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

Originally posted by TheRedneck

NPT / IAEA requirements -

Quite a list. Let's take them one at a time:

Failure to report facilities to the UN that are connected to their nuclear program.

Which facilities at which times? I would appreciate references to UN or IAEA documentation.

I provided you with a list of issue.

I have taken the time to research the issues and decide which one seem valid and which ones dont, which arent listed.

My advice to you, respectfully, would be to research those issues for yourself. I am not going to do all the work for people who dont want to take the extra step of researching the side of the coin they dont agree with. If you are truely seeking answers, then the only way to become convinced one way or the other is for you to learn the information on your own.

Absent doing that it becomes problematic because people view the info as coming from a person who doesnt see the issue in the same manner, allowing you to dimiss the info more easily than if you researched it on your own.

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
No, it happens when somebody like you refuses to learn form history and fact. You are deceiving yourself by refusing to take-in factual information. It's hard to get across a valid factual point when somebody is too interested in making things up for their own preference.

lol...go read and learn then come back and join the conversation on Iran. Making things up? What was made up? By all emans point it out and then support your position. Its easy to do.. Just look at my posts which have the info as well as the links as to where it came from.

Something that is missing in your posts and accusations... which is more akin to making things up.

For your crusade with Assange pick any number of existing threads and we can go from there. For Iran please learn something about the situation and stay on topic.

For the I ahte America because I am too inorant to learn there are plenty of those threads around as well. Feel free to choose one of those and knock yourself..

Originally posted by InsideYourMind
First i am not an american citizen.

On the off chance you care, because I dont, this is where I stopped caring about your position and posts. If you arent familiar with our laws or history and express absolutely no desitre to learn about them why should we waste time responding to your basless and ignorant claims?

Do you have anythign what so ever about Iran.. you know.. the topic of this thread?

reply to post by Xcathdra

This is one of the better discussion I have been invovled in so thank you for that.

Yes, yes it has. I am afraid, however, you will need a little patience to get my reply this time, as I have a busy day ahead. But rest assured I have a rebuttal.

TheRedneck

reply to post by sonnny1


how can something be hidden if its found and did Iran declare the site as being hidden ?

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Xcathdra

This is one of the better discussion I have been invovled in so thank you for that.

Yes, yes it has. I am afraid, however, you will need a little patience to get my reply this time, as I have a busy day ahead. But rest assured I have a rebuttal.

TheRedneck

Dont worry about time.. I would rather have a well thought and and documented response than piecemeal answers.

Take your time and just shoot me a U2U when you respond.

reply to post by glasshouse

I'm no war-monger but I think it's fair to say that wars have ended more than one atrocity that never would have been ended by peaceful resistance.

No they haven't. However, wars are much more glorified than peace, for a whole set of reasons.

War is cheap, vulgar, and easy. While peace and wisdom must be achieved through education, reason and thought.

That's why you see more examples of the first rather than the second. All major civil rights that you have today, were achieved by peace, and not by war.

Actually, it seems to have worked fairly well.

No, they didn't. Billions were spent on it, more billions were spent on defense because of it, and even more billions were spent on just trying to keep surveillance on the warheads. None of which were ever used, becoming a enviorment hazard.

That is very far from the definition of "working". The only result that came from nuclear weapons was the fact that mankind lived with fear of total destruction for decades. That's the only thing that came out of it. We spent decades on fear. Is that "working"?

It isn't to me.

While there were a few proxy conflicts, the threat of mutually assured destruction prevented a straight up war between the two sides that still has not occurred.

So instead of a major conflict that would be much more decisive (war is necessary sometimes, although it hasn't been for a long time) and for the right reasons, we had several covert and manipulative conflicts, that have given fruit to one of the worst problems we have today... Hidden terrorism and hidden agendas.

I say this with a lot of respect, but you seem to have your definitions of success and efficiency backwards.

Living in fear is never a good thing. No matter how people try to spin it. And that's all what nukes have brought us, fear.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

I'm no war-monger but I think it's fair to say that wars have ended more than one atrocity that never would have been ended by peaceful resistance.

No they haven't

You will never convince me that, in order to end the holocaust and unrelenting march of nazi germany across europe, all we had to do was stage a sit in. The suggestion is absurd.

That is very far from the definition of "working"

We spent decades on fear. Is that "working"?

I guess it depends on what metric you use. You apparently prefer the metrics of money and fear.
I prefer to use the metric of lives lost vs the potential number of lives that would have been lost.
I'd prefer to be broke and paranoid than see millions around the world vaporized.
The fear of mutually assured destruction has, to this point, saved lives.
The Soviet Union was bankrupted by trying to keep up with our weapons programs as well as continuing to fight the proxy war in Afghanistan. After the collapse, millions of people were free from a communist dictatorship.

So instead of a major conflict that would be much more decisive

If by decisive you mean the total destruction of two countries and everyone in them, I would would probably go with the alternative.

All major civil rights that you have today, were achieved by peace, and not by war.

I think a quick review of the American Revolution and the American Civil War would suggest otherwise.

I say this with a lot of respect, but you seem to have your definitions of success and efficiency backwards.

I don't believe, in any of my earlier statements, I attempted to define "success" or "efficiency".
But, if it would please you, I'll attempt to use them both in a sentence:
I consider it a "success" that millions of people have not been vaporized yet.
I consider it a poor model of "efficiency" to take a bull horn to a gun fight.
Just sayin

reply to post by glasshouse

You will never convince me that, in order to end the holocaust and unrelenting march of nazi germany across europe, all we had to do was stage a sit in. The suggestion is absurd.

If you are already convinced, why are you still posting? From what you are saying, it's futile to debate your points.

But anyway...

World War 2 started because Germany started hostilities towards Poland. 2 days later Great Britain declared war on Germany, and WW2 was starting to unfold.

Now, I do agree that the U.S. participation - and scale of participation - was extremely necessary. Hitler was to be stopped at all costs.

But have you cared to think backwards, and analyze the real problem?

If people would care about peace, and acted as conscious and responsible citizens, the holocaust and the rise of Hitler would never have happened. Are we conveniently forgetting about that? Are we supposed to accept that the decades of humiliation and attacks on Germany, that fueled the fire of hate, never happened? Are we supposed to believe that Hitler didn't spend year after year marching, protesting and making racist and extremist speeches?

He did gave warnings. Even before he was in power. But he was able to reach power for two main reasons:

1- People didn't care to act when it was time, ignoring his words and his extremist inhumane concepts.
2- Nobody outside of Germany cared for what was growing in their politics, because they had just been defeated in WW1. "poor germans" people thought...

Like I said, and I say again: war is avoidable. People just need to care and be responsible enough to avoid it.

I guess it depends on what metric you use. You apparently prefer the metrics of money and fear.

I don't need to use metrics. I'm very well capable of understanding and formulating complex thoughts and concepts.

I referred money because it's a humanitarian waste to spend billions on developing weapons that you aren't going to use anyway, spend billions just looking at them, and then spend billions on security because the modern risk of a nuclear attack is actually greater than before.

We spent billions on creating a problem, but people continue to argue over "what if's" and imaginary scenarios.

Can you imagine where mankind would be if that same amount of effort would be put into real, useful, science?

Just saying...

And by the way, don't twist my words into fitting your arguments. That's weak.

I prefer to use the metric of lives lost vs the potential number of lives that would have been lost.

I don't want to scare you, but the risk of millions being vaporized is actually greater today, than before.

The only thing that changed are the guys behind the buttons.

That alone puts a big, flashing "USELESS" sign on the top of nukes.

I'd prefer to be broke and paranoid than see millions around the world vaporized.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

The fear of mutually assured destruction has, to this point, saved lives.

I think it hasn't. It just changed the realities of war. Instead of direct conflicts, you started to have proxy wars. Death and suffering were always there. But instead of defending your home, you were defending your politics.

People often forget that right after WW2, the Korean war started. And a couple of years after, Vietnam started.

I think you are starting to understand where I'm going with this.

MAD hasn't saved anyone. It just inspired fear into everyone's soul.

Even the U.S. and URSS admitted to that. Yet you are defending it.

The Soviet Union was bankrupted by trying to keep up with our weapons programs as well as continuing to fight the proxy war in Afghanistan.

No. The Soviet Union collapsed on it's own weight. There are a lot more political details than just a small proxy war and a weapons program. It's actually other major politics inside the URSS that started to bring it down.

Proof of that is that the weapons program continued active - although a lot smaller - after the Soviet Union fell.

If by decisive you mean the total destruction of two countries and everyone in them, I would would probably go with the alternative.

If the only option was all-out war, both countries would avoid it. Since they had the fear of nukes in them, they opted for proxy wars.

With no nukes, you only had one way to act: with balls.

And anyway, you can't use that as an argument because you can't predict alternative path's in history. Neither can I, for that matter.

I think a quick review of the American Revolution and the American Civil War would suggest otherwise.

World history proves otherwise.

reply to post by glasshouse

I don't believe, in any of my earlier statements, I attempted to define "success" or "efficiency".

You have stated that MAD and nuclear weapons ended saving lives. I think that's a classification of success.

I consider it a "success" that millions of people have not been vaporized yet.

Is that a real argument?

I could state that millions haven't been vaporized because I'm awesome and have a direct link to both presidents, and I'm so cool when I pop my words that both have listened to my rap lyrics and avoided MAD.

You can't prove a negative.

We haven't been vaporized yet by pure luck. You should educate yourself on how often we were close to be vaporized.

This one is my favorite(since it really illustrates how safe we all were):

Fortunately, this nuclear nightmare was only an error in the United States’ detection system, not an actual attack. A training tape that simulated the signals of a massive Soviet nuclear first-strike had been mistakenly loaded into a computer the U.S. Strategic Air Command’s Cheyenne Mountain control center, nestled deep in the Colorado mountains. This mistake was discovered when U.S. leaders viewed the raw-data from the Defense Support Program’s (DSP) early warning satellites.

Thank you M.A.D.!

I consider it a poor model of "efficiency" to take a bull horn to a gun fight.

If people weren't so keen on having gun fight's, bull horns were all that we would ever need, and unnecessary death wouldn't be a daily reality.

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

If you are already convinced, why are you still posting? From what you are saying, it's futile to debate your points.

Actually, If I'm already convinced, it makes it futile for you to continue to debate your points. That makes a little more sense.

If people would care about peace, and acted as conscious and responsible citizens, the holocaust and the rise of Hitler would never have happened.

I agree that if the world had always been peaceful and there had never been conflict prior to Hitler's rise then
maybe the Holocaust would have never happened. But, unfortunately, there has been violent conflict amongst groups of almost every animal on earth for all of its history. Unfortunate but true.
You seem to assume that if one group of people decides to approach a problem peacefully that the opposition will see it the same way and everything will be sunshine and rainbows. In many of cases that's not realistic.

People didn't care to act when it was time, ignoring his words and his extremist inhumane concepts.

I completely agree. I would include in that group pacifists that thought all they had to do was talk a little peaceful sense into a madman bent on genocide and world domination. I mean, If we just act peacefully towards this guy he won't do everything he is saying he will do, right?

war is avoidable. People just need to care and be responsible enough to avoid it.

I agree that some wars are avoidable but you're working on the assumption that ALL people are inherently good and can be reasoned with. This is not the case.

I don't need to use metrics. I'm very well capable of understanding and formulating complex thoughts and concepts.

It seems you did use the metrics of how much money was spent and the existence of fear in the population to quantify the results of the cold war.
While I'm sure you're "very well capable of understanding and formulating complex thoughts and concepts", the use of a metric is apparently not one of them.

We spent billions on creating a problem, but people continue to argue over "what if's" and imaginary scenarios.

I believe most of your argument is predicated on "what ifs" and the "imaginary scenario" that everyone is capable or willing to solve their differences peacefully.

Can you imagine where mankind would be if that same amount of effort would be put into real, useful, science?

You mean like this?

Although many Americans opposed the use of nuclear weapons, because of the Cold War and the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union , many technological advances that we take for granted today were created.

www.studythepast.com...
Please do read the numerous examples of scientific advancement during the cold war.

And by the way, don't twist my words into fitting your arguments. That's weak.

Example please?

I think it hasn't. It just changed the realities of war.

I do believe that a nuclear war would kill far more people than all of the proxy wars combined.
100's of thousands (maybe a bit more) vs millions

No. The Soviet Union collapsed on it's own weight.

Yes. The weight of spending insane amounts of money to keep up with the U.S.
While I agree there were also other reasons, it doesn't disqualify my point.

Proof of that is that the weapons program continued active - although a lot smaller - after the Soviet Union fell.

"although a lot smaller" would suggest that they weren't able to continue the spending that contributed to their collapse in the first place. Not sure how that would be proof of your point.

If the only option was all-out war, both countries would avoid it. Since they had the fear of nukes in them, they opted for proxy wars.

Um, yeah. That was my point. No way you can say that proxy wars killed more people than the total destruction of, at very least, the U.S. and Russia and the following fallout would have killed.

And anyway, you can't use that as an argument

All due respect, I can use any argument I choose.

because you can't predict alternative path's in history. Neither can I, for that matter.

I think we're both very capable of predicting alternative path's in history. You've been doing it for most of this conversation.

World history proves otherwise

Starting with Sumeria all the way up to, at least, the French revolution, people have violently revolted to achieve rights and reforms. Here is a very comprehensive list of revolutions in World History. Most were outright violent or had violent elements.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy


All due respect, I can use any argument I choose.

because you can't predict alternative path's in history. Neither can I, for that matter.

I think we're both very capable of predicting alternative path's in history. You've been doing it for most of this conversation.

World history proves otherwise

Starting with Sumeria all the way up to, at least, the French revolution, people have violently revolted to achieve rights and reforms. Here is a very comprehensive list of revolutions in World History. Most were outright violent or had violent elements.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy

Is that a real argument?
I could state that millions haven't been vaporized because I'm awesome and have a direct link to both presidents, and I'm so cool when I pop my words that both have listened to my rap lyrics and avoided MAD.

You could say whatever you like but I believe the fact that no one wants to see millions vaporized would be a bit more plausible than you being awesome.
Which argument is more real?

If people weren't so keen on having gun fight's, bull horns were all that we would ever need, and unnecessary death wouldn't be a daily reality.

If, If, If. Unfortunately for all of us, some people will always be keen on gun fights. I'm not disparaging you for wanting world peace but I obviously disagree with you when you act like war never accomplished anything positive, such as insuring civil rights or ending genocide. You can continue your "what ifs" and fictional historic scenarios and I will continue to understand a basic truth: Some people aren't nice and no matter how nice you are to them it won't make them change their mind.
Thanks for the conversation, I will not be responding further.
Take care

Originally posted by TheRedneck
From the article:

Washington has not commented on whether such an NIE exists. But its officials say the U.S. intelligence assessment remains that the Islamic republic is undecided on whether to build a bomb and is years away from any such nuclear capability.

If this is any indicator, it does not have sufficient information to show Iran has or even is developing nuclear weapons; therefore it indicates only that an attack on Iran is imminent. Syria must be approaching a conclusion.

May God help us all.

TheRedneck

The best evidence that Iran is guilty as hell is how they react!!! The would not be dumping massive amounts of rock, concrete and re-bar ontop of all their facilities if they were not building weapons in them. Iran has had all the time in the world to perfect an Islamic bomb. They have the plans that everyone else in the neighborhood got from AQ Khan years ago. Even Israel has said the nuke plant at Busher is off limits but Iran still wants to protect its toys underground, so what does that tell you????

The Obama admin says Iran is years away from a bomb, you actually believe Obama? LMOA, Obama is just saying that so Israel and most American people will not want to attack before his election.

reply to post by Xcathdra

My apologies again for the delay.

We did not force Iran to develop a nuclear program - Either then or now.

I don't recall saying we did... all I said was that the US supplied the Tehran Nuclear Research Center reactor as well as HEU fuel during the reign of a ruler friendly to the US and considered a tyrant in Iran, then withdrew that support when Iran ousted Reza Shah and went back to a sovereign government.

Those are facts, supported by both history and documentation. Whether these actions were 'right' or 'wrong' depends on which side of the argument one listens to and how much faith one places in the word of the two involved governments. I intend no such judgement; I only present the facts.

War is wrong... Was it right for the US to be involved in WWII? Was it right for the Nazis to try and conquer the world?

I do not completely agree. Instigation of war is wrong, and while two wrongs do not make a right, one has the right to defend themselves against a bona fide threat. That applies to countries as well as individuals.

And not doing anything doesnt add to the stability either.

Interesting philosophy... and one I must disagree with. If one accepts the above, then why should it follow that action be required even if that action accomplishes nothing productive?

The Qom's facility for enrichment.

I assume you mean the Fordow enrichment facility located near Qom; there is no Qom facility known to exist.

Here is where things get questionable. According to the Subsidiary Arrangements agreement to Iran's Safeguards Agreement with the IAEA signed in 1976, Iran was to disclose information on facilities prior to loading of nuclear material. In 2003, Iran agreed to a revision to these agreements that included informing the IAEA before facilities begin construction. However, Iran then rescinded this revision in March 2007.

Under the rescinded agreement, Iran was in noncompliance by not disclosing the construction of the facility earlier, but under the original agreement Iran was in compliance because it disclosed the existence of Fordow before any nuclear material arrived on site. Which agreement is applicable depends on who you ask, but it seems clear that if you argue that Iran can withdraw from the NPT itself, it follows that they are also able to withdraw from supplemental agreements with the IAEA, and most certainly from revisions to those agreements.

Therefore, Iran's actions concerning the Fordow facility, according to your prior arguments, were well within their agreements.

Nuclear weapons are a no win item for either side.

I will agree with that point; however, they are also a reality in the modern world. That Jeannie (or djinni, to be consistent with our discussion) cannot be placed back in the bottle.

Why have the ability to enirch to higher levels that are not needed unless you are running a nuclear weapons program?

The ability cannot be removed, short of destroying all information concerning nuclear physics and killing every person familiar with nuclear physics.

I don't understand why you keep insisting it can be removed otherwise...

Nor in private.. The issue revolves around their nuclear program where as Iran has very publicly and openly called for the elimination of Israel.

I will reserve comment on this while I work on my attempt to create a thread that explains the opposite. It is a very complex situation.

The use of their program to develop nuclear reactors for naval vessels is a violation of their declared program.

I need some evidence of this. I looked up the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and it says nothing prohibiting nuclear use for commercial naval vessels.

I am not required for a person who is pointing a gun at me to pull the trigger before taking action. The fact the person has a weapon and is pointing it at me speaks volumes.

Who has the gun? The US, Pakistan, India, Russia, and probably (although admittedly unproven) Israel. Iran has no nukes at this time and again, is exhibiting no actions I could construe honestly as indicative of an intention to obtain them.

Also how has been supplying arms / money / support to Hamas / Hezzbullah? Iran - so yes Iran has followed through on their threats and yes they have launched missiles at Israel via their proxies.

I will admit that if the reports of Iran-Hezbollah support are accurate (and I have no indication otherwise), then by proxy they have launched weapons. Israel has launched weapons directly and there is no potential uncertainty at all concerning the origins of those weapons.

This is one of the things that make me reiterate: I do not find Iran faultless.

~continued~

~continued~

I do understand... I have been stating for sometime now that the concern is Irans ability to produce a functional nuclaer weapon. They have all the parts and have been working on the triggers to finish it off. You are not telling me anything I dont already no. The fact you just stated how easy it is to produce a weapon and your argument that Iran could easily do so supports the argument being made by everyone else about Irans actions and intent.

No, you apparently do not understand.

It's not just Iran who has that ability... it is every single nation on earth along with most of the wealthy individuals on the planet who have that ability. Anyone who enriches to power plant levels has the ability to enrich further. Your statements are contradictory: you say you are in support of the ability to produce electricity via nuclear energy, but you then condemn for the same ability because it can be used in malevolent ways. You can't have it both ways.

The ability to produce nuclear power is the exact same as the ability to produce a nuclear warhead.

This is a sore spot for me. I have the ability to produce all kinds of illegal materials. I have the tools, the chemicals, the knowledge, and the materials... just not the desire. In my shop right now, you can find medical syringes, acetone, butane mini-torches, etc., etc., etc.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE ME A CRIMINAL! All those items have legal uses which I have need for.

By the same reasoning, a country which has the materials to create 5% LEU also has the innate ability to create 99% weapons-grade HEU. That alone does not make them a nuclear threat.

20% enrichment is the minimum level needed in order to a nuclear tyype reaction . result from an explosion. Again you seem to be missing the point on ability. The claims are not Iran is building a nuclear weapon. The claims are Iran is developing the ability to create a nuclear weapon. Once all the pieces are in place its a matter of process to quickly assemble one.

A nuclear weapon using 20% LEU would be extremely heavy (in order to create critical mass), very inefficient, and extremely difficult to deliver. You are speaking of theory and applying it to practicality; the two are very different.

A practical nuclear warhead capable of being delivered any substantial distance requires 80+% enrichment.

And again with the ability... even if all the worries are true, even if all the rumors are founded, Iran is developing nothing they have not already had since 1967 and cannot be rid of.

A nation with a peaceful nuclear program does not need the ability to enrich uranium / assemble triggers etc for sole use in nuclear weapons.

A nation with a peaceful nuclear program cannot help but have the ability to enrich uranium / assemble triggers etc for sole use in nuclear weapons.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Patriotsrevenge

The best evidence that Iran is guilty as hell is how they react!!! The would not be dumping massive amounts of rock, concrete and re-bar ontop of all their facilities if they were not building weapons in them. Iran has had all the time in the world to perfect an Islamic bomb. They have the plans that everyone else in the neighborhood got from AQ Khan years ago. Even Israel has said the nuke plant at Busher is off limits but Iran still wants to protect its toys underground, so what does that tell you????

What does that tell me?

That Iran still does not have a nuke, despite having "all the time in the world" to develop it.

That Iran is one of the few countries in the area to not take advantage of those plans.

Sounds to me like they're not reacting too badly on those counts.

The Obama admin says Iran is years away from a bomb, you actually believe Obama? LMOA, Obama is just saying that so Israel and most American people will not want to attack before his election.

That only proves Iran is more or less than ten years from a nuclear bomb. Never fear; Obama's perfect record of consistent lying is still intact.

And I don't think it is the people who are in danger of wanting to attack. If that were true, how would complying with such a popular position damage his election prospects?

TheRedneck