iran to comply.

Iranian television said the satellite would orbit at an altitude of between 155 and 250 miles (250 and 400 kilometers). It was taken into orbit by a Safir-2, or ambassador-2, rocket, which was first tested in August and has a range of 155 miles (250 kilometers).

The radio report said the satellite is designed to circle the earth 15 times during a 24-hour period and send reports to the space center in Iran. It has two frequency bands and eight antennas for transmitting data.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Musket
Date: 03 Feb 09 - 10:40 AM

3/1 North Korea

2/1 Syria

2/1 Iran

2/1 France

Evens bar

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 11:42 AM

New Launch: 2009 February 2, 1836 UTC
Site: Semnan Satellite Launch Site, Iran
Launcher: Safir 2
International Designators(s): 2009-004A

SSC Name Owner
33506 OMID IRAN


"Iran launched its first satellite into orbit Monday using a modified homemade long-range missile, thrusting the Islamic republic into an elite club of space-faring nations, state media reported.

"The small Omid communications satellite was launched Monday evening aboard a Safir 2 rocket, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

"Launch was likely around 1830 GMT [our analysis shows it closer to 1836 UTC], or around 10 p.m. Iran time, according to Jonathan McDowell, an astrophysicist who provides satellite data on the Internet.

"Iran did not release the launch time in state news reports.

"The 72-foot-tall Safir 2 rocket probably blasted off from a launch site in Iran's Semnan province in the north-central part of the country [Google Earth file].

"The launcher flew southeast over the Indian Ocean to avoid flying over neighboring countries, according to Charles Vick, senior fellow at GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based military think tank.

"Two objects from the launch, likely the Omid satellite and part of its booster, are circling Earth in oval-shaped [sic] orbits.

"The orbits range in altitude from low points of 153 miles [246 km] to high points of 235 miles [378 km] and 273 miles [439 km]. The orbital inclination is 55.5 degrees, according to U.S. military tracking data.

"Iran joins a small group of countries with the ability to build and launch their own satellites into orbit."

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:16 PM

Funny....this is at least the second time the "News" media have reported the FIRST launch of an Iranina satellite! ;-) Here's a report from the BBC News on Thursday, 27 October 2005:

Iran's previous "first time" in space....

First Iranian satellite launched

The Iranian satellite was joined by others from China and Europe
Iran launched its first satellite into space from Plesetsk in northern Russia on Thursday, joining a select club of countries.
A joint project between Iran and Russia, the Sina-1 satellite will be used to take pictures of Iran and to monitor natural disasters.

It blasted off aboard a Russian Kosmos 3M rocket early on Thursday morning.

The satellite was built for Iran by Polyot, a Russian company based in the Siberian city of Omsk.

Director General of Iran Electronic Industries Ebrahim Mahmoudzadeh said Sina-1 was the result of years of research and 32 months of construction.

Research activities

Mr Mahmoudzadeh said the $15m research satellite would contain a telecommunications system and cameras that would be used for monitoring Iran's agriculture and natural resources.

It could also be deployed after disasters such as earthquakes.

He stressed, however, that the satellite represents only the first step in Iran's space programme.

"Considering that the satellite weights 170kg and is carrying a camera, it is an initial model as far as technical know-how and experience are concerned."

The launch had initially been scheduled for the end of September, but problems with the Iranian satellite forced a delay.

Iran's former defence minister, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, unveiled his country's space programme in 1998.

The launch makes Iran the 43rd country to possess its own satellites.

Sina-1 shared the ride with other satellites from China, Russia and Europe.


*************

You know what? Much of our so-called "news" is little more than calculated propaganda, designed and timed to produce an impression in people's minds. There appears to be an effort underway right now to scare people by making them think Iran just now entered space for the first time. Not so. They entered space back in October 2005, according to the BBC.

When is "the News" really the News, and when is it just a PR exercise?

BB, they have been ready to drop an A-bomb on YOU from space ever since October 2005! And I know how much you love and trust the Russians too. ;-) Dear, dear, it's all so scary! Better launch a pre-emptive strike while there's still time, right? (Mass murder is always justifiable if we are the ones who contemplate doing it...because we are GOOD people and our way of life is the best.)

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:30 PM

LH,

As often is the case, you do not pay attention to the details.

"First Iranian satellite launched "

The 2005 launch was on a launch vehicle (Russian Kosmos 3M ) from Russia, and it was the first Iranian SATELLITE to be launched.



"Iran launched its first satellite into orbit Monday using a modified homemade long-range missile"

This launch was on an Iranian launch vehicle, thus it was the first launched BY IRAN.


If this is confusing to you, how do you expect to make any judgements at all about the relative hazards and risks of either the Iranian space or nuclear programs?



"BB, they have been ready to drop an A-bomb on YOU from space ever since October 2005! And I know how much you love and trust the Russians too. "

No, since the Russians are sane enough ( I think ) NOT to allow a warhead to be launched on their booster ( unless they do it themselves).


Better start looking up- the N. Koreans are testing a launch vehicle that can reach Canada. THEY might put a live warhead on it, just to see if it works.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 12:33 PM

Oh, since AMSATs have been up for years, you would claim that the Ham operators of the world have their own ICBMs???

*** I *** can build a satellite- ( actually, a launch vehicle, too) but I do not have an active program to produce weapons grade fissionable material at the present time.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 09 - 02:36 PM

Since the government of Israel has announced its intention to attack Iran within the next year, and in light of it's previous history, I think it's safe to say that it's the government of Israel that is not sane, and they are the ones of whom we should be afraid. It seems to me this current push to make Iran look imminently dangerous is just another attempt to soften the world up for Israel's upcoming attack on that country.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:49 AM

Washington Post


A Missile for Mr. Obama
North Korea is calling, Mr. President.
Monday, February 9, 2009; Page A16

IT HASN'T been easy for foreign governments to command the attention of the Obama administration in its opening days, but North Korea is doing its best. Last week, the secretive Stalinist regime was spotted transporting what looked like a Taepodong-2 missile toward a launch site. In theory, the rocket has a range of more than 4,000 miles, which would allow it to reach Alaska. In trotting it out, Pyongyang is transparently threatening to violate U.N. resolutions by conducting its first flight test since 2006. This follows a steadily escalating series of provocations by the North toward South Korea, including the repudiation of past non-aggression agreements and a threat of "all-out confrontation."

The attention-getting behavior may look infantile, but from the North's point of view it is quite logical. Time and again in the past decade, dictator Kim Jong Il has manufactured a crisis by testing missiles or a nuclear weapon, taking steps to produce bomb-grade plutonium, or expelling international inspectors. In most instances he has been rewarded with diplomatic attention and bribes of food and energy from South Korea, the United States, China and other nations, in exchange for reversing or freezing the actions. The Bush administration took office eight years ago declaring it would not condone such payoffs. It meekly ended, in October, by bribing Mr. Kim to reverse steps toward resuming plutonium reprocessing.

The mess inherited by the Obama administration is considerably worse than that encountered by President Bush. North Korea recently declared that it has weaponized its entire declared stock of plutonium, which if true means it has five or six nuclear weapons. In theory, the Bush administration won Mr. Kim's commitment to give up this stockpile in a step-by-step process in exchange for economic and diplomatic favors. In practice, Pyongyang's behavior never changed: While reneging or cheating on its own commitments, it used brinkmanship to extract concession after concession from Washington.

The Obama administration now will have to determine whether and how it can revive the broken disarmament process. (Curiously, it has reportedly decided to appoint the architect of that failure, Christopher R. Hill, as ambassador to Iraq, though he lacks Middle East experience and doesn't speak Arabic.) But first it will have to answer a more fundamental question: Will it, too, respond to North Korean missile tests and war threats with attention and bribes? The State Department took a step in the right direction on Thursday by announcing a trip by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to South Korea, Japan, China and Indonesia this month -- while omitting North Korea from the list of issues she would focus on. If there's one lesson to be learned from the past decade, it's that rewarding the North's provocations will only ensure more of them -- and that while that strategy works, the regime will not take genuine steps toward disarmament.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: robomatic
Date: 09 Feb 09 - 09:13 PM

I think Iran deserves some respect for orbiting last week. Iran is a much more complicated country than is usually acknowledged in the US media, and its hideous Islamic overlay of a government must inevitably be thrown off by a sophisticated populace which may involve some brinksmanship, but I think the likelihood that they will encourage an attack from Israel by themselves attacking Israel is lower than the other menace I mention below.

CarolC's assertions regarding Israel's plans are ludicrous, if not hysterical. Israel orbited in 1982 and has managed to avoid using her ability to send up satellites as a means to deliver weapons from that time to this.

There are many uses of satellites other than as weapons. Using satellites to aide communications and collect information from the ground is, I think, more conducive to peace than war.

As to the query at the head of this thread, I currently think the answer is: Pakistan. If the Obama administration is going to try to 'win' in Afghanistan, it will require effective penetration of Pashtun lands which cross borders and which even Pakistan has not been able to make much headway in, this will involve Pakistani territory and will challenge the stability of Pakistan. In seven, going on eight years of US involvement in Afghanistan we have not yet succeeded and don't exactly see a clear path to success. So Pakistan will inevitably get involved and disaster is entirely possible. We don't have the ability to take on Iran or Korea at the same time, and in the case of Korea, Japan and China have more to fear than ourselves (not to mention SOUTH Korea).

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 05:51 AM

Actually, one of the nations highest on the list is Mexico.

Over 8,000 killed in Baja California by drug lords...

Anyone care to remember 1915?


But those 8,000 civilians were not killed by Jews, so there will be no moaning or demonstrations or demands for the removal of the Mexican government.

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 06:40 AM

The large and important states of Mexico and Pakistan are ripe for "a rapid and sudden collapse," says a startling new report on worldwide security threats issued by the U.S. Joint Forces Command. While Mexico destabilization may seem less likely to the public, the report explains, the sustained assaults by drug cartels severely affect government, police and judicial systems. Should Mexico descend into chaos, U.S. homeland security would require immediate response.
Mexico's descent into "failed state" status is of special concern to the U.S.-Mexico border region. The El Paso Times consulted expert Brig. Gen. Jose Piojas, the executive director of the National Center for Border Security and Immigration, who noted the state of flux in Mexican conditions even over the last nine months. In an equally dangerous worst-case scenario, the military report also considered the rapid collapse of Pakistan, which carries with it the threat of nuclear war.
Based in Norfolk VA, the Joint Forces Command is a combat command of the Defense Department, which includes different military service branches, both active and reserves, and functions to transform the military's capabilities. While no one can predict the future, it tries to forecast the future to keep the U.S. prepared for potential emergencies. It's "Joint Operating Environment (JOE 2008)" report puts Pakistan and Mexico on the same level insofar as it assesses global threats and future wars.
U.S. drug czar Barry McCaffrey issued a similar evaluation of Mexico's security problems recently. Drug violence and corruption in Mexico are two major factors affecting its stability.
In response, Mexican President Felipe Calderón advised embassy and consular officials to promote a positive image of Mexico. He met this week with U.S. officials, including President-elect Barack Obama, to advocate for an end to gun running and smuggling of arms from the U.S. into Mexico.

Joint Operating Environment (Report JOE 2008) PDF HERE

Subject: RE: BS: Who's Next? Iran or Korea?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Feb 09 - 08:37 AM

900!
Oh yes.