Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

  1. #1
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    I created this thread in order to avoid off-topic chaos in the thread "October 2017 Las Vegas Shooting - 50 Dead"

    In particular, this is a response to Emperor Arcturus

    My respons is this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Arcturus Mengsk View Post
    But it's not just about buying the materials, you need to make connections with the very deep black market, with dirty scientists willing to lend you their knowledge, you need transport that won't tip the authorities.

    And above all, you will probably need to pay a lot of people to keep their mouths shut.

    Except if you are an evil genius and can handle everything from procurement to transport to assembly to delivery all on your own, then yeah, ok
    The basic problem is nuclear enrichment and for that Iran doesn't even need a functioning reactor.

    That they have the capability to produce fissionable substances is proven to be a fact by this incident: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/w...to-russia.html

    Fact 1: They did produce fissionable (weaponisable) material and they can proceed so. [If "weaponisable" isn't a word, then consider it invented]

    Fact 2: Iran having a nuclear reactor available directly images and depicts their capability to enrich weaponisable nuclear material.

    We would be complete and utter fools to allow them to develop this level of nuclear technology. They threatened Israel and the Western world during a myriad of occasions. Why the hell would any sane policy allow them to go on with their program after a demonstration of such abyssal hatred and hostility?

    We need to take them seriously. They really mean it. Why is that so difficult to grasp?


    Discuss.

    Thread moved to the Academy, as it doesn't concern a current event. ~Abdülmecid I
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; November 14, 2017 at 06:05 PM. Reason: Clarification added.

  2. #2
    NorseThing's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    western usa
    Posts
    3,041

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    I suspect they have already solved the problem. That is why they are intent on their missile program which was never a part of the international agreement. They agreed to only that which was already not needed to be further developed. The missile program is the real problem and the real threat to the region.
    Iran's missile program is not in breach of its nuclear deal and will continue despite objections from the United States, President Hassan Rouhani said Sunday.Earlier this month, US President Donald Trump announced that he would no longer make regular certifications that the lifting of sanctions under the deal -- known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) -- had been in US interests.
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/29/middle...eal/index.html

  3. #3
    Harith's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    On The Road
    Posts
    1,786

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    *Sigh*

    Any country with nuclear producing capability can, in theory, produce nuclear weapons. The question is a matter of time. That's it. This is what the nuclear accord with Iran accomplishes. It forces the Iranians to shut many nuclear plants down and keep enrichment low enough such that if they decide to weaponize the uranium, the US and EU can detect it immediately and take action. If the treaty remains in place, Iran won't be able to produce weapon grade uranium for roughly 10 years definitely.

    Personally, I think Iran should acquire nuclear weapons sometime. It will bring some rebalancing back to the region since a nuclear free zone in the ME will be vetoed by the US.

    Lastly, the Iranians are not crazy. They are certainly more sane than the NK regime for obvious reasons. If Pakistan and NK have nuclear capabilities and have still not used them, I am willing to bet the Iranians will do the same and probably follow the Indian policy of "no first strike".

  4. #4
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    The question itself is flawed. I think Iran has no less right to such weapons than other countries. Trump's access to nuclear weapons poses far more of a threat to the world than Iran.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    The question boils down to the regional rivalry between Israel and Iran.

    Now, if we move a bit eastwards, you have a rather equivalent regional rivalry between two nuclear powers, Pakistan and India, who could easily nuke each other from earth and they hate each other just as much as the Middle East counterparts. They have not.

    What changes is that Israel would not have the upper hand if or when Iran has nukes, they'd be equal in destructive power.


    (Someone might point out that in theory the nuclear deal will forbid Iran from making bombs, it's just for civil purposes, they'll do it. No doubt about that. Israel has violated the nuclear proliferation treaty, Saudi Arabia has too, are Iranians stupid? I don't think so.)

  6. #6
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Yeah. and because India and Pakistan threaten themselves with nuclear weapons (who the hell armed those :wub:s btw), we should sit down and watch other "relationships" like this to blossom.

    It could actually threaten densly populated and much hated Europe one day. By the way.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem


  8. #8
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    If you think, that the possibility of nuclear war - even a limited one - is unthinkable. Then why are nuclearly armed countries spending such an immense amount of money on them and their maintanance and upgrades.
    Last edited by swabian; November 17, 2017 at 07:29 AM.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    The question boils down to the regional rivalry between Israel and Iran.
    Also Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Saudis have said they will acquire nuclear weapons if Iran produces them. Supposedly, they have already purchased them from Pakistan and have them waiting there ready for delivery. In any case, the Saudis have helped to fund Pakistan's program. I think Iran's nuclear program is about freeing them to more actively pursue their interests without fear of existential threat from the US. The negative consequences to their enemies will be through increased support to their proxies, rather than direct threat. At least initially, but who knows how things could spiral out of control. Saudi Arabia having nukes seems a bigger threat. In that case, they're more likely to end up in the hands of those Salifi types who would use them, either through a semi-rogue element within Saudi military or due to overthrow of the House of Saud at some point. Acquiring nukes might serve Iran's interests in dealing with the US and Israel, but may actually make them more likely to end up on the receiving end of a nuclear attack if the Saudis follow suit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Israel has violated the nuclear proliferation treaty, Saudi Arabia has too, are Iranians stupid?
    Israel hasn't violated the NPT. That would be impossible since they aren't signatories.

    I suspect that the Israeli government, military, and intelligence agencies are somewhat mixed regarding whether Iran would actually use nuclear weapons against them. Although I'm certain they see it as more likely than most third parties do. Either way, Israelis see it as enough of threat that I believe they would attack Iran if they knew Iran was really close to actually producing a weapon. As long as the Israelis are talking a lot about it, it's unlikely that Iran is actually really close, assuming the Israels have good intelligence on the subject, which I think they do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #10

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Also Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Saudis have said they will acquire nuclear weapons if Iran produces them. Supposedly, they have already purchased them from Pakistan and have them waiting there ready for delivery. In any case, the Saudis have helped to fund Pakistan's program. I think Iran's nuclear program is about freeing them to more actively pursue their interests without fear of existential threat from the US. The negative consequences to their enemies will be through increased support to their proxies, rather than direct threat. At least initially, but who knows how things could spiral out of control. Saudi Arabia having nukes seems a bigger threat. In that case, they're more likely to end up in the hands of those Salifi types who would use them, either through a semi-rogue element within Saudi military or due to overthrow of the House of Saud at some point. Acquiring nukes might serve Iran's interests in dealing with the US and Israel, but may actually make them more likely to end up on the receiving end of a nuclear attack if the Saudis follow suit.
    I agree, though I read somewhere that Saudis already have nukes, though it might not be true. They won't tell because if they do, then Iran will want them too.
    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Israel hasn't violated the NPT. That would be impossible since they aren't signatories.

    I suspect that the Israeli government, military, and intelligence agencies are somewhat mixed regarding whether Iran would actually use nuclear weapons against them. Although I'm certain they see it as more likely than most third parties do. Either way, Israelis see it as enough of threat that I believe they would attack Iran if they knew Iran was really close to actually producing a weapon. As long as the Israelis are talking a lot about it, it's unlikely that Iran is actually really close, assuming the Israels have good intelligence on the subject, which I think they do.
    The US has violated it for Israel.

    Unless Israeli nuclear weapons come from somewhere else. Then again, noone is sure of anything about them, except the Israeli leadership.

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    If you think, that the possibility of nuclear war - even a limited one - is unthinkable. Then why are nuclearly armed countries spending such an immense amount of money on them and their maintanance and upgrades.
    Oh that wasn't my point.

    My point was, if we are here to say ''Iran shouldn't be allowed to get nukes, because we can't allow psychos to get nukes'', then we are past that already.

    The Samson option says that if Israel loses a war and is threatened about its survival, they'll nuke the West for not helping them. So yeah, nukes to Europe will be coming from the Middle East, but not from Iran.
    Last edited by Basil II the B.S; November 17, 2017 at 07:40 AM.

  11. #11
    bigdaddy1204's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dar al-Islam
    Posts
    1,896

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    All this talk of nuclear destruction highlights how mankind may have reached a level of technology that he is not responsible enough to own. All international conflicts could be resolved if leaders were willing to be reasonable and settle things diplomatically and fairly. The fact that they cannot do so indicates that nuclear weapons, from an objective perspective, are a disastrous idea that could end up destroying human civilisation.

    From a more pragmatic point of view, perhaps the only solution is for all nations to have nukes. Then at least it might deter them from attacking each other. On the other hand, it might not make any difference as many might assume that no leader would be crazy enough to actually use them.

    The scenario of Wahhabi fanatics getting their hands on a nuke is a truly terrifying one. Those guys would actually watch the world burn and rejoice. The idea of Saudi Arabia getting nukes is a seriously troubling idea.

    As for Iran, it is simply another nation state and has its own people and interests to protect; as such its having nuclear weapons is not a cause for concern.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    I am quite impressed by the fact that you managed to make such a rant but still manage to phrase it in such a way that it is neither relevant to the thread nor to the topic you are trying to introduce to the thread.

  12. #12
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    "Sorry", Aryans... err Iranians if that insults you, but i do not and cannot care.

    After Ayatolla Komeini (or how that POS was called) and Mahmud Ahmadinejad, you can hardly expect anyone to trust you.


    I know there are somewhat reasonable people among you, but that doesn't keep Iran from giving us death.

    Am i scared? No. I'm worried, as any sane person should be, including Iranians.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by swabian View Post
    "Sorry", Aryans... err Iranians if that insults you, but i do not and cannot care.

    After Ayatolla Komeini (or how that POS was called) and Mahmud Ahmadinejad, you can hardly expect anyone to trust you.


    I know there are somewhat reasonable people among you, but that doesn't keep Iran from giving us death.

    Am i scared? No. I'm worried, as any sane person should be, including Iranians.
    Though again, how many countries have they invaded in the last century?

    Zero. Don't tell me Iraq because Saddam attacked first and got beaten back.

  14. #14
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    Though again, how many countries have they invaded in the last century?

    Zero. Don't tell me Iraq because Saddam attacked first and got beaten back.
    I'm not talking about conventional warfare of post-Ottoman Iranians. The talk is of nuclear capability. Are you even aware of how destructive those weapons are?

  15. #15

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    I am. But again, is there any evidence they will use them? The Samson option shows that Israelis are as crazy as anyone when it comes to nukes, they still haven't used them.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    The Samson option says that if Israel loses a war and is threatened about its survival, they'll nuke the West for not helping them.
    This claim doesn't reflect anything more than Martin van Creveld's perverse fantasies, or if you want to be more generous, the speculations of a man who has no more inside information than the rest of us.

    Itzhak Yaakov is the only real source, and his story is quite different:

    On the eve of the Arab-Israeli war, 50 years ago this week, Israeli officials raced to assemble an atomic device and developed a plan to detonate it atop a mountain in the Sinai Peninsula as a warning to Egyptian and other Arab forces, according to an interview with a key organizer of the effort that will be published Monday.

    The secret contingency plan, called a “doomsday operation” by Itzhak Yaakov, the retired brigadier general who described it in the interview, would have been invoked if Israel feared it was going to lose the 1967 conflict. The demonstration blast, Israeli officials believed, would intimidate Egypt and surrounding Arab states — Syria, Iraq and Jordan — into backing off.

    Israel won the war so quickly that the atomic device was never moved to Sinai. But Mr. Yaakov’s account, which sheds new light on a clash that shaped the contours of the modern Middle East conflict, reveals Israel’s early consideration of how it might use its nuclear arsenal to preserve itself.

    “It’s the last secret of the 1967 war,” said Avner Cohen, a leading scholar of Israel’s nuclear history who conducted many interviews with the retired general.

    Mr. Yaakov, who oversaw weapons development for the Israeli military, detailed the plan to Dr. Cohen in 1999 and 2000, years before he died in 2013 at age 87.

    “Look, it was so natural,” said Mr. Yaakov, according to a transcription of a taped interview. “You’ve got an enemy, and he says he’s going to throw you to the sea. You believe him.”

    “How can you stop him?” he asked. “You scare him. If you’ve got something you can scare him with, you scare him.”

    Israel has never acknowledged the existence of its nuclear arsenal, in an effort to preserve “nuclear ambiguity” and forestall periodic calls for a nuclear-free Middle East. In 2001, Mr. Yaakov was arrested, at age 75, on charges that he had imperiled the country’s security by talking about the nuclear program to an Israeli reporter, Ronen Bergman, whose work was censored. At various moments, American officials, including former President Jimmy Carter long after he left office, have acknowledged the existence of the Israeli program, though they have never given details...

    According to Mr. Yaakov, the Israeli plan was code-named Shimshon, or Samson, after the biblical hero of immense strength. Israel’s nuclear deterrence strategy has long been called the “Samson option” because Samson brought down the roof of a Philistine temple, killing his enemies and himself. Mr. Yaakov said he feared that if Israel, as a last resort, went ahead with the demonstration nuclear blast in Egyptian territory, it could have killed him and his commando team.

    Dr. Cohen, a professor at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey in California and the author of “Israel and the Bomb” and “The Worst-Kept Secret,” described the idea behind the atomic demonstration as giving “the prime minister an ultimate option if everything else failed.” Dr. Cohen, who was born in Israel and educated in part in the United States, has pushed the frontiers of public discourse on a fiercely hidden subject: how Israel became an unacknowledged nuclear power in the 1960s...

    Shimon Peres, the former Israeli president and prime minister who died last year, hinted at the plan’s existence in his memoirs. He referred to an unnamed proposal that “would have deterred the Arabs and prevented the war.”

    “The goal,” Mr. Yaakov says on the transcribed tape, “was to create a new situation on the ground, a situation which would force the great powers to intervene, or a situation which would force the Egyptians to stop and say, ‘Wait a minute, we didn’t prepare for that.’ The objective was to change the picture.”

    Dr. Cohen said he struck up a relationship with Mr. Yaakov after he published “Israel and the Bomb” in 1998. He interviewed him for hours in the summer and fall of 1999 and in early 2000, always in Hebrew and mainly in Midtown Manhattan, where the former general lived.

    The site chosen for the proposed explosion was a mountaintop about 12 miles from an Egyptian military complex at Abu Ageila, a critical crossroads where, on June 5, Ariel Sharon commanded Israeli troops in a battle against the Egyptians...

    The plan, if activated by order of the prime minister and military chief of staff, was to send a small paratrooper force to divert the Egyptian Army in the desert area so that a team could lay preparations for the atomic blast. Two large helicopters were to land, deliver the nuclear device and then create a command post in a mountain creek or canyon. If the order came to detonate, the blinding flash and mushroom cloud would have been seen throughout the Sinai and Negev Deserts, and perhaps as far away as Cairo...

    Mr. Yaakov described a helicopter reconnaissance flight he made with Israel Dostrovsky, the first director general of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, the civilian arm of the bomb program. The helicopter had to turn back after the pilots learned that Egyptian jets were taking off, perhaps to intercept them. “We got very close,” Mr. Yaakov recalled. “We saw the mountain, and we saw that there is a place to hide there, in some canyon.”

    On the eve of the war, Mr. Yaakov said, he was filled with the same doubts that had gnawed at the American scientists during the Manhattan Project. Would the bomb explode? Would he survive the blast?

    He never got to find out. Israel defeated three Arab armies, gained territory four times its original size and became the region’s foremost military power using conventional arms.
    ‘Last Secret’ of 1967 War: Israel’s Doomsday Plan for Nuclear Display

    That said, I don't doubt Israel would use nuclear weapons against their enemies if threatened with complete destruction or as a response to a nuclear or large scale chemical attack. That's pretty standard nuclear deterrence protocol.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  17. #17

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem



    Also Perlmutter:''
    Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past, and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow--it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Sampson in Gaza? With an H-bomb? What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a Nuclear Winter. Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens?''

    http://articles.latimes.com/2002/apr/07/opinion/op-perlmutter

    Sounds pretty clear to me. Then again, we are talking about officially non-existing weapons of a non-existing program....who knows.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Look how much damage Iran has done with conventional weapons, in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. We're already too timid to attack them as it is. A nuclear armed Iran would be immune from any attack, and free to do a hundred times more damage than they're doing now. Not just in the region, but perhaps in Europe and farther. They are not developing long-range missiles for Saudi Arabia you know.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch, Coughdrop addict

  19. #19

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    I can give you a better argument against my argument. Absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence; aka Taleb's turkey reasoning (the animal, not the country): humans feed the turkey for 1000 days, so the turkey thinks ''humans are great''. Then on day 1001 humans eat the turkey. The turkey had zero evidence that it would happen, but it did.



    I don't have a counter argument for that, so it'd shut me up.

  20. #20
    swabian's Avatar igni ferroque
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,294

    Default Re: Iran's nuclear capabilities - how serious is the problem

    Quote Originally Posted by Basil II the B.S View Post
    (the animal, not the country)
    Too late. I lol'd

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •