Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by Frira
...
I do realize that centrifuges can be used for creating fuel for power generation or for weapons. If Iran didn't want to have big bullseyes on their
NPP's why wouldn't they hide them?
Easy to answer: Because an up and running power generating plant that can be identified as NOT being a breeder reactor is not a military target-- not
to the US and not anyone else.
Centrifuges, as I understand it, are not so easy to identify as to purpose. The end product is easy to identify as to purpose.
If you do not have access to the end product to test, and the centrifuges are buried deep under ground and hidden from international investigators,
for example, then one MUST suspect the worst.
The scenario is easy enough to imagine. A nuclear device detonates in some port city and the nations of the world demand to know the origination of
the device. And while being shown videos of celebrating radical Muslims throughout the Middle East, the ENTIRE non-Muslim world is appalled, angry
and frightened. It becomes open season on mosques across the globe.
With no ability to verify Iran's innocence, Iran's guilt is assumed.
Harkening back to the Reagan-Carter election of 1980 during the "Iranian Hostage Crisis"
* "Bomb Iran" (sung to the tune of "Barbara Ann") played on the radio; and
* the joke "What is flat and glows in the dark the day after Regan takes office?" was on the lips of every American.
That Iranian leadership is willing to be a prime suspect in such a scenario is foolishness.
Consider Libya and the Pan Am flight. Libya made threats, and when something bad happened-- who got blamed? The Oklahoma City Federal Building.
Muslim Radicals made threats-- had even tried (and failed) to take down the Twin Towers by that time-- and who was the first to be suspected?
Consider the IRA (Irish Republican Army) prior to 9/11 and then after: Money, weapons and other support from US Irish radicals dried up overnight.
It was that or be hunted-- the American people would demand it and if the US government did not act, the people would take matters into their own
firearm filled hands.
I had grown up in a neighborhood with a good number of Jewish friends. The local synagogue which many attended was occasionally fired upon (at night)
so that the windows were destroyed. The night of 9/11; I saw scenes on TV from that same neighborhood where a mosque now exists, The police were
there to prevent any drive by shootings at the empty mosque. And there were not any-- but I guarantee it was on the minds of many.
Can you imagine what would happen if they had a plant up and running and it took a direct missile hit? Wouldn't that cause a lot of damage
for years!?
I can imagine-- and so can US military leaders who would therefore reject that option-- but instead make use of other options. Perhaps such options
have already been employed?
Iran's military could not resist a determined invasion force of US Marines, much less of an International force. so the extreme of a missile strike
of an operating nuclear power plant would never come up. By appearances, the Iranian nuclear program is already sufficiently infiltrated by foreign
interests.
For that matter (and I am not accusing-- only speculating)...
What if a German company has figure out a way to make billions of dollars and also make giant technological leaps over its competitors by contracting
with the Iranian government to assist in building nuclear research facilities-- BUT, in league with the German government's own strategic interests,
never intends the project to become operational? It would not be difficult to do. An computer virus here, a few unexplained explosions there-- and
the Germans have the money and the Iranians have
bupkis.
I say they should drop out of the NPT, North Korea did it and they aren't at risk of getting attacked.
Are you sure North Korea is not in danger of getting attacked? I am not at all sure of that.
Edit: I posted this on page 7 and I think it applies as well here.
It is their way of life, their religion, their mores, their morals, their values. I don't agree with it either, but, if we don't let nations act in
the way that they feel is best for their citizens, then we are giving all western nations free reign to go into any country that doesn't believe
exactly what they believe. So why not have a one world government then? That seems to be what you are advocating. I don't agree with that
either.edit on 10-1-2012 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)
It is a problem-- and the urgency, lacking an easy solution, creates danger.
Meanwhile...
The options remains in the sanctions: Stop hinting at nuclear weapons research and so let Iran prosper-- or don't.
Thanks for making me learn something new!
