This would be a very dumb move for Isreal. It cant take on Iran all by its self and it wouldnt be good for the relations between Russia and Israel. Russia in that region is a superpower and China is in good comtacts with Iran too.

Israel is not US to make a pre-emtive strike and get away with it.

US is much stronger and had a better reason.

But Iran is not a terrorist state and they are making this nuclear power generator to help with the electricity.

This could be a big face off if Israel goes at it.

It would be Russia and China vs. USA because US is not happy with the Iranian nuclear power generator.

Out,
Russian

Hmmm... I gotta disagree on some points here.

Israel can't take Iran? I'm afraid that they could do so most handily. As they've demonstrated, Israel pretty much does what it wants over there, and taking out one of their neighbor's nuke plants has been done. (Yes, they've got the T-shirt.)

Iran is indeed a proven state sponsor of terrorism. At this point in time, it probably holds a greater numerical proportion of terrorists than any other country. (With some serious contention by Chechnya and Syria).

Where are you getting your intel, Russian?

Iran does indeed have good relations with Russia and China. Being as the US is decidedly not one of their supporters, that kind of left them with a short list of people to turn to.

Especially when the 2 countries on that list are in high demand of Iran's petroleum, which is a good close source for both countries, and is there in abundance. Supplying this commodity makes for unrealistically good relations.

Which brings us to another point. Iran sits on top of some of the most plentiful oil reserves on the planet, yet they need nuclear power? That's kind of like saying you have a near unlimited supply of coal to heat your your home, but would rather throw phosphorus in the fireplace for heat instead.

I don't think there would be quite the conflict between US/Russia/China that you think. Honestly, Russia and the US are nearly on the same page with the war on terror, and neither would be too upset at seeing Iran's government toppled. China I don't think cares much for Iran's government either way. All of this being contingent upon a deal being struck that would ensure that the oil from this region would keep flowing to all involved parties (especially if it were to be provided more or less for free, for a limited time). I could see this deal being struck behind the scenes quite readily- not by Israel, but the the 'big 3' amongst themselves. Better for all to profit than for all to lose out in some fashion or another. This could, of course, be instigated by Israel's proposed strike, but I don't think they would be interested in the political aspect in this manner-only eliminating the threat. More and more conflict will be centered around the oil in the years to come, and so long as those with the biggest straws in the glass can keep drinking, they're going to be satisfied regardless of who gets knocked off in the meantime.

With stealth aircraft such as the B-2 and F-117 hard to identify at night I wonder if the U.S. might kick the door open and then let the Israeli's finish the job with the F-16I and F-15I's.

With current events this is not out of the realm of possibility.

Originally posted by Q
Hmmm... I gotta disagree on some points here.

Israel can't take Iran? I'm afraid that they could do so most handily. As they've demonstrated, Israel pretty much does what it wants over there, and taking out one of their neighbor's nuke plants has been done. (Yes, they've got the T-shirt.)

I've actually seen a t-shirt that read: "5 days, *expletive for a female dog*!" Cracked me up! (Of course in reference to the five day war).

Israel has expected, almost demanded that the UN and U.S.A. take action on Iran and the nuclear issue. Diplomacy has failed so far and Iran has made it clear that they plan to continue with their nuclear plans for the "peacful production of energy".

If Israel acts alone and launches a strike on these Iranian nuclear sites I believe they are thinking that the U.S.A. will have no choise but to step in and back them up.

I hope this does not happen because a war in Iran could make the war in Iraq look like a simple training mission.

Gazz

This really comes as no surprise, Israel connot afford to allow iran to produce weapons grade plutonium. The country in my opinion is to unstable to have such capabilities.

The UN or IAEA needs to convince iran not to proceed with construction of there Heavy Water Nuclear Reactor. No good can come from them proceeding. Israel will hold true to there commitment and that would likely open a can of worms,something the region doesn't need.

Originally posted by UM_Gazz
If Israel acts alone and launches a strike on these Iranian nuclear sites I believe they are thinking that the U.S.A. will have no choise but to step in and back them up.
I hope this does not happen because a war in Iran could make the war in Iraq look like a simple training mission.

Gazz, you are right on with that. Iraq and Afgan would be a cake walk compared to trying to take Iran. While the population is by and large not happy with the hard core leadership, and attack by Israel and an attempted invasion could unify the population. Remeber Iraq thought that Iran was easy pickings and learned different. During that war people displayed a level of fanatism that made the VietCong look ho hum by comparison. As Clancy said in his last book "When you pull a tiger by his tail, make sure you have a plan for his teeth"

Originally posted by Q
Israel can't take Iran? I'm afraid that they could do so most handily. As they've demonstrated, Israel pretty much does what it wants over there, and taking out one of their neighbor's nuke plants has been done. (Yes, they've got the T-shirt.)

Which brings us to another point. Iran sits on top of some of the most plentiful oil reserves on the planet, yet they need nuclear power? That's kind of like saying you have a near unlimited supply of coal to heat your your home, but would rather throw phosphorus in the fireplace for heat instead.

Yes Israel could bomb the reactor but thats about it. "take" is a different story all together. Im assuming that you are talking about blowing up the reactor, and not actually invading?

In regards to the reactor. The US has large reserves of oil yet we have reactors. Yes, Iran pumps waaaay more than it can use. But who are we to tell another nation how to generate power. (Im not arguing that they don't want to enrich uranium), but the power aspect is thier call.

Iran has admitted it is in the final phase of designing a 40MW heavy water nuclear reactor at Arak.

A heavy water reactor is among the most dangerous in existence from a proliferation perspective. One reason is that the low neutron cross section of heavy water allows a high number of U238 (uranium-238 isotope) atoms to absorb neutrons, resulting in the production of a greater quantity and better quality of plutonium product from a heavy water reactor compared to a light water reactor.

Because heavy water reactors can use natural uranium, it is of concern in efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. A nation with a sufficiently powerful heavy water reactor can use it to turn uranium into bomb-usable plutonium without requiring enrichment facilities.

Yes, FredT, I was most assuredly referring to the destruction of the reactor. (As opposed to packing it up in crates and bringing it home? ) Of course, I would not see Israel invading Iran--for 2 main reasons.

1-Why would they want Iran? Too large an undertaking. As we in the US have learned, it sucks to try and run a country full of half-crazed and highly PO'ed Arabs, even for a short period of time. A surgical strike would accomplish the objective at minimal cost. Were Iran to retaliate for this strike, Israel would surely wipe their government from the face of the earth in short order. This would in turn open up an opportunity for the Iranian people to install the government they have been wanting for so long, and all without the ugly spectre of a foreign invasion as mentioned earlier. I used the term 'pro-US' loosely because, as pointed out, if we were to invade they'd see it as a justification for the ruling party's propaganda and further bolster their support. A change through other avenues would be much preferred by all sides, and I think would result in an Iran on a much more friendly relation with the US. Win-win situation for Iran, the US, and Israel to boot.

Thanks for the skinny on the reactors, sniper068. It is of note that in these cases, the US has offered to construct light-water reactors for countries of suspect WMD intent. Light water reactor=much difficulty in producing weapons-grade material. A shining example would be N. Korea, who we had gotten fairly far along in construction of when it was discovered that they just really wanted the nukes all along and work stopped. Were the same to happen in Iran, we'd encounter the same thing.

In order to gage Iran's intent in an undeniable, material-proof laden manner, one has only to look at the suspected WMD sites that were wiped clean before UN inspection could be carried out. Before and after pictures were taken. The first showed a busy industrial complex of some sort (watched for suspicion of being a WMD complex). Over a period of a couple of weeks, everything was removed and taken away--right down to the very dirt the place was built upon. When asked, Iran basically said "what complex? we don't know what you're talking about!"

In regards to the reactor. The US has large reserves of oil yet we have reactors. Yes, Iran pumps waaaay more than it can use. But who are we to tell another nation how to generate power. (Im not arguing that they don't want to enrich uranium), but the power aspect is thier call.

The problem is it's not a debate between oil and coal. It's oil and uranium. Big difference. Especially considering Iran is probably the biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

I could see Israel bombing the reactor, but not invading the country. The Israeli military is defense based. Projected Israeli power to a foreighn theater is probably unlikely. Any fighting with Israel by Iran in retaliation would probably come via Hezbollah in Lebanon and Palestinian groups in the West Bank and Gaza.

Israel is most likely going to strike the reactors if Iran doesn't stop and I don't think the US should back them up in any war type of situation and if Iran is stupid enough to declare war on the US for no reason they will get their arses handed to them we have surrounded Iran.

I have a question regarding weapons grade uranium. If a reactor is constructed to the point that it can produce electricity, how does that translate into what is needed to produce nuclear weapons? Can a reactor be designed to produce electricity and not create weapons grade uranium?

My point is, is there a way that Iran can achieve it's energy objectives without the side effect of creating the ingredients for a nuclear bomb? This would require that they submit to inspections, I assume.

I hope my questions make sense. I guess a 'no' answer to any of them would mean that Israel has no choice but to level Bushehr.

There are probably as many people who would say that Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism as there are, people who would say the same about the US and/or Israel.

So, quit the big talk about who will be able to pummell who, way too many IFs occurring here, if auntie had balls she'd be uncle.

I won't even ask what evidence there is to show the Iranian's are going to produce nuclear weapons. It doesn't relly matter, there is no way I would trust any UK or US intelligence on the matter.

I certainly wouldn't blame the Iranians for wanting to produce nuclear weapons in this new age of pre-emptive strikes, if there were ever justification for having such a deterrant Iran has it.

Originally posted by Koka
There are probably as many people who would say that Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism as there are, people who would say the same about the US and/or Israel.

People say lots of things. Talk is cheap. When you can prove that Western countries make it a policy to target and kill unambiguous noncombatants get back to me.

I certainly wouldn't blame the Iranians for wanting to produce nuclear weapons in this new age of pre-emptive strikes, if there were ever justification for having such a deterrant Iran has it.

So they're justified in obtaining nuclear weapons to maintain their government which

A. kills dissenters who seek to end the theocratic stranglehold the ayatollahs and mullahs possess over a vulnerable population

B. basically runs Hezbollah as its foreign military arm, the same group which has murdered mass numbers of Lebanese and Israelis, as well as 240 US Marines on peacekeeping duty, numerous airline hijackings, kidnappings of Westerners, and still continues attacks on Lebanese Christians and Israelis today

C. was the orchestrator of the 1994 terrorist bombing of a Jewish center in Buenos Aires, Argentina Which killed about 90 people and injured about 200 more

D. openly supports suicide bombing attacks by Palestinians against the civilian population of Israel

E and most definitely raided the American Embassy in Tehran and kidnapped and held American hostages between 1979 and Inauguration day, 1981?

By the way, theocratic, despotic governments do not have a right to exist. Those who deny the existence of them cannot then use such a concept to defend their sustenance. in other words, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

The answer is that "yes, it is possible to have a nuclear program which is entirely devoted to producing energy for civilian needs, and it has different technical characteristics than one which seems to be one for weapons production."

The other fact is "all of Iran's technical actions point to a weapons program and not an economically-based civilian power program."

Let's take the two hypotheses, 1) Iran wants a civilian nuclear capability for domestic electricity for economic benefits, so it can export its oil and gas. 2) Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Assuming that (1) is the truth, then one has to further presume that its decisions would be economically based---what will give us the most result for the least expenditure.

Here, the most obvious fact falls down: there is NO NEED to have uranium enrichment plants for civilian nuclear power. Why? Because reactor-grade uranium is very cheap thanks to the end of the cold war, with US and USSR blending down stocks of weapons uranium into larger amounts of power uraniuim. By far the most economical thing to do is to BUY it.

Second, it is very true that Iran can make more money exporting its oil---but natural gas is a different story. Yes you can liquefy it and ship it by tanker, but usually the infrastructure isn't there. For local power production, if you have lots of natural gas available locally, by far the easiest, most efficient and cheapest way of making power is to buy some of the modern gas turbines made by General Electric et cetera.

On the other hand, the massive capital expendure and research and development into building centrifuges has NO sensible economic value----unless you plan on enriching uranium past reactor grade into weapons grade. And you expect outside sources of uranium to stop shipment. Now why might they do that if you had only a friendly civilian program? Hmm?

And now, here is the kicker that makes it utterly transparent to all that Iran is building a weapons program: they are building a massive heavy water (deuterated water) plant.

What does this mean? Well, heavy water is used as a moderator in some kinds of nuclear reactors, though not the ones used for civilian power production in most places. On the other hand, it is really perfect for use in a nuclear reactor which is intentionally designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium---Werhner Heisenberg in the Nazi A-bomb program pursued this.

Again, if it were an entirely economic decision, the right thing to do woudl be to buy an "off-the shelf" light water (no deuterium) or even new gas-cooled power reactor from a major international engineering company, and then buy the fuel from them on th eworld market, and then ship them back to another country for storage or disposal.

And yet again, Iran is planning on building very expensive and environmentally dirty reprocessing plants---these are how you get the plutonium out of the reactor fuel after it's been in the reactor a few months. The US has plants in Hanford and Savannah River to do this. Hanford especially is a huge radioactive sheeeethole.