How come WE can have them and THEY can't?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>It will take Iran about two years to get the amount of enriched
>uranium they need for a bomb, and to build the bomb.

Where do you get that? The DIA estimates it will take them ten years - and that's if everything goes perfectly, and they move full speed ahead.

I figured someone would question that. I've heard the two-year estimate on the news, as well as the ten-year estimate.

It took the U.S. only four years to develop the bomb in WWII, and that was starting from absolute scratch, with no pre-existing plans, no pre-existing equipment, nothing! The Iranians, on the other hand, I'm sure have plans from Russia/China/N. Korea or the internet, and the equipment is readily available. The fissile uranium is likewise available from rogue nations. They're not starting from scratch - they just have to acquire the equipment and components. Thus, I don't find it unlikely to presume that they could have their first workable bomb in just a couple of years.

[billvon 2,991]

>Thus, I don't find it unlikely to presume that they could have their
> first workable bomb in just a couple of years.

Ach, you're right! I'm sure the DIA overlooked all that when developing their estimate. Stupid Pentagon.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>Thus, I don't find it unlikely to presume that they could have their
> first workable bomb in just a couple of years.

Ach, you're right! I'm sure the DIA overlooked all that when developing their estimate. Stupid Pentagon.

Come on, BillVon, there's no need to be a smartass with me. You're one of the more intelligent guys here (besides me), and it doesn't look good on you.

[billvon 2,991]

OK, I will forego sarcasm:

It is unlikely that the DIA has overlooked those items, and even more unlikely that you have discovered that which they missed. We now know that the administration tends to overstate the case for war, and that they pressure others into doing so. Given that, I find the sudden change from 10+ years to 2 years (in some cases, much less) to not be credible, especially in light of the administration's push for military action with them.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . .

[stoneycase 0]

Quote

Quote

>It will take Iran about two years to get the amount of enriched
>uranium they need for a bomb, and to build the bomb.

Where do you get that? The DIA estimates it will take them ten years - and that's if everything goes perfectly, and they move full speed ahead.

I figured someone would question that. I've heard the two-year estimate on the news, as well as the ten-year estimate.

It took the U.S. only four years to develop the bomb in WWII, and that was starting from absolute scratch, with no pre-existing plans, no pre-existing equipment, nothing! The Iranians, on the other hand, I'm sure have plans from Russia/China/N. Korea or the internet, and the equipment is readily available. The fissile uranium is likewise available from rogue nations. They're not starting from scratch - they just have to acquire the equipment and components. Thus, I don't find it unlikely to presume that they could have their first workable bomb in just a couple of years.

so here's a "hum-dinger" for you then:

Why are our panties all twisted about Iran and their potential & desire to build nuclear weapons, when our friends the N. Korean's already *have them*. Why not get our panties in a bunch over that? Why not support our argument that "dangerous regimes of the world must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons" by cracking down on those 'dangerous regimes' that *already have them*?

What is it that makes us think Iran is more of a threat than N. Korea? Are we more scared of N. Korea, because they *do* have the technology? IMHO, its partly a "most terrorists are arab" type thing, and the fact that Iran's Pres is one of the most outspoken and aggressive leaders in the world today (he's actually interesting to watch, imho, the last time someone had the balls to stand up at the podium and say the shit he's saying, was quite some time ago, and i wasn't around to witness it) and then of course, you have the Israel factor...

I think I'll go with Bill on this one: fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me.

(btw, absolute scratch is, well, kinda inaccurate. i wouldn't say 'stealing' all the top german/euro scientists is starting from scratch, when discussing how the US built the bomb)

Does whisky count as beer? - Homer
There's no justice like angry mob justice. - Skinner
Be careful. There's a limited future in low pulls - JohnMitchell

[billvon 2,991]

>Why not support our argument that "dangerous regimes of the world
> must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons" by cracking down
> on those 'dangerous regimes' that *already have them*?

Because, of course, they might use them on us. We've demonstrated that the way to keep us out of a given country is for them to get nuclear weapons - hence a lot of countries out there are scrambling to get nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes. They've seen what happens when a country abandons their WMD programs; we invade.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

(btw, absolute scratch is, well, kinda inaccurate. i wouldn't say 'stealing' all the top german/euro scientists is starting from scratch, when discussing how the US built the bomb)

Eh, you're stretching. The theory may have already existed, but the development, prototypes, field testing (and proofs and disproofs), refinements and production did not. The body of proven knowledge did not yet exist, nor did refined fissile material, nor did the technology.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>It will take Iran about two years to get the amount of enriched
>uranium they need for a bomb, and to build the bomb.

Where do you get that? The DIA estimates it will take them ten years - and that's if everything goes perfectly, and they move full speed ahead.

I figured someone would question that. I've heard the two-year estimate on the news, as well as the ten-year estimate.

It took the U.S. only four years to develop the bomb in WWII, and that was starting from absolute scratch, with no pre-existing plans, no pre-existing equipment, nothing!

ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. The Frisch-Peierls memorandum and the Maud Report had laid out a really good blueprint for the uranium bomb and how to enrich the uranium using gaseous diffusion. The Oak Ridge K25 plant and the Little Boy bomb were based on these data. The data were given to the US.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . . hence a lot of countries out there are scrambling to get nuclear weapons for deterrence purposes.

Exactly. Iran is seeking nukes to "deter" Israel from continuing to exist.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 2,991]

>Iran is seeking nukes to "deter" Israel from continuing to exist.

And they think the same of us. And we thought the same of the USSR in the 1960's. I know, I know, the USSR was sane, even though we called them insane, and Iran is REALLY REALLY insane. But in the long run, countries like Iran will get nuclear weapons one way or another; we had best prepare for that day (even though we may be able to delay it.)

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . . we had best prepare for that day

My occupation is being a cog in the machine that does exactly that.

. . =(_8^(1)

[likearock 2]

Quote

OK, I will forego sarcasm:

It is unlikely that the DIA has overlooked those items, and even more unlikely that you have discovered that which they missed.

The DIA isn't perfect. They didn't pick up on AQ Khan and his significant acceleration of the pace of nuclear proliferation. Who knows what other "knowledge transfer" factors may be at work here.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It is unlikely that the DIA has overlooked those items, and even more unlikely that you have discovered that which they missed. We now know that the administration tends to overstate the case for war, and that they pressure others into doing so. Given that, I find the sudden change from 10+ years to 2 years (in some cases, much less) to not be credible, especially in light of the administration's push for military action with them.

It's not just the Bush Administration providing a 2-year estimate. There are lots of knowledgeable people providing different numbers. Your insistence on the DIA as the one and only true source for a reliable estimate is invalid. The situation is not that black and white.

For example:

"Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a nuclear bomb"
http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/sokolski.html

"It could take two years, five years, or even ten"
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-11.htm

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

countries like Iran will get nuclear weapons one way or another; we had best prepare for that day.

Prepare how? Build bomb shelters like we did in the 1960's?

[billvon 2,991]

>Prepare how? Build bomb shelters like we did in the 1960's?

Did we all die in a nuclear fireball when our arch-enemy, an empire intent on our destruction, got nuclear weapons? Nope. We learned that there are alternatives to war, and we used those alternatives. Best not forget those lessons.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

>Prepare how? Build bomb shelters like we did in the 1960's?

Did we all die in a nuclear fireball when our arch-enemy, an empire intent on our destruction, got nuclear weapons? Nope. We learned that there are alternatives to war, and we used those alternatives. Best not forget those lessons.

Sweet! Another Arms Race...I need to dust off my resume' for the defense contractors...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Sweet! Another Arms Race...I need to dust off my resume' for the defense contractors...

There's so much more significance to this little throwaway comment than you realize.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Prepare how? Build bomb shelters like we did in the 1960's?

Did we all die in a nuclear fireball when our arch-enemy, an empire intent on our destruction, got nuclear weapons? Nope. We learned that there are alternatives to war, and we used those alternatives. Best not forget those lessons.

I think you are overlooking the fact that the USSR was a rival, Iran is a fanatical enemy who's leader hear voices of Allah instructing them to kill infidels in the name of Islam. I don't ever recall any Soviet Leader outright threatening to use a nuclear weapon against the US with the same fanaticism. Are you actually suggesting Iran is no more of a threat than the USSR?

-

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

Sweet! Another Arms Race...I need to dust off my resume' for the defense contractors...

There's so much more significance to this little throwaway comment than you realize.

Well, Suzie...I mean it literally and as a reference to the military-industrial complex. If the morons in DC are going to start an arms race, I might as well get a piece of the pie. I have a Politics degree and a Business degree. I am well aware that some people stand to profit off an arms race.

So...while you grouse and whine about the victimization of some pathetic little subset of society, I'll be cashing a check with lots of zeros on it.

-Commence Whining-

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[billvon 2,991]

>I think you are overlooking the fact that the USSR was a rival, Iran is a
>fanatical enemy who's leader hear voices of Allah instructing them to kill
>infidels in the name of Islam.

Not sure how old you are, but I remember the 70's - and we used pretty much the same language to describe the Soviets as we do for the Iranians now. Zealots, fanatics, power-hungry, bent on world domination. They worshipped communism instead of Allah, but communism was touted as being every bit as dangerous as radical Islam is now. Had you suggested publically that the soviets were NOT insane in the 1950's, you would have had a pretty good shot at being either beat up or blacklisted for your support of an enemy of the US.

"We will bury you" - remember that one?

>I don't ever recall any Soviet Leader outright threatening to use a nuclear
>weapon against the US with the same fanaticism.

In 1956, the USSR threatened war with the US over the Suez Canal crisis. We convinced the British and French to withdraw and the crisis was averted. During Robert McNamara's seven years as secretary of defense, he claimed to have come within a hair's-breadth of war three times.

>Are you actually suggesting Iran is no more of a threat than the USSR?

Nope. I am suggesting we lived with a massive nuclear threat for decades without anyone blowing anyone else to bits. For those few decades, against all expectations and fears, we learned to live in (relative) peace with each other. Would be foolish to throw that knowledge away.

[billvon 2,991]

>Well, Suzie.. . .

Your one warning. Cut it out.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>I think you are overlooking the fact that the USSR was a rival, Iran is a
>fanatical enemy who's leader hear voices of Allah instructing them to kill
>infidels in the name of Islam.

Quote

Not sure how old you are, but I remember the 70's - and we used pretty much the same language to describe the Soviets as we do for the Iranians now. Zealots, fanatics, power-hungry, bent on world domination. They worshipped communism instead of Allah, but communism was touted as being every bit as dangerous as radical Islam is now. Had you suggested publically that the soviets were NOT insane in the 1950's, you would have had a pretty good shot at being either beat up or blacklisted for your support of an enemy of the US.

We may have used the same language, but I am much more concerned about a religiously fanatical government than I am a secular ideology.

Quote

"We will bury you" - remember that one?

Yes, but he was talking about economically not dropping nukes.


>I don't ever recall any Soviet Leader outright threatening to use a nuclear
>weapon against the US with the same fanaticism.

Quote

In 1956, the USSR threatened war with the US over the Suez Canal crisis. We convinced the British and French to withdraw and the crisis was averted. During Robert McNamara's seven years as secretary of defense, he claimed to have come within a hair's-breadth of war three times.

I'm not familiar with the incident. Did they threaten nuclear war?


>Are you actually suggesting Iran is no more of a threat than the USSR?

Quote

Nope. I am suggesting we lived with a massive nuclear threat for decades without anyone blowing anyone else to bits. For those few decades, against all expectations and fears, we learned to live in (relative) peace with each other. Would be foolish to throw that knowledge away.

We'll have to disagree here. As I have stated, I'm more afraid of a fanatical than a secular ideology.

-

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[Andy9o8 2]

OK, here's another answer to the original question (although reading all the off-tangents has been fun...)
Post-Shah Iran, even well before the current government, has proven itself to be a very active player in developing, supporting and maintaining international terrorism. It doesn't just encourage terrorism, it actively uses state-sponsored terrorism as a weapon against sovereign nations and their citizens. Hezbollah, for example, even though it began operating in Lebanon, is actually a direct creation of the Ministry of Information of the Islamic Republic of Iran (it's been proven in several court cases). One thing reigning Iran back from engaging in further state-sponsored terrorism has been the threat of direct military action against Iran if that shit gets too far out of hand. Remember in the 80's when Libya state-sponsored some pretty bad terrorism (bombings, blowing up an airliner, etc.) and Reagan bombed Tripoli (including the presidential palace, killing a relative of Quadaffi) and humiliated them by shooting down a few of their fighter planes? Well, Libya stopped that shit. If Iran has a nuclear weapons capability, it will feel, perhaps with some justification, that it may resume and even ramp-up state-sponsored international terrorism with impunity, because it has an effective deterrent against retaliatory military action.

[Guest]

Quote

Quote

It's very simple:

Iran is signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty".

Do you have any idea how many treaties the USA signed with the various indian nations, and then broke as soon as it was convenient? The USA doesn't have a leg to stand on with that argument.

Your argument would be valid, if the treaty was signed solely with the USA. It wasn't.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[likearock 2]

Quote

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice . . .

As vicerally satisfying as it may be to turn Bush's words against himself, that saying does not logically fit the facts when it comes to Iran.

Yes, we were fooled by flawed and probably manipulated intelligence during the build up to the Iraq war. But in the case of Iran, we don't have to rely on intelligence estimates to tell us that aluminum tools are related to WMD. The Iranians themselves are telling us that they have successfully enriched uranium. The Iranians themselves are publicly launching missles capable of holding nuclear payloads. We don't need any additional intelligence to tell us that the Iranians are solidly on the road to having nuclear weapons.

To further demonstrate how different the situation is with Iran than Iraq, you are now pointing to the DIA, whom you yourself discredited for the Iraq estimates, as the ultimate source when it comes to determining our possible lead time before there is an operational Iranian weapon. But does it really matter whether it will be in two years or ten years? The fact remains that the longer we sit on our hands doing nothing, the more difficult it becomes to do anything as the Iranians further disperse and harden their nuclear facilities.

In terms of comparisons with the Soviet Union, I agree completely with Andy9o8, nuclear weapons by themselves are bad enough, but when put together with a record of such extremely close ties to terrorist groups, that's a lethal combination. And while you'd have to be a fool not to recognize the ensuing terrorist threat to Israel, it could very well lead to similar threats against us. Andy sees this increased threat as primarily non-nuclear, but I'm not so optimistic.

To me, a more fitting parallel for the Iran/Iraq situation is "The Boy who Cried Wolf". And we all know how that story ended.