US will invade Iran in '06

Originally posted by grimreaper797
27: its more about the right to have them i think then actually having them. they are being denied what is clearly given to them in the NPT, the right to peaceful nuclear programs. this INCLUDES uranium enrichment. so because they are enriching uranium and are enemies with israel who has nukes, now they are number 1 suspects and public enemy #1.

why didnt we disarm israel while iran had there programs froze for 2 years or so? why didnt we take their weapons away and then give them both the same plan for uranium enrichment in a foreign country?

I can't answer why something wasn't done in the past, we can ask why all the way back until the first a-bomb was created. The thing is, here we are, today, in a very ugly position. Because mistakes were made in the past, doesn't mean we (you, me, and everyone we care about) should all be sentenced to horrible deaths.

without understanding the past, its doomed to repeat itself.
we need to know why it didnt happen so we can see it coming this time around. if you were to touch a fence and get shocked, you dont come back 5 minutes later and try again. you should learn from the past and see it coming. we arent doing that. we are getting shocked then coming back...shocked again....and again....and again...without ever getting to the reason because we feel this time we need to stop the immediate problem instead of the whole problem.

Are you still not understanding that I'm with you on addressing the whole problem? I want Israel to get rid of their nukes, and everybody else for that matter. You've stated you don't want Iran to get nukes either, where are we having the breakdown here?

I disagree with the idea that the Israelis, in a fight with the Iranians, are going to hit the Russians.

That might have been true during the Cold War, but it's unlikely now.
The nature of the threat is very different. Even with a few nukes Iran can't "push them into the sea" as the Arab states tried in the late 20th century.

While Iran might eventually be able to lob a few fission bombs Israel's way, the Russians certainly can get hundreds of 100kt + fusion bombs there in short order. It seems an unwise fight to pick.

Israel is perfectly capable of nuking the stuffing out of Iran in a way that Iran will not be able to match for decades, if ever. They are believed to have 200+ warheads, enough that any Iranian first strike would be unlikely to prevent truly massive retaliation.

On the other hand, the Russians have enough to pretty much depopulate Israel in a single blow, not that they would, unless the Israelis were foolish enough to do such a thing, which I don't think they are.

Originally posted by xmotex
On the other hand, the Russians have enough to pretty much depopulate Israel in a single blow, not that they would, unless the Israelis were foolish enough to do such a thing, which I don't think they are.

Some think they are, remember Israel is very small, it wouldn't take alot to destroy it. In a situation where they felt they were done for, they very well may strike out at Russia for backing Iran in the first place. None of us know for sure in any case, we're all just speculating based on our own understandings and opinions. Honestly, I hope Iran comes around to a peaceful solution.

Here's the latest...

U.S. backs Europe over nuclear Iran

The European ministers did not say exactly what action should be taken by the Security Council, which could impose sanctions, but officials in London and Moscow said envoys from the EU3 would meet counterparts from China, Russia and the U.S. next week to discuss the issue further.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Rice said Iran's action "demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation."

A statement outlining a phone call between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Rice said both sides shared "a deep disappointment over Tehran's decision."

www.cnn.com...

every country has it's own policemen. you guys should go home and play baseball. you have technologies that enable you to not need oil. the arabs can't shoot you at home. american civil war is predicted in many places on the internet,and i would not be surprised to see it, if any of the conspiracy theories i have read in here are true.

It would take 1 or 2 nukes and Israel would be gone, lets not forget that "Israel" hardly exists in the galali(the entire northern part of the country that is 55% arab, 80% arab if you minus the coastal area[Haifa] and the Negev area is a useless desert and is also 50% arab)-these areas are "Israel" in land ownership only. Most of Israels population is clustered around Tel-Aviv and the immediate coastal area just north & south + West Jerusalem and sorounding areas.. 2 nukes will pretty much destry it, it wouldn't be able to exist after that and they would then launch their "Sampson" option-numerous nukes all over the place.

our breakdown is you believe that we will disarm israel after iran, and my belief is that we wont again like we havent in the past. how can we ensure that after iran israel is next is my question?

Nevermind that the sane view is - even if they were attempting to produce sufficiently enriched uranium for a bomb - that there is no 'disarming' in need of being done now anyway.

Iran does not have nuclear weapons and even if they did want to make them they are several years away from being able to make one/them ......

Frank Barnaby, consultant for the UK security think tank the Oxford Research Group, agrees that Iran does not yet have a critical number of centrifuges in place.

"They don't currently have enough centrifuges working - so far as we know - to produce significant amounts of highly-enriched uranium or even enriched uranium. They would need a lot more," he told the BBC News website.

Even if the plant is made fully operational, it is currently configured to produce low enriched uranium (LEU) rather than the weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU).

So given these limitations, the IISS believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon.

Dr Barnaby agrees.

"The CIA says 10 years to a bomb using highly enriched uranium and that is a reasonable and realistic figure in my opinion," he said.

news.bbc.co.uk...

- Note too the difference between "low enriched uranium" for power production and "highly enriched uranium" required for weapons production.

The production of this "low enriched uranium" is simply not the same as 'making materials for a nuclear bomb'.

Enrichment
The aim of enrichment is to increase the proportion of fissile uranium-235 atoms within uranium.

For uranium to work in a nuclear reactor it must be enriched to contain 2-3% uranium-235. Weapons-grade uranium must contain 90% or more u-235.
news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 13-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by grimreaper797
our breakdown is you believe that we will disarm israel after iran, and my belief is that we wont again like we havent in the past. how can we ensure that after iran israel is next is my question?

So let me get this straight, because you believe we won't disarm Israel, you would rather see Israel, Iran, and who knows who else possibly destroyed to promote "fairness"?

I would rather NOT see that.

It would take 1 or 2 nukes and Israel would be gone

One or two Hiroshima type bombs are not enough to destroy Israel, they'd kill a lot of people to be sure, but they're not going to flatten the whole country. Israel is small but not that small. A 25kt fission bomb will trash everything in about a two mile radius, certainly not good, but not enough to wipe out a country, even a tiny one like Israel.

Originally posted by 27jd
Don't you agree that a nuclear exchange in the middle east could escalate and spiral into a full scale nuclear war?

It's hard to say. People will usually take the most potentially advantageous path available, obviously enough. Nuclear war is generally disadvantageous.

The potential for "it's the end of the world, let's take everyone with us" thinking depends on a nation's perception of the ability to recover with the help (possibly coerced help) of other nations.

Let's suppose that the exchange goes like this- Iran hits Israel, Israel launches against the rest of the Arab world, Russia, and certain European nations (France and Germany are extremely likely targets, Britain may not be directly hit, but fallout and the loss of economic and political ties would be harmful).

Now the ball is in France and Russia's court. If they're completely done for, maybe the decision is "launch 'em if you got 'em", especially if they believe in any way shape or form that America or someone else has been plotting this all along.

If however some of their weapons and some of their territory have the potential to survive, the decision could be very different. Let's suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Russia can expect to have a lot of undeveloped land with lots of resources (like Siberia) survive, and will still have some weapons when the dust settles.

Their logical move is to play the "with us or against us" card- demand an emergency empowerment of what's left of he UN Security Council to exercise complete authority over all nations, backed by the joint nuclear and conventional power of Britain, the US, China, and Russia. If their demand is not met, they launch what they've got left at the US, China, and Britain.

If it happens, we're looking at resource rationing, government sanctioned monopolies, redistribution of assets and population, and the seizing by force and rapid development of any valuable land in Southern Asia, Africa, and South America for the exploitation of a primarily Western one-world government.

I know, it's out there, but hey, this is ATS right? It seems to me like the owners of the respective nations involved here are better served to adapt to the new world and quickly assert dominance over it, rather than to just destroy everything that's left.

Good analysis, as usual. However, even in the event you're correct, the best case scenario you outlined is far more grave in regards to human loss and suffering than the worst case scenario outlined in regards to actions to take out Iran's nuclear capabilities, IMO.

27 you didnt answer my question, what can we do to ensure that after iran israel will be taken out of the nuclear dpepartment next? if you cant ensure this then iran will never give up, nor will any other middle east country. in other words youd pretty much have to kill most of them, then the young ones that dont know anything you manipulate to believe everything is ok and that israel never took that land but was always there and make them believe nothing ever happened.

tell me how we can be ensured israel is next?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
tell me how we can be ensured israel is next?

Make them pinky swear? I don't know. Obviously I can't answer that question, it's up to those who deal with Israel, and I don't. So, since I can't give you any guarantees, do you think Iran should just be permitted to obtain nukes, and we'll just hope they're not a country of their word in regards to Israel? Personally, I believe that even if Israel did give up their nukes, Iran wouldn't stop.

its not even ensuring that israel will peacefully give up their nukes its about following through. how can we be ensured that after iran that they will follow through and pursue israels nuclear programs to be stopped definately.

i dont want iran to have nukes, but your only solving the immediate problem. so how about this, we do it your way and have this same conversation in another 10 to 15 years and this time maybe we will try something different?

Originally posted by grimreaper797
so how about this, we do it your way and have this same conversation in another 10 to 15 years and this time maybe we will try something different?

If we did it my way, in 10 to 15 years, we'd be having a converstation about how stupid it was that anybody ever had nuclear weapons.

[edit on 13-1-2006 by 27jd]

The "two wrongs make a right" line of thought is remarkably persistent in this thread.

How many supporters of Iran in this thread own AK-47s? The gangs have them, so you need them too right? Besides, there are peaceful uses- it's just a hunting rifle, right?

I don't know about you, but I think I have a constitutional right to an assault rifle, but whatever my belief on the fairness of the issue is, I don't have one and am not seeking to get one because

1. I know that at present the danger to me from gang members is abstract- every "practical" reason I could give is reliant on invented instances, so I don't REALLY need one.

2. Therefore, I have no reason to disobey they law as it has been interpreted through our constitutionally established method of interpreting the rights the constitution affords me- the Supreme Court.

In short- Iran is in no serious danger- this is illustrated by the fact that Israel hasn't used it's nukes against Iran in all of these years, and for that matter has done virtually nothing to Iran in all of these years. Iran is without a sound reason for breaking the law, and should comply.

Israel should be brought into compliance, but that issue is entirely separate and has no bearing on the timetable for disarming Iran. Furthermore, that issue will take more time and effort to resolve because of the advanced nature of Israel's nuclear program and the many defensive concerns that must be addressed to their satisifaction in lieu of their continued possession of a deterrent.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
How many supporters of Iran in this thread own AK-47s? The gangs have them, so you need them too right? Besides, there are peaceful uses- it's just a hunting rifle, right?

I have an SKS with a banana clip, kinda similar. I'm not a supporter of Iranian nukes though, so I guess that doesn't count. There's no laws against assault rifles here in the wild west.

But I didn't seek it out, it fell into my lap and the person who had it before me would have been more likely to use it than I ever would. Besides, I'm gonna get rid of it as soon as I can find it a good home. I don't need it, it's a bit too much for home protection.





[edit on 13-1-2006 by 27jd]

Invasion of Iran will not take place in 2006 or 2007 or 2008 or 2009 or 2010 or anytime soon.

Look man, Bush is already backing down. Russia sides with Iran so is China. and the Arabs cant be pissed off no more because Pentagon has spent billions trying to win hearts and minds. so THEY are going to have to do plan b.

THEY will just let one surgical strike by the Israelies to take out the nuclear plants. just like the one they did back in the 80s which knocked out saddams nukes. first find out if Iran already has nukes or not. i think they had them since 90s. they have been working on em for years.





[edit on 13-1-2006 by mr conspiracy]