Iran steps up nuclear warhead work, Israel media reports (Reuters)

reply to post by Xcathdra


Thanks for responding, I know the 400k may be a bit off, I got that number from wiki and it indicates the accumulated deathtoll acounted to the bombs up untill 4 months after the explosion.


I agree that it most likely would have cost more lives if US didnt drop those bombs, I also agree that the German/Japanese side did masskillings to a larger extend than the allied side, but I still dont see how killing thousands of innocents can be justified in any way. Not trying to bash the US involvement in that war, only questioning the use of nukes.


I admit I am one of those who wasn't aware that Japan attack the Phillipines. There's also a few conspiracies about the Pearl Harbor attack that need to be taken into the equation of who did what in which order and why.


To me it doesn't really matter, killing innocents is wrong no matter who started namecalling. Remeber it was the rulers in Japan and their military that made the attack not the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


You call these devastating nukes war I call it extreme terrorism because it was a attack directed on civilians to cause a general fear.


What is the equivalent number of civilian "collateral damage" compared to real casualty of war (military and government people) and who make those deccisions?

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by morethanyou

It's about money, not lives.

Iran is at war with the US... an economic war. They are retaliating in this economic war for the economic missiles we have been lobbing at them for several decades. Their only 'nuke' is to knock the oil price supports out from under the US dollar as the International Reserve Currency.

There has been no evidence, none, nada, zero, zip, that I can find showing any indication that Iran has enriched fuel to beyond 20%, save 'trace amounts' that were found at 27% one time. Nuclear weaponry uses 85% or greater. Power production uses 3-5%; nuclear research reactors (for use in medical and scientific research) use up to 20%. Neither is considered weapons-grade.

I have personally been on a witchhunt for nearly a week now, scanning every source and story and link that I could find, pouring over UN documentation, trying to find one, just one, instance where a measurable amount of uranium inside Iran has been found beyond the 20% enrichment level. I found none. I even asked ATS for help finding anything that would verify these claims... still nothing. So I am let with the only logical option left: There are no nuclear weapons under development in Iran.

If you know of any information showing improper enrichment in Iran, please please please post it!

I fear there may be some soon, though... the economic repercussions of depegging their oil from our dollar are so severe that we may introduce some nukes warhead-first... and since it would be folly for a superpower like the US to directly launch such an attack against a country with diplomatic ties to Russia and China, I expect the opening salvo to come from our ally Israel.

I know what you have been told; I once believed it myself. But I am finding out that, while Iran, like any country, is no angel, the US is today the much larger devil.

And Israel is our front line.

TheRedneck

I appreciate the time you have taken to try to enlighten me about this most dreadful situation. Thank you Redneck.

I have looked at your previous posts, trying to gauge from where you may be coming from. Your obviously intelligent, well versed, you know a lot about a lot of different things. One of the things you know in your heart is that every now and then you are wrong. I will even go as far as to say you would be the first to admit your not right all the time.

With respect, your wrong on this one.

Please do not let your hatred for the very country that has allowed you to be a redneck, blind your common sense.

What do you thinkall those nuclear scientists are doing deep down in the earth there in IRan?

1. Playing patty cakes?
2. Converting US dollars into Gold?
3. Selling Oil on the Iranian Bursary market?
4. Trying to make medical isotopes?
5. Protecting expensive medical equipment?

OR

6. Developing a nuclear device.


Have a shred of common sense please. Remove your blindfolds. Put away your hatred of your home country for a few days.

Please.

Oh BTW, just saying.

How about Israel try and bring fourth one ounce of proof? They always make claims through anonymous sources. Someone, somewhere said something. Give me a break.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. So what.. they couldn't take out Israel or the US?
North Korea 'might' have nuclear weapons, and they HAVE threatened to take out the US.
India has nuclear weapons.
And we KNOW that Israel has tons of nuclear weapons.

The whole region is one giant chess board. And the pieces are still moving. Iraq, and Afghanistan were a big move. Libya and now Syria are another piece move. And look what happens when all the pieces fall into place. Who ends up in check mate? Iran.

Guess who is one of the last nations NOT to have a Rothschild controlled banking system. You guessed it. Iran.

This is much bigger then just "poor widdle iswael is scawed for deir right to exist".....

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

While I can more than sympathize with your distrust of Iran, I believe that trust is not necessary in this case. Has Iran supplied arms to other countries? Yes. Did Iranian insurgents oppose the US in Iraq? Yes. But that is a far cry from developing nuclear weaponry. Ayatollah Khamenei (the supreme religious ruler) issued a fatwa (religious ruling) that banned nuclear weapons in 2005, yet apparently that isn't good enough.

Yet one article full of unsubstantiated allegations by Israel is?

I'm seeing a double standard here.

I am not holding Iran up as a shining example of all that is pure and good in the world, but I am saying that Israel calling them out on nuclear weaponry that there is no evidence of is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Xcathdra

Can you tell me why Iran needs an underground nuclear facility near their holiest city? Could it be an effort to restrict what might happen to it should it be attacked? I guarantee if the sites are bombed Iran is going to state the city was bombed and not the facility itself.

Why did Iran open that facility to inspections then? That would not be a wise move if clandestine operations against the UN were actually occurring there.

And really, if they did use the city as a shield, would that be the first time this has happened? Using civilian shields has happened throughout history in almost every country that has gone to war.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck

While I can more than sympathize with your distrust of Iran, I believe that trust is not necessary in this case. Has Iran supplied arms to other countries? Yes. Did Iranian insurgents oppose the US in Iraq? Yes. But that is a far cry from developing nuclear weaponry.

I don't agree with this conclusion.

All the facts you mentioned above are meant with a purpose, or objective. A hidden agenda, if you prefer. Having nuclear weapons actually helps them with achieving whatever they are trying to achieve by resorting to the same tactics you mentioned.

But, still, that's just my opinion.

Ayatollah Khamenei (the supreme religious ruler) issued a fatwa (religious ruling) that banned nuclear weapons in 2005, yet apparently that isn't good enough.

I actually recalled that while reading another member comments.

But then I realized how hypocrites we all are. We distrust and we misjudge our governments everyday, saying that what they claim is often a lie, or a mixture of lies, misinformation and truth.

On the same note, we give room to Iran just because their religious leader (the same that already some nasty remarks, and I'm not talking about the whole "wipe Israel of the map") said. Yes, a fatwa has a religious connotation and that is very important to these people.

But so is death, suicide and suffering. And yet, it's the same religion that twists those ideals into making people believe they are being just and honorable when blowing them-selfs up.

That's why I don't give much credibility to the fatwa. Not because I distrust them for any other reason.

Yet one article full of unsubstantiated allegations by Israel is?

I'm seeing a double standard here.

I agree with the second part. Most people pick sides and make heated arguments without having the full picture, or even knowing what they are talking about (emotional arguments).

As for the unsubstantiated allegations from Israel, I do agree. That's exactly why I'm calling for a decisive announcement, official based, that clears this issue once and for all.

If there is such an urgency into stopping Iran, and if they are actually very close to their supposed nuclear goals, then Israel should have a clear case by now, and even if they don't, at least show what you have. Clearly show it, and not just blow smoke up everyone's behind...

I am not holding Iran up as a shining example of all that is pure and good in the world, but I am saying that Israel calling them out on nuclear weaponry that there is no evidence of is definitely the pot calling the kettle black.

I do somewhat agree, but the issue is actually very complex.

From my understanding, and being a bit fair, the process into making 80% enrichment uranium is exactly the same for making 20 or 5% enrichment.

Iran already has a nuclear power-plant (contrary to common belief that are still seeking it), and has several disclosed locations for production of fuel.

Israel (and U.S.) suspicion comes from the fact that Iran also has hidden facilities for the same purpose they have other facilities that aren't hidden. Why hide some and not all? This doesn't make sense even for their own good. If they are right, and are not doing anything wrong, then they should also make a clear case about what they are doing. And that is not true at all.

They constantly make stupid mistakes, and then label them as "not all that important". Xcathdra named a few regarding the disclosure of equipment, facilities and equipment.

I understand the need for nuclear power, and the fact that they could depend on it for internal consumption and use oil for profit, but is it worth the risk? Is it worth it being leveled by Israel and western forces, while you are sitting on the second biggest world supply of natural gas?

Like you said, it's very hard to make a clear case, to either side (pro or against Iran). And neither side is making it easier for us to understand what is really going on. I just think it's an issue that shouldn't be taken lightly, since we are actually talking about nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Mimir
Thanks for responding.

Sure thing.. more opinions / viewpoints the more engaging the topic is.

Originally posted by Mimir
I agree that it would have cost more lives if US didnt drop those bombs, I also agree that the German/Japanese side did masskillings to a larger extend than the allied side, but I still dont see how killing thousands of innocents can be justified in any way. Not trying to bash the US involvment in that war, only questioning the use of nukes.

For WWII is all comes down to culture when we look at reasons surrounding Japan.

When the fighting made it to Germany, the engagements were between military units intermixed with partisans. For the most part though german civilians went about their lives, whether the city they were in was under german or allied occupation.

The Japanese culture during this time had a warriors ethos. No surrender.
Had the United States launched an invasion of the Japanese mainland it would not be solely between military forces. The Japanese civilians would not act in the same fashion as the Germans. For Japan its death before dishonor.

Nuclear weapons or a military invasion, the body count among civilians would be massive and the losses for the military would be right up there.

Now, based on their culture, knowing they will fight to the bitter end, what makes more strategic sense? Using military soldiers as cannon fodder or use a nuclear weapon? In an instance like this the question becomes a moral one with the major problem being its a catch-22.

Japan attacked the United States and declared war. If you were the US President during this time you would need to answer these questions.
* - How many civilians will die if I order an invasion?
* - How many of those civilians would stand with the Imperial Army if we invaded?
* - What type of casualties could we expect to see for an invasion?

In this case we know an invasion and / or using a nuke will result in the same result - a large death toll.. At that point the question becomes which option will result in lower US casualties?

Originally posted by Mimir
I admit I am one of those who wasn't aware that Japan attack the Phillipines. There's also a few conspiracies about the Pearl Harbor attack that need to be taken into the equation of who did what in which order and why.

The conspiracy was the US administration new the attack was coming but failed to act in an effort to gain support for enterance to the war. The flaw with that theory is whether its a sneak attack or known attack, both result in war.

WWII and Japans military actions did not start in the early 1940's. Both Germany and Japan had been at war for years before the US became involved in 1941. It was only a matter of time before Japan and the US came to blows.

Originally posted by Mimir
To me it doesn't really matter, killing innocents is wrong no matter who started namecalling. Remeber it was the rulers in Japan and their military that made the attack not the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I agree about killing innocent civilians however when it comes to Japan you cannot use western morals to understand them.

If you were captured by the Japanese military you were considered, essentially, worthless with no need to be respected.

An insight into the Japanese mindset -
The last 2 confirmed WWII Imperial Japanese military members surrendered in March and December...

of 1974.

Originally posted by Mimir
You call it war I call it terrorism.

I call it self defense....

Originally posted by Mimir
What is the equivalent number of civilians compared to real casualty of war and who make those deccisions?

Civilians are suppose to be off limits - period. During times of war you cannot intentionally target civilians. I use the term intentionally because, as with any war, casualties are not contained to just the battlefield and the military.

Again when comparing to Japan you must keep in mind their culteral beliefs. An invasion of their mainland would not be fought by just the military. The 2 cities chosen were based on their military impotance to the Japanese war effort. If I remember right Nagasaki was not the origional 2nd city. The city that was targeted was overcast, resulting in the shift to Nagasaki.

The possession and use of nuclear weapons is a massive responsibility. For the US and USSR we understood mutual destruction and it worked well.

Iran and some other countries dont view them as a deterence. They view them as one massive suicide bomber to be used on the enemy. The rules of war change when the enemy demonstrates a callous attitude towards human life.

"Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges"

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy


Whats with that one-sided approach?? Shouldn't an equal degree of consideration be allotted to the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear Weapon? Consider the consequences: If Iran IS developing a nuclear weapon - they will attack Israel with it as they said they would.

Given the threat of annihilation, Israel isn't "acting childishly" anymore than a parent who discovers that a sex offender moved in next door takes precautions that his children won't interact with him. If a danger is known to exist - and Iran as an Islamist shi'ite regime who believes in an eschatalogical process in which a state of chaos will precipitate the coming of their 12'th and final imam, a fundamental tenant of Shi'ite Islam - than a reasonable person should take precaution against it.

The "hysteria" people imagine to be animating Israel's concern with Iran is more accurately displayed by those critics who refuse to even acknowledge the presence of a threat; it's immoral to deny that Iran's rhetoric against Israel, it's pursuit of Nuclear technology and it's shi'ite apocalyptic ethos doesn't combine to form a credible threat against Israel.

Any honest analysis of this subject reveals the real nature of the threat; it's unfortunate that it exists, it's unfortunate that Israel has to heighten awareness of it, but most of all, it's unfortunate that so many people are lodging their heads in the sand because of some deep seeded unconscious antipathy to Israel's very existence, preferring a probable nuclear holocaust in Israel's economic heartland (tel-aviv/Haifa) to a justified military campaign against an invidious threat in Iran.

reply to post by morethanyou

What do you thinkall those nuclear scientists are doing deep down in the earth there in IRan?

1. Enriching uranium for power production (5% LEU)
2. Enriching uranium for use in their research reactors (

reply to post by DerekJR321


Pakistan....
North Korea...
India...

Neither are signatories to the NPT / IAEA system.

Israel has never confirmed if they have nukes or not. If people are going to argue its a foregone conclusion then the same standard and mentality applies to Iran and their program.

Iran is a member and signatory to both treaties. They can either abide by them or they can choose to ignore them. Currently they seem to be ignoring them which is problematic.

All Iran needs to do is withdraw from the treaties...

If Iran has nothing to hide then why the secret fcilities? Why the underground facilities? While the denial to the UN teams to site locations? If Iran were to withdraw from the treaty it would confirm they have ulterior goals for their program. By refusing to comply with the treaty but not withdrawing from it is a stall tactic and nothing more.

reply to post by dontreally


I understand why you draw that conclusion from my first post(s), but you should read the rest of my posts in this thread to understand how I view the whole issue.

I'm not against Israel. I'm not against Iran either.

But the perspective of Iran having nukes, with the allies they have, in the region they are in, does concern me. That's why, if there is the reality of a nuke coming, I wish that Israel grows up in their rhetoric and do some actual, proper intel work, so that we all can be sure of what's coming, instead of keeping these discussions on a loop.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Why did Iran open that facility to inspections then? That would not be a wise move if clandestine operations against the UN were actually occurring there.

The question you should be asking is why did they hide the facility? If the facility was never discovered by the west do you beleive Iran would have disclosed it? The disclosure and inspection only came after they got caught.

Iran has a track record of denying access to locations, only to allow inspections after they have cleaned the site up. Satellite images confirm those actions. why?

Originally posted by TheRedneck
And really, if they did use the city as a shield, would that be the first time this has happened? Using civilian shields has happened throughout history in almost every country that has gone to war.

The problem here though is you are mixing a shield with a religion. An attack on the facility on Qom wont be an attack on a facility, but Islam. Its no different than insurgents engaging coalition forces from schools, hospitals or mosques. The moment an incident occurs it becomes coalitions forces attacked a hospital, a school or a mosque.

The government of Iran, from their legislature to their judicial to their president to their schools, hospitals etc etc etc.. Its not an attack on the government of Iran and its not an attack on the country of IRan. Because their religion affects every single aspect of their lives in all of those areas I listed, any attack / action is an attack on their beliefs and by extension, Allah.

reply to post by dontreally


Excellent points..

I would like to add that people seem to ignore some key fundamentals between the various players in this drama.

For the US and USSR the possession of nuclear weapons was political. So long as we could destroy each other 20 times over, resulting in no clear winner, both sides were ok with that. The use of nukes in an effort to invade a country is self defeating. If the goal is occupation then why use nukes?

For Iran it goes beyond politics and becomes moral / religious for them (in general and not all iranains). During times of war nations try to restrict actions to military targets. When a government is a religion, and their enemy is not a religious one the concern is not on civilian casualties for them. Its how many of the unfaithful / non believers / infadels can they take out.

Military - One shot one kill.
Religious - They dont target one person.. Its a waste of their time. In their strategy its successful when the body count is high.
Military - Military targets.
Religion - Military and civilian targets because to them they are one in the same.

The main concern Israel has, in my opinion, is not Iran developing a nuke and missle that can carry it to hit Israel. Iran is a backer of Hamas and Hezzbullah. The nightmare scenario is for Iran to transfer a nuke to on of those groups to get in in to / close to Israel cities.

If we compare Iran and Israel and their positions you will see the following -
Israel constantly discussing Irans nuclear program and the intent behind it. They have discussed taking military action to attack the nuke sites and prevent Iran from getting one.

Iran on the other hand calls for the destruction of Israel / Israeli government a couple of times a week.

While both positions are a threat to the other, only one nation - Iran, is threatening a complete and total destruction of Israel.

The destruction of a military facility and the destruction of an entire nation and its people are not the same thing.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well...apparently we agree on most of these issues and im relieved to know that you dont think killing innocents is ok.

(Hypothetical questions no reason to answer)
I would hate to wake up and find out I was wrong on this but I seriously doubt Iran would play the giant suicide-bomber. What would happen to Iran if it managed to set off nukes in a few major US cities and maybe to devastate most of Israel?

My answer is they would get power owned to a degree that wouldnt leave any chance of Iran to be ressurected, while on the other hand US and Israel would recover slowly over time - what would Iran gain by that....?
The Iranian leadership may be extremists, that threaten or lure people to commit terrorism, but they are not dumb. They know if they set of the described attack their days of rule would be over instantly, which is not in their interest....they live as kings already....a few vigins in heaven wont satisfy their exorbitant lifestyle on Earth.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

All the facts you mentioned above are meant with a purpose, or objective.

Yes, they are. That goes for every nation: Iran, the US, Israel, Britain, Russia, China, and some insignificant little island nation sitting in the South Pacific with no name.

The trick is discovering that purpose, as opposed to accepting the purpose stated.

Yes, a fatwa has a religious connotation and that is very important to these people.

Possibly more so than we have been led to believe in the Western world.

Part of my research has been into the religious aspects as well as the political and economic. Religion plays a huge role in the lives of those in the Middle East, but I am finding that it cannot be lumped together. The Sunni Muslim and the Shia Muslim, for example, have radically different views on their religion and radically different interpretations of the religious documents. The Sunni tend to take a more lax view on the spiritual aspects and a more intense view on the physical aspects... so for them, it is easy to believe that destruction of all who oppose them is demanded of their god, while ignoring the pain their actions cause others (including their own countrymen). A suicide bombing can be seen as obedience to their leaders and therefore to their god. The Shia, from what I am finding, are more spiritual and consider the greater good of humanity as a religious goal rather than the superiority of themselves physically. That means for them, an unjust war or violent action against anyone without cause is a sin.

Quite a different interpretation, and remember that Iran is a Shia nation, whereas most of the other Islamic nations in the area are not.

Of course, that does not mean I believe Iran should not continue to disclose and be inspected; as you say, nuclear capability is not an issue that should be taken lightly, especially with all the conflicts in the area. I simply think the rhetoric needs to be toned down unless something more concrete than "I think they're going to someday..." is found.

From my understanding, and being a bit fair, the process into making 80% enrichment uranium is exactly the same for making 20 or 5% enrichment.

Somewhat, yes. And it is true that it takes less time to create 80% enrichment from 20% enrichment than it does to create 20% enrichment from 5% enrichment. But then again, how many years have gone by now with these allegations? I honestly believe that, should I wish to do so and had the funds to purchase or build the necessary equipment, I could have produced a nuclear bomb by now! (Note to any alphabet agencies reading this: I have neither the inclination nor the funds; fear not.)

They constantly make stupid mistakes, and then label them as "not all that important". Xcathdra named a few regarding the disclosure of equipment, facilities and equipment.

Is it mistakes, or arrogant oversights?

What exactly has Iran done to warrant these inspections in the first place? I know of no time they have declared war on another country outside of the Iran-Iraq War (which Iraq instigated by invading first). They did, as I have admitted, actively oppose the US when we invaded Iraq, but could that not be seen as self-defense against an invading country that might have them in their sights next (which we apparently do)?

If the UN demanded tomorrow that the US open all its nuclear sites and weapons development sites to the UN, how many would suddenly be 'forgotten' because we would consider them none of the UN's business? I'm not arguing that the inspections be stopped, of course, but rather am trying to see the situation from both sides.

I understand the need for nuclear power, and the fact that they could depend on it for internal consumption and use oil for profit, but is it worth the risk? Is it worth it being leveled by Israel and western forces, while you are sitting on the second biggest world supply of natural gas?

While it might not be for us, it might well be or them. Speaking as someone from the South, I have no problem understanding the concept of "It's my damn country; I'll do with it as I want!"

Like you said, it's very hard to make a clear case, to either side (pro or against Iran). And neither side is making it easier for us to understand what is really going on. I just think it's an issue that shouldn't be taken lightly, since we are actually talking about nuclear weapons.

Agreed. My conscience at this point in my research is not going pro-Iran or anti-Iran... it's actually going anti-US-and-Israeli-activities-which-caused-this-mess.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


U.N. Finds Uranium in Iran Enriched to Higher Level

The report, by the International Atomic Energy Agency, an arm of the United Nations based in Vienna, said its inspectors had taken environmental samples at a uranium-enrichment plant in a mountain bunker and discovered purities up to 27 percent.

Khamenei aide: Iran will increase enrichment if world pressure persists

Iran will increase its level of uranium enrichment if world powers continue to place pressure on the country over its nuclear program, a senior cleric warned Saturday.

"Iran is now capable of enriching uranium at a 20-percent level, but if they (world powers) continue their pressure, we will increase enrichment levels to 56 percent," said Reza Taqavi, a close aide to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The remarks, carried by ISNA news agency, followed media reports that parliament was preparing a bill urging the defense ministry to design nuclear-powered ships, whose fuel would require enriching uranium to over 50 per cent.

reply to post by Xcathdra

Iran has a track record of denying access to locations, only to allow inspections after they have cleaned the site up. Satellite images confirm those actions. why?

Wait... we have satellite images confirming cleanup? I would really like to see those; do you have any links or references for them?

So far as I have found evidence of, inspectors have found several sites that Iran did not report, but were immediately given access when they were found. Others were not initially reported but were reported before discovery from outside inspections.

Not 100% compliance, by any means, but not exactly cause to lob bombs at them either... unless those satellite images show what you claim.

The problem here though is you are mixing a shield with a religion.

Same thing.

During the 1860s, when the Confederacy was scoring victories over the Union army, Abraham Lincoln used slavery as an issue to get the United States behind the war effort. During World War II, Adolph Hitler used German superiority to convince the German people to accept his plans. Every leader who has accomplished anything militarily has used ideals to motivate and mobilize the people.

And remember, we are not talking about a missile site, but an enrichment facility. If hostilities have not been declared or evidence uncovered of nuclear weapon ambitions, what would be the justification for dropping a bomb onto it anyway? We are not at war with Iran (yet), and so far Iran has not declared war on us. Yet we somehow made the leap from peaceable relations to identifying military targets and concerning ourselves with collateral damage?

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Mimir
Well...apparently we agree on most of these issues and im relieved to know that you dont think killing innocents is ok.

Of course we are on the same page.. I am just pointing out that nations place the value of life at differing levels based on their own beliefs / positions etc.

Originally posted by Mimir
(Hypothetical questions no reason to answer)
I would hate to wake up and find out I was wrong on this but I seriously doubt Iran would play the giant suicide-bomber. What would happen to Iran if it managed to set off nukes in a few major US cities and maybe to devastate most of Israel?

My answer is they would get power owned to a degree that wouldnt leave any chance of Iran to be ressurected, while on the other hand US and Israel would recover slowly over time - what would Iran gain by that....?
The Iranian leadership may be extremists, that threaten or lure people to commit terrorism, but they are not dumb. They know if they set of the described attack their days of rule would be over instantly, which is not in their interest....they live as kings already....a few vigins in heaven wont satisfy their exorbitant lifestyle on Earth.

The hypothetical is a good one. My answer is along the same lines as our Japanese culture discussion and the value of human life.

The mindset of most nations / militaries and actions revolves around military targets, not civilian. The goal is to engage the enemy military, not civilians. The goal is to limit the death of civilians as they are not military targets.

Now, take the mindset of Iran. You have a nation who places value on life so long as they are of the same religion / subsect of religion. In that mindset there is no difference between Israeli civilians and the Israeli government - They are one in the same. Because of that they are able to justify actions that we view as unacceptible and barbaric.

For the west we make a distinction between politics / military and civilians. We view the latter as being separate from the first 2 during times of armed conflict. The battle plan is based on politics and military strategy where theirs is based on religion.

One last point revolves around numbers of nuclear weapons. If the US and USSR engaged in nuclear warfare, it would involve hundreds on both sides. The response is based on the fact its mutually assured destruction.

What do you think should be the reaction if a nation only uses 1 nuclear weapon against another? While a WMD was used, its only 1. In a response the nation would need to decide if they should respond with nukes of their own and how many?

When only one is used its easy to be pissed yet forced to not respond because its only one. A reaction mindset will be nuclear weapons are so bad and cause so much damage that a response is not proprtional or practical. Anything more than one and you run the risk of hitting the point of no return. - where a nation MUST respond with nukes.

Also nuclear weapons are not going to be limited to military targets. It would mean a retaliating nation is going to target cities, resulting in civilian casualties. If its only one nuke its harder to justify a nuclaer response on one of their cities. It serves no purpose aside from tit for tat.

All Iran needs is one nuke and they can accomplish their threats towards Israel while at the same time limiting a response back to them.

reply to post by TheRedneck

Yes, they are. That goes for every nation: Iran, the US, Israel, Britain, Russia, China, and some insignificant little island nation sitting in the South Pacific with no name.

The trick is discovering that purpose, as opposed to accepting the purpose stated.

I agree. We should not allow prejudice or wrong notions to cloud our minds and our conclusions.

Quite a different interpretation, and remember that Iran is a Shia nation, whereas most of the other Islamic nations in the area are not.

Yes, I also agree with what you say. Iran's also have a very directed sense of pride, where most other islamic nations follow a vague idea, Iranians actually have a history they can relate to, in specific points in history. I think that's one of the reasons why they don't act so "loose" like other islamic-led countries.

More wise, I guess.

I simply think the rhetoric needs to be toned down unless something more concrete than "I think they're going to someday..." is found.

I think this is where our conclusions start to follow parallel, but different paths.

As I see it, we cannot take the risk of being THAT wrong about Iran. If we were discussing something like what Germany had to face after WW1 (limitations to military power and numbers), I would provably agree with you. We have no right to be that double-standard, and a country has the right to defend itself.

But we are stepping very close to nuclear territory. And although it might not be clear that Iran is pursuing nuclear power, it's also not clear that they are not.

Making efforts into cleaning facilities before U.N. (IAEA) inspects them doesn't help their case. I know it seems that people always fall back to the same episodes, but I don't take it lightly that a country accused of pursuing nuclear weapons starts picking up bulldozers and doing such an extensive cleaning job that they actually move tons of dirt. If you assume they are going after a nuke, that dirt could have retained the same levels of enrichment that you are seeking to confirm any of your theories.

Besides, 20% is used for medical research and treatment. But then again, this raises several issues...

1- Since they did sign the NPT, they are not only obligated to follow negative rules. They have also positive rules. For instance, they are actually allowed to buy nuclear fuel for their power-plants. Is it economically worthy to go through all this trouble for fuel, if you can just purchase it? Making your own is always better, but that case only works if you don't have Israel and all the western nations hovering you and asking what you are doing.

2- Also, the medical purposes can be achieved with outsourcing. Making a secret facility, that is also protected by the fact it's a natural bunker, and then claiming it's for medical use, seems a bit odd, doesn't it? Especially if you consider that they have public and non-protected facilities producing enriched material for their power-plants.

3- If you are going for a peace set of mind, making missiles, having dubious facilities, making protocol mistakes, avoiding proper inspections, DON'T go in your favor. Iran is not only doing something that they are supposedly entitled to, they are also making parallel paths that aren't as clear as we might wish.

As recently as January 2012, Iran has tested several long-range missiles.

As much as I want to give in and say this is all unnecessary and fear propaganda, I can't see Iran with such a clear cut that I label them "innocent".

And it is true that it takes less time to create 80% enrichment from 20% enrichment than it does to create 20% enrichment from 5% enrichment. But then again, how many years have gone by now with these allegations?

Enough years to reach a dangerous level, if they are doing it.

Not only that, but Iran is reported to have thousands of centrifuges and enrichment equipment. If they have achieved 20%, and it's a public fact acknowledged even by them, then why is that hard to assume that they haven't reached an above level?

From my understanding, putting it in "ignorant" terms, it's like having a water-fall, or a water canal. Each step enrich's the elements further. If that is the case, with all their secret facilities, and the amount of equipment we know they have, they start to look like that suspicious character looming around a bank with a lump on his jacket.

Is it mistakes, or arrogant oversights?

I don't know. But neither are acceptable, in my opinion.

What exactly has Iran done to warrant these inspections in the first place?

Well, their president isn't very west-friendly, at least in his rhetoric. I can't really answer that, but the fact remains that Iran is considered a threat. Either by what they say, or by what they do.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Wait... we have satellite images confirming cleanup? I would really like to see those; do you have any links or references for them?

So far as I have found evidence of, inspectors have found several sites that Iran did not report, but were immediately given access when they were found. Others were not initially reported but were reported before discovery from outside inspections.

Satellite images suggest Iran cleaning up evidence of nuclear weapons work

A few years back at another location the same thing occured. Buildings demolished and soil removed from the area.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Not 100% compliance, by any means, but not exactly cause to lob bombs at them either... unless those satellite images show what you claim.

Devils advocate - Can you show me in UN resolutions on Iran, in the NPT or the IAEA information where it states a nation may comply based on percentages? Its the same argument with Iraq and their programs prior to the 2003 invasion. No where in those resolutions / agreements does it state Iraq can have small quantities of weapons.

In this area is pretty much black and white.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Same thing.

During the 1860s, when the Confederacy was scoring victories over the Union army, Abraham Lincoln used slavery as an issue to get the United States behind the war effort. During World War II, Adolph Hitler used German superiority to convince the German people to accept his plans. Every leader who has accomplished anything militarily has used ideals to motivate and mobilize the people.

Actually they are not. The examples you gave above are based on political issues, not religious ones. The slavery issue didnt so much revolve around religious morals / viewpoints but states rights. The civil war was not fought over religion.

Germany is the same... Political goals not religious ones.

Irans game plan revolves around religion, not politics. People need to understand that while Islam is a religion, its also a political system, banking system, judicial system, military system. All actions taken are done so based on their religious doctrine and beliefs.

When we used nuclear weapons on Japan the goal was to end the war.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons their goal will be to end the existance of a country / religion, not a conflict.

And remember, we are not talking about a missile site, but an enrichment facility. If hostilities have not been declared or evidence uncovered of nuclear weapon ambitions, what would be the justification for dropping a bomb onto it anyway? We are not at war with Iran (yet), and so far Iran has not declared war on us. Yet we somehow made the leap from peaceable relations to identifying military targets and concerning ourselves with collateral damage?

TheRedneck