Iran Already Has Nukes?

[roo_ster]

The Case for Invading Iran

This one is well worth mashing the link and perusing.

January 19, 2006 01:24 PM
by Thomas Holsinger
...
Iran may already have some nuclear weapons, purchased from North Korea or made with materials acquired from North Korea, which would increase its threat to us from imminent to direct and immediate.
...
Iran’s mullahs are about to produce their first home-built nuclear weapons this year.
...
Iran has dramatically shortened the time required to acquire the necessary weapons-grade fissionable materials by purchase abroad of pre-enriched, but not yet weapons-grade, fissionable materials (not just from North Korea). Iran’s technicians already have the expertise to fabricate functional nuclear weapons. The latter opinion is held by, among others, Mohamed El Baradei, director-general of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, who said that Iran can produce nuclear weapons in a few months if it has the requisite weapons-grade fissionables: "And if they have the nuclear material and they have a parallel weaponization program along the way, they are really not very far—a few months—from a weapon."
...
All estimates alleging that it will take Iran years to produce nuclear weapons assume that they will do so from scratch, but that is not the case. Iran purchased pre-enriched fissionables with the intent of “breaking out” in a short period to a fully stocked production “pipeline” of fissionables under enrichment at all stages of the process, from “yellowcake” at the low end to almost ready at the high end.
...
It is possible, and in my opinion has already happened, that Iran has purchased enough nuclear materials from North Korea to fabricate a few nuclear weapons and facilitate the following strategy. Iran could minimize the duration of a “window” of vulnerability to pre-emptive American or Israeli attack between their first nuclear tests (or announcement that they have nuclear weapons), and possession of enough nukes to deter attack, by postponing the announcement and/or first tests until they have a full-speed production line going – everything from enriching fissionables to weapons-grade and fabricating those into nuclear weapons, to stocks of finished nuclear weapons. At that point most or all of the latter will likely be of North Korean origin, but those will be quickly outnumbered by made-in-Iran ones under final assembly at the time of the announcement. I believe this is the plan Iran is following, and that the announcement will come late this year.
...
Whatever the reason, Iran’s mullahs no longer seem to feel a need to wait for final processing of fissionables, and fabrication of those into nuclear weapons, before their nuclear deterrent against the United States is ready. They act like they presently have that deterrent, and are proceeding to backfill their fissionable processing and weapons fabrication line before announcing that they have nuclear weapons. America’s election cycle plus the Bush administration’s fictitious budget estimates might also have a role in the timing of this announcement.

 

[antarti]

If this is true, they won't have them for long...

http://www.israelnn.com/news.php3?id=96976

 

[rero360]

hmmm.... doesn't sound good, however like in another thread about france using nukes, i think that would be a terrible idea, the vast majority of the iran populace is relatively pro west, personally I think that if any miltary action was to be taken against Iran the US should have a limited role in said action, we could post troops on the borders Iran share with Iraq and Afghanistan to prevent anyone from escaping, and providing some airpower for the initial airstikes to take out the C&C, after that I say we leave the ground war, to remove those in power, up to Isreal, France, perhaps England, and anyone else who wants to play.

Regardless, any action would have to be carried out vary carefully to prevent the populace from changing their views. while I've always believed that battlefield commanders should be able to wage war as they see fit, without restrictions placed apon them by politicians. I do belive in a situation like this all targets of infrastructure nature, roads, water supply, bridges, electricity, and the such should be spared, only hitting purely military and government targets. I'm sure there are aspects of this I'm missing, but this a purely top of the head thought on the matter.

 

[Joejojoba111]

No! Nonsense! It's not like some of us have been suggesting that we consider this possibility in Every Iran discussion:banghead:

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Considering how we have been handling NK (who has nukes), Iran just bought its self a free ticket to being left alone, save for maybe some sanctions that will do nothing other than hurt the common man.

Congrats Iran. You are now a member of the club nuke along with France, UK, US, Russia, a bucket full of Eastern EU countries, Israel, China, NK, and South Africa (though they said they got rid of them)...Did I miss anyone else....Oh yeah, India and Pakistan.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would have used them already.

 

[ajkurp]

Right...

If Iran had nuclear weapons, it would have used them already.

Like North Korea and Pakistan have. Like India has. Like Russia has. Like we have- oops, take us off that list.

Nope. Fact is, a country that has nukes has way too much to lose by using them. But they do make a great deterrent against a beligerent power.

To think that Iran would use them while all (except us) of the list above have refrained is to let the RNC control your higher brain functions.

 

[Lupinus]

Like North Korea and Pakistan have. Like India has. Like Russia has. Like we have- oops, take us off that list.

Nope. Fact is, a country that has nukes has way too much to lose by using them. But they do make a great deterrent against a beligerent power.

To think that Iran would use them while all (except us) of the list above have refrained is to let the RNC control your higher brain functions

And how many of these others are controled by religious fundies that are happy to teach people to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a bus full of innocent people? Iran gets nukes, Iran will use nukes these are people not affriad to die, they want to die, they feel honored to die for their cause.

 

[cslinger]

Whether they are fundementalist or not any country has more to loose by using them then not. Sure some idjit, goat herding, terrorist who knows no better is one thing, you cannot retaliate against that but trace it back to the home country and you stand the risk of at the very least being economically cut off from the rest of the world and at the very worst being wiped off the face of the map and relegated to nothing more then a few pages in the history books.

Nukes, Bio Weapons, etc. are risky business for all involved. I still believe that the attacks perpetrated on 9/11 were never meant to cause the damage they did and that the repurcussions were much more then bargained for.

Remember if you piss off a culture, any culture, enough you need to be prepared for them to take retribution on you, and you need to take into consideration that the retribution may very well be on the level of genocide or something similar. I am not advocating genocide or the harming of innocents in anyway I am only trying to illustrate how thin the line between average law abiding, upstanding, religious, middle American is between that of a raving, wounded animal who would just as soon kill everything in its path to survive.

One thing 9/11 taught me is how people like Hitler could come to power. I saw the evil in my own heart and how easy it was to let it loose. I think even the folks running countries like Iran realize that they have to walk a fine line between fighting for what they belive is right and doing something that might very well bring a very unrightous wrath down on them.

Once again please do not take this post as anti muslim as it is not. I am only trying to illustrate how fragile the guise of civility is and how quickly a group of people could be convinced that it is in their better interest to wipe out another group of people. This is bad news because lots of regular joes and janes get wiped out when all the want to do is go to work, make a few buck and come home to their families. Maybe have a few beers inbetween.



Chris

 

[slzy]

if they did'nt mean to cause that much damage,why did'nt they break a stret lampout,or spray paintthe lions at the new york library? if these people could have ran a freighter with a nuke up the east river,they would have done it.

 

[dfaugh]

IMHO, IF they can manage to build a nuke (possible, maybe probable,but still questionable) its value is of a deterent value, much like the U.S. and U.S.S.R during the cold war.

If they were to actually launch a nuclear attack against anyone, they gotta realize (with the huge amount of U.S. firepower currently amassed in that area) that their entire country would be reduced to rubble in about 30 seconds.

That's not to say we (not just the U.S., but the international community) shouldn't do something about it, as they are crazy SOBs. But, I think the chances of them using a nuke for a first strike is improbable, though not impossible.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

One thing is clear: people on this thread do not understand the difference between Arabs and Persians, between Iranians, Iraquis, Saudies, and Syrians. For example:

And how many of these others are controled by religious fundies that are happy to teach people to strap a bomb to their chest and blow up a bus full of innocent people? Iran gets nukes, Iran will use nukes these are people not affriad to die, they want to die, they feel honored to die for their cause.

How many Iranians have committed suicide bombings? Iran is a relatively modern, advanced country and is far from a ripe recruiting ground for suicide bombers. Those tend to come from more impoverished, backwards Arab countries.

if they did'nt mean to cause that much damage,why did'nt they break a stret lampout,or spray paintthe lions at the new york library? if these people could have ran a freighter with a nuke up the east river,they would have done it.

How many Iranians were on the planes that attacked our country on 9/11? If there were any, they were victims of the terrorists and not the terrorists themselves.

You folks are advocating the starting of a world war here, and you're doing so from a position of utter and complete ignorance. This is why our country is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy--to prevent the uninformed mobs from destroying the world.

 

[Sindawe]

You folks are advocating the starting of a world war here, and you're doing so from a position of utter and complete ignorance. This is why our country is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy--to prevent the uninformed mobs from destroying the world.

Oh, you're no fun anymore! /Monty Python

Iran already has acces to Nukes? Perhaps a good thing, giving our sitting government pause to reconsider an attack on a sovereign nation sans a declaration of war. If you will recall, such an event made THIS nation rather upset 60+ years ago.

 

[slzy]

fox news site says the iranian president,speaking from damascus that syria and iran have formed a united front.the honorable whatever his name is also met with hamas,hezbollah,and various other palestine liberation groups.this may give some clue where his sentiments lie.

 

[Duncaninfrance]

Well here is my 10€ worth.

I would not trust ANY of them, including Israel, as far as I could throw the Empire State Building. They are all a bunch of double dealing sods. If it were not for the oil - yes oil, no one in the 'civilised' nations of the world would care a jot. Let them get on with their tribal infighting and sucking up. Pull out our troops, send back any immigrants who want to be radical in other countries and let them get on with it.

As a matter of interest, how many suicide bombers have you had in the States? The bastards who did it in London were as 2 faced as you could be and one was a blasted political refugee we gave asylum to. Talk about blowing off the hand that feeds you!

Partly our fault for dividing the middle east up after WW1.

We know a lot about terrorists in the UK - don't forget the IRA and Noraid. Need I say any more.
Duncan

 

[BadAsh87]

forget Iran launching a nuke themselves.. why have you people overlooked the fact they might provide them to terrorist groups? I mean.. we cant retaliate against a terrorist group. Iran is a known supporter of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and even al qaeda terrorists. This is a very serious threat, and I think the American people need to be prepared for a battle.
What I think will happen is this: UN sanctions fail.. the US launches a big ass airstrike to take out any of the nuclear equipment they can.

 

[BadAsh87]

I also forgot to mention that the iranians are not afraid to be destroyed. The president of iran himself said that the goal of his government is to bring about "The end times" so the 12th imam of Shiia islam can return from the well he went down in 941 AD. They believe he's the messiah apparently. And they believe he will not come back, until there is a time of "phenominal destruction." Lets get real people, these guys do NOT think like us or like anybody else. If they can wipe out israel and create destruction in the world, they will NOT care if they get destroyed themselves. They view it as their duty to god. These are very dark times, which is why we as a people need to develope a backbone against these thugs.

 

[Biker]

The 'nuke 'em till they glow' approach just won't work in this case. Too many variables and many potential unintended consequences. *If* Iran already has a nuke, and given their friends, this possibility can't be completely discounted, a pre-emptive strike by the US/Israel will give them all the grounds they need to retaliate. If they don't, what will China's reaction be? Iran supplies most of their oil.
When all is said and done, setting of a nuke in that region would be akin to one drunk shooting another in a room filled with armed drunks.
It could get fugly...
Biker

 

[Joejojoba111]

The religion doesn't stop at the Chinese border, and aiui there are some difficulties in the region because of that. Fact is that China might care most of all if Iran has nukes, out of self-preservation and the difficulty to annex parts of yet another nuclear armed country.

BadAsh87 has a point, about what if the weapon is given to terrorists. But those terrorists would have to be exceptional in organization, intelligence and capability.

Luckily nuclear activities can be monitored quite easily, even from space. The boys and girls in these agencies that deal with nuclear stuff are very sharp, and aiui there is very little that can be truly hidden in regards to nuclear weapons.

 

[Biker]

For some reason, I don't have a great deal of faith in our intel gathering capabilities nowadays. We're still looking for those wmd, I believe, and Bin Laden's head is still on his shoulders.
Ya gotta wonder...
Biker

 

[itgoesboom]

One thing is clear: people on this thread do not understand the difference between Arabs and Persians, between Iranians, Iraquis, Saudies, and Syrians. For example:

How many Iranians have committed suicide bombings? Iran is a relatively modern, advanced country and is far from a ripe recruiting ground for suicide bombers. Those tend to come from more impoverished, backwards Arab countries.

How many Iranians were on the planes that attacked our country on 9/11? If there were any, they were victims of the terrorists and not the terrorists themselves.

You folks are advocating the starting of a world war here, and you're doing so from a position of utter and complete ignorance. This is why our country is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy--to prevent the uninformed mobs from destroying the world.

1. Nobody has claimed that Iranians were on the planes on 9-11. Only that Muslim Terrorists were on the planes on 9-11.

2.

The Islamic government that rules this country routinely rates as the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism in the State Department annual report. Iran rejects the label and insists the organizations that it supports, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories, are resistance groups.

Thats a direct quote from the washington post.

3. You also seem to forget the bit of Iranian Terrorism where American Citizens were held hostage in 1979.

4. You claim that Iranian's don't do suicide bombings. Guess what. 15,000 Iranians have signed up to be "martyrs" and to do suicide bombings. Also from the Washington Post

So far, the group says, 15,000 people have completed a one-page form headed "Preliminary Registration for Martyrdom Operations." The form has space for a phone number and asks applicants to indicate whether they would prefer to explode themselves against U.S. forces in sacred Shiite Muslim cities in Iraq or Israeli forces in the Palestinian territories, or to kill Salman Rushdie

So far the only ignorance in this thread seems to be coming from the person who says that Iran isn't a threat.

I.G.B.

 

[agricola]

some points:

i) as has been noted, Iranians are for the most part not Arabs, they are Farsi-speaking Persians and have a long history of violent disagreements with other Arab nations. They are further separated by the whole Sunni - Shi'a dispute, a dispute which (as seen in Iraq) is probably the most sectarian hatred of all time at which there is no "step too far" in terms of what is and whats not an acceptable target.

ii) Iran having the bomb would be a massive filip for the Iranian administration both domestically and internationally, and would probably shelve any plans by the US to invade it. Those are the reasons why they desperately want a bomb, and why they will probably end up getting one.

iii) While the new President is hardline he is not so hardline as to use it, because he knows that the US backed by the rest of the world would glaze Tehran and anywhere else worthwhile. They are not of the "lets start a war between Muslims and the rest" type, largely because (as mentioned above and by others) historically speaking they have always been classed by al-Q types as being in the "the rest" camp.

In response to the last poster - Iran is a threat; but its a threat where we know where they are, are able to seriously hurt them at will both economically and militarily, and have several guns pointed at their heads - not only from the West, but also from supposed co-religionists and the Kurds.

Just because they are a threat doesnt mean that they should be taken out... I thought that was obvious from Iraq.

 

[itgoesboom]

In response to the last poster - Iran is a threat; but its a threat where we know where they are, are able to seriously hurt them at will both economically and militarily, and have several guns pointed at their heads - not only from the West, but also from supposed co-religionists and the Kurds.

The guns pointed at their heads don't mean anything with their new President in power. He is hoping for a confrontation and massive destruction in the hopes that it will bring about the messiah figure, the Mahdi.

Add into this the fact that he has called for the destruction of not only Israel, but the USA as well. That probably doesn't mean much to you in the UK, but that pisses me off quite a bit.

Just because they are a threat doesnt mean that they should be taken out... I thought that was obvious from Iraq.

Well, I do believe in taking action against those who are wanting to and are capable of inflicting damage unto us.

In this case, I am hoping that Isreal does the dirty work, and I am sure that they will. I don't think our forces are able to mount an offensive against a third country at this point, especially since we are still worried about NK and China. Two threats that I haven't advocated attacking BTW.

I.G.B.

 

[Art Eatman]

What we know about Iran as fact and not as conjecture is that ever since the Shah was run off for being too secular, the rulers have been sponsors for the anti-Israel terrorists.

We know they've publicly badmouthed the Evil West for the way we let our women run around "half nekkid". We're evil because of our rock music and our movies. It seems to me that this atitude is independent of the U.S. foreign policies.

Given what the leadership has unendingly said, and supported, I really doubt that their possession of nuclear devices and delivery systems will bring about more stability to the middle east.

I would not be at all surprised if Iran got some group to deliver a nuclear device into some western area and detonated it. It fits with their past behavior and public statements.

"Means, motive and opportunity." Okay, they've given us the motives; we're Evil, personified. The opportunity is no problem for anybody with a billfold the size of Iran's. The means is what's at issue, and they seem to busily working on that.

Art

 

[rero360]

Again I think it needs to be stated that its the leadership of Iran that is troublesome, the vast majority of the populace is relatively pro west, or at least neutral, IIRC 75% of the country is below 30 years old, or some age near that, its only the old hardliners that are causing problems.