Canada closes embassy in Iran, expels diplomats.

[Bonam]

I post them to keep things in perspective. A lot of people DO for some reason think its a forgone conclusion that Iran is building nuclear weapons, just like they assumed Iraq had vast chemical weapons programs.

I'll assume you know what a MIRV is. Guess what, Iran has developed and tested a MIRV missile system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-3_%28MIRV%29

There is no application for such a system besides the delivery (or threat of delivery) of nuclear warheads.

[dre]

I'll assume you know what a MIRV is. Guess what, Iran has developed and tested a MIRV missile system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajr-3_%28MIRV%29

There is no application for such a system besides the delivery (or threat of delivery) of nuclear warheads.

You can use an MIRV to deliver any kind of ordinance. Its really nothing but a missile thats harder to shoot down because the warheads can still fly if the main missile is it.

However, since Iran made claims it had such a missile in 2006 there hasnt been any news of it or any proof.

Fajr-3 is the designation used for Iranian artillary rockets, and analysts believe that Irans claims are bogus, and that the missile they tested is nothing more than an upgraded artillary rocket.

Its really sloppy work for you to post this as some sort of proof Iran has a nuclear weapons program, Im a bit suprised.

The Pentagon is playing down Iran's claims that it has successfully tested a multiple warhead missile with stealth capabilities. The Iranian armed forces announced Friday that they had successfully test fired a Fajr-3 missile that could carry multiple warheads and that was not detectable by radar.

The report was greeted with consternation, especially in Israel which has upgraded its Arrow anti-ballistic missile interceptor to cope with the threat of Iran's intermediate-range Shahab 3 missiles that can hit targets at least 620 miles away. Last December, an Israeli Arrow, co-produced by Israel Aircraft Industries and Boeing, successfully intercepted a missile configured to fly like a Shahab-3.

Apart from the United States only Russia has successfully developed multiple independently targeted reentry vehicle, or MIRV, technology and anti-ballistic missile interceptor evasion capabilities on its latest upgraded Topol-M and Bulava ground-mobile and submarine-launched intercontinental ballistic missile systems.

However, the Washington Times' veteran intelligence correspondent Bill Gertz reported Tuesday that U.S. officials believed the Iranian claims were wild exaggerations.

Edited September 14, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

You can use an MIRV to deliver any kind of ordinance. Its really nothing but a missile thats harder to shoot down because the warheads can still fly if the main missile is it.

It is not worth it for anything but nuclear warheads (or I suppose other kinds of WMDs that would be comparably hard and expensive to produce). People don't put conventional explosives in MIRVs. Saying a MIRV can be used to deliver any kind of ordinance is like saying a tank can be used to drive around town. Sure, it CAN, but that's not why you build it.

By the way, your description of what a MIRV is is wrong. It's not that the warheads "can still fly" if the "main missile" is hit. Rather, a MIRV missile ejects its warhead re-entry vehicles while in the suborbital part of its path, and these warheads then enter the atmosphere individually, with the missile launch vehicle no longer relevant at all. The advantage is that there are multiple targets for ABM systems to try to shoot down, compared to if the missile had just had a single warhead. The reason MIRVs are important is because they were a way for the US and USSR to essentially make each other's ABM defenses irrelevant, since far more independent warheads could be deployed using fewer missiles, overwhelming any practical defense.

However, since Iran made claims it had such a missile in 2006 there hasnt been any news of it or any proof.

Fajr-3 is the designation used for Iranian artillary rockets, and analysts believe that Irans claims are bogus, and that the missile they tested is nothing more than an upgraded artillary rocket.

Perhaps, but why make the claim that you have developed a MIRV unless you want people to believe it and react accordingly? I do agree that the technical capabilities of Iran suggest that them having developed a fully functional MIRV system is unlikely. But even if they haven't, there is usually some truth behind every lie, and my assumption would be that they are hard at work trying to develop/perfect such a system.

Its really sloppy work for you to post this as some sort of proof Iran has a nuclear weapons program, Im a bit suprised.

I did not intend it as "proof that Iran has a nuclear weapons program". Rather, as one piece of evidence suggesting that it may have one. You don't develop delivery systems that are only useful for deploying nuclear warheads unless you plan to someday have nuclear warheads to put on them. Or maybe they just lied/exaggerated as you say. If they convince the world that they have a nuclear weapons program through their own lies, can't really blame anyone but them now can you?

[dre]

Perhaps, but why make the claim that you have developed a MIRV unless you want people to believe it and react accordingly?

Because Iran wants Israel and others to believe that it will be able to successfully strike back if its attacked.

That claim was a response to Israel deploying the Arrow, and testing successfully shooting down missiles that were configured to behave like the Iranian Shaahaab3.

You don't develop delivery systems that are only useful for deploying nuclear warheads unless you plan to someday have nuclear warheads to put on them.

Such a system could be used to get conventional payloads past the arrow as well. Iran described it as a stealth missile "unseeable by radar". They either WANT a missile that can be used to retaliate against an Israeli strike, or they want Israel to think they have one.

[Bonam]

Because Iran wants Israel and others to believe that it will be able to successfully strike back if its attacked.

I see. And so if Iran made the claim that it has nuclear weapons, I suppose we should ignore that too, since it was just a claim, probably just made up to scare us and act as a deterrent. And yes, it might be just that. But the stakes are too high in this game. If someone claims to have nukes, you don't just sit around and wait to find out. You either can get a definitive answer using your intelligence capabilities, or, if you cannot get a definitive answer, you better damn well act as if the claim was true.

Such a system could be used to get conventional payloads past the arrow as well. Iran described it as a stealth missile "unseeable by radar". They either WANT a missile that can be used to retaliate against an Israeli strike, or they want Israel to think they have one.

Yes, it COULD, but it wouldn't be. Because if all they wanted was to get past Israel's anti-missile defenses, the cheaper, faster, and more effective option would just have been to build more cheap missiles and thus saturate the defenses. See the first paragraph of my last post.

[Shady]

:lol:

These people cant even find a way to get a bottle of tylenol to palestinians. This whole terrorists with nukes thing is pure fantasy along the same lines as believing Iraq had a large wmd industrial complex in the back of pickup trucks.

Nope, fantasy is what you believe in. Iran could get plenty of Tylenol to Palestinians if they chose to. But they'd rather send weapons instead. At least that's been their history. As well as arming and funding Hezbollah in Lebanon.

[dre]

And so if Iran made the claim that it has nuclear weapons, I suppose we should ignore that too, since it was just a claim, probably just made up to scare us and act as a deterrent. And yes, it might be just that. But the stakes are too high in this game. If someone claims to have nukes, you don't just sit around and wait to find out.

Thats exactly what you do. If you believe their claims are credible thats all you can do. And thats all that ever HAS been done in response to such a claim.

And so if Iran made the claim that it has nuclear weapons, I suppose we should ignore that too

That depends on what your other viable options are BESIDES ignoring it.

Luckily though thats a moot point since Iran, Isreal, and the US all say Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Edited September 14, 2012 by dre

[Bonam]

Thats exactly what you do. If you believe their claims are credible thats all you can do. And thats all that ever HAS been done in response to such a claim.

That's just not true. If your enemy has or is developing a few primitive nuclear weapons while you have hundreds, as well as defenses likely to be able to protect against those few, you should go and nip your enemy's program in the bud before it becomes a real danger. And that's precisely what Israel HAS done, twice before, in Iraq and in Syria. There is no sense whatsoever in allowing hostile regimes to amass weapons capable of wiping you out, especially not if you have a shot at stopping or delaying that from happening.

[Bonam]

Luckily though thats a moot point since Iran, Isreal, and the US all say Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

Just like Canada has no nuclear weapons program, but if we wanted to, we could build a nuke in under a year. Once you have the necessary high grade uranium or plutonium, building a simple nuclear weapon is actually very easy. That's why the enrichment stage is so contentious: because it is the hard part. By the way, Iran has enriched uranium to a level far higher than what is necessary for many types of viable reactors. If it's goal was peaceful nuclear energy as it claims, why not build a reactor requiring only low-enriched uranium? And why exactly is Iran spending billions on a nuclear energy program when it has one of the world's largest reserves of hydrocarbons for energy? Don't tell me it's cause they want to reduce GHGs

Edited September 14, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

That's just not true.

It IS true. The US didnt attack the soviets over their nuclear weapons program, India didnt attack pakistan over its nuclear weapons program, and nobody attacked North Korea over their program either.

And that's precisely what Israel HAS done, twice before, in Iraq and in Syria

No those examples are nothing like your scenario where a country is claiming to have nuclear weapons. Those were attacks on sites that were part of fledgling programs and Israel knew full well that Iraq and Syria did not have nuclear weapons.

[Bonam]

It IS true. The US didnt attack the soviets over their nuclear weapons program, India didnt attack pakistan over its nuclear weapons program, and nobody attacked North Korea over their program either.

When exactly could the US have attacked the USSR and wiped out its nuclear weapons program without fearing retaliation? Never. By 1949, when the USSR tested its first bomb, the US did not yet have anywhere close to the kind of first strike capability needed to prevent the USSR from being able to respond.

No those examples are nothing like your scenario where a country is claiming to have nuclear weapons. Those were attacks on sites that were part of fledgling programs and Israel knew full well that Iraq and Syria did not have nuclear weapons.

Just like Iran has no nuclear weapons now. Attacking a country that has a fledgling program or one that has a couple of primitive nukes is not that different. For example, if the US wanted to, it could still attack North Korea now. Even though North Korea has nukes, their nukes are insufficient to pose a real threat to the US.

Edited September 14, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

Just like Canada has no nuclear weapons program, but if we wanted to, we could build a nuke in under a year. Once you have the necessary high grade uranium or plutonium, building a simple nuclear weapon is actually very easy. That's why the enrichment stage is so contentious: because it is the hard part. By the way, Iran has enriched uranium to a level far higher than what is necessary for many types of viable reactors. If it's goal was peaceful nuclear energy as it claims, why not build a reactor requiring only low-enriched uranium? And why exactly is Iran spending billions on a nuclear energy program when it has one of the world's largest reserves of hydrocarbons for energy? Don't tell me it's cause they want to reduce GHGs

And why exactly is Iran spending billions on a nuclear energy program when it has one of the world's largest reserves of hydrocarbons for energy? Don't tell me it's cause they want to reduce GHGs

Iv seen this reasoning thrown around a lot but Iran actually has a very strong economic case for nuclear energy. Their energy needs are increasing dramatically and oil is one of the only things they have to export.

That's why the enrichment stage is so contentious: because it is the hard part.

Yup, and thats what makes the idea ending Irans nuclear program with a few bombs so ridiculous. The hard thing about enrichment is intellectual property and personnel. You used to be able to buy designs for things like hex plants and centrifuge cascades from china or pakistan but Iran had to bake much of its own kit. They arent going to "unlearn" how to do this stuff.

If it's goal was peaceful nuclear energy as it claims, why not build a reactor requiring only low-enriched uranium?

They can do whatever is legal, and the levels they are enriching uranium to are consistant with civilian use. And the plutonium they have produced is the wrong kind to make nuclear weapons anyways.

Just like Canada has no nuclear weapons program, but if we wanted to, we could build a nuke in under a year.

Yes thats is possibly what Iran wants to do. Develop a civilian nuclear program that would give them the option of proliferation at a later date. If you look at all the people hell bent on attacking them, and the fact they have been invaded by western powers twice in the last century, and suffered a western backed invasion by Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons, it might be a smart thing for them to do.

[dre]

Just like Iran has no nuclear weapons now. Attacking a country that has a fledgling program or one that has a couple of primitive nukes is not that different. For example, if the US wanted to, it could still attack North Korea now. Even though North Korea has nukes, their nukes are insufficient to pose a real threat to the US.

Yeah I bet south korea would really appreciate that

[dre]

When exactly could the US have attacked the USSR and wiped out its nuclear weapons program without fearing retaliation?

Hey Im just saying... You claimed that when an adversary declares they have nuclear weapons you "better not just sit around on your ass". Im saying thats exactly what HAS happened in every such case in history.

But go ahead. Tell me about the time one country was claiming they had nuclear weapons and another country attacked them.

[Bonam]

Hey Im just saying... You claimed that when an adversary declares they have nuclear weapons you "better not just sit around on your ass". Im saying thats exactly what HAS happened in every such case in history.

But go ahead. Tell me about the time one country was claiming they had nuclear weapons and another country attacked them.

There are options between sitting on your ass and attacking them, as I'm sure you know. And, as I tried to indicate: attacking BEFORE your enemy manages to develop nuclear weapons is preferable, and that HAS happened several times.

[Bonam]

Yup, and thats what makes the idea ending Irans nuclear program with a few bombs so ridiculous. The hard thing about enrichment is intellectual property and personnel. You used to be able to buy designs for things like hex plants and centrifuge cascades from china or pakistan but Iran had to bake much of its own kit. They arent going to "unlearn" how to do this stuff.

Perhaps, but destroying facilities would set the program back a few years, giving more time to consider and implement other options.

They can do whatever is legal, and the levels they are enriching uranium to are consistant with civilian use. And the plutonium they have produced is the wrong kind to make nuclear weapons anyways.

Yes, they can do whatever they want. And some of what they are doing is provoking more and more people in Israel and the US to think that military intervention might be a good idea.

Yes thats is possibly what Iran wants to do. Develop a civilian nuclear program that would give them the option of proliferation at a later date. If you look at all the people hell bent on attacking them, and the fact they have been invaded by western powers twice in the last century, and suffered a western backed invasion by Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons, it might be a smart thing for them to do.

Or it might not be, if it triggers the very invasion they are hoping to defend against.

[dre]

Yes, they can do whatever they want. And some of what they are doing is provoking more and more people in Israel and the US to think that military intervention might be a good idea.

I think the US and Israel would still consider attacking Iran even if they knew for sure it had no nuclear ambitions. The mythical nuclear weapons programs just gives them an excuse like Iraqs mythical WMD programs did.

In fact... If Iraq had not been such a collosal screwup and things had gone well... Iran would already have been sacked. Thats what that idiotic "axis of evil" speech was about in 2002. They saw 911 as an opportunity to completely remake the middle east, and that was a roadmap of sorts.

I personally think its highly likely that a nuclear Iran might actually be the best thing that ever happened to the place. MAD sure did wonders for India and Pakistan.

[Bonam]

I personally think its highly likely that a nuclear Iran might actually be the best thing that ever happened to the place. MAD sure did wonders for India and Pakistan.

I'm not so sure. India-Pakistan was a simple two-sided rivalry. As was, essentially, the Cold War. The middle east is filled with multiple factions all vying for influence, it is much less stable and more unpredictable. And of course there are hundreds of terrorist groups who would love nothing more than to get their hands on nuclear weapons. If Iran gets such weapons, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey will all go on to develop them as well. If preventing theft and sale of the Russian stockpile of nukes was difficult, just wait til those nations have it. Whether those governments want it or not, there will be nukes in the hands of terrorists.

[Moonbox]

Just like Canada has no nuclear weapons program, but if we wanted to, we could build a nuke in under a year.

If we REALLY wanted to, we could probably throw a primitive one together in a matter of weeks.

[PIK]

I think this is the one time to listen to russia, as putin told harper that you can't deal with the idiots of the middle east. Leave them alone and lket them fight it out. So maybe we need to shut everything down in the ME and bring our people home and let the idiots go at it. Harper was 110% right in closing the embassy in Iran.

[Moonbox]

There's too much oil in the Middle East to leave it alone. If they had no oil we would ignore them and they could fight each other for their sand. The sad reality is that our lifestyles depend on oil being as cheap as possible. The whole region is insanely unstable on its own without our interference and there's about 4000 years of history confirming that. That history is highlighted by long periods of peace under whatever brand of imperialism is in vogue (Persian, Greek, Roman, Kwharzm, Ummayid, Mamluks, Ottomans, British etc) with a mess of war and strife in between. The region doesn't have the same sort of identity that Western or East Asian countries do and the different tribes and religious sects are at each other's throats as much as anyone's. American flag burning and a dislike of poorly-acted movies are about the only thing these groups have in common.

[wyly]

The whole region is insanely unstable on its own without our interference and there's about 4000 years of history confirming that.

well there's an ethnocentric bias...western europe has been unstable for an equal length of time...

That history is highlighted by long periods of peace under whatever brand of imperialism is in vogue (Persian, Greek, Roman, Kwharzm, Ummayid, Mamluks, Ottomans, British etc) with a mess of war and strife in between.

long periods of peace? well that makes it a much more stable region than europe...

The region doesn't have the same sort of identity that Western or East Asian countries do and the different tribes and religious sects are at each other's throats as much as anyone's. American flag burning and a dislike of poorly-acted movies are about the only thing these groups have in common.

your views are very biased towards your own culture look at it from another perspective and you'll see we're no different...

[dre]

I think this is the one time to listen to russia, as putin told harper that you can't deal with the idiots of the middle east. Leave them alone and lket them fight it out. So maybe we need to shut everything down in the ME and bring our people home and let the idiots go at it. Harper was 110% right in closing the embassy in Iran.

I more or less agree with you, the problem is that old habits die hard. The west has been screwing around in the middle east for so long its almost part of our culture now. Theres also a lot of people in the west that make a lot of money off it... global security concerns are essentially used as a pretense to transfer vast ammounts of wealth from taxpayers to various different private corporations, and they arent going to give up this scam without a fight.

[wyly]

I more or less agree with you, the problem is that old habits die hard. The west has been screwing around in the middle east for so long its almost part of our culture now. Theres also a lot of people in the west that make a lot of money off it... global security concerns are essentially used as a pretense to transfer vast ammounts of wealth from taxpayers to various different private corporations, and they arent going to give up this scam without a fight.

correct, all of today's major international issues stem from western imperialism/colonialism, generally sticking our greedy noses in other people's business and f***ing things up for centuries...and now the we express disbelief and outrage at behaviour that we're ultimately responsible for...

[dre]

There's too much oil in the Middle East to leave it alone. If they had no oil we would ignore them and they could fight each other for their sand. The sad reality is that our lifestyles depend on oil being as cheap as possible. The whole region is insanely unstable on its own without our interference and there's about 4000 years of history confirming that. That history is highlighted by long periods of peace under whatever brand of imperialism is in vogue (Persian, Greek, Roman, Kwharzm, Ummayid, Mamluks, Ottomans, British etc) with a mess of war and strife in between. The region doesn't have the same sort of identity that Western or East Asian countries do and the different tribes and religious sects are at each other's throats as much as anyone's. American flag burning and a dislike of poorly-acted movies are about the only thing these groups have in common.

There's too much oil in the Middle East to leave it alone. If they had no oil we would ignore them and they could fight each other for their sand. The sad reality is that our lifestyles depend on oil being as cheap as possible.

First of all I think your point is very valid, and energy needs to be part of the discussion.

But I also thinks its wrong, and its actually a part of our broken mindset. We assume that all this intervention is necessary to keep the oil flowing, but the truth is the countries over there, even the ones we hate are more than happy to sell us oil because thats how THEY maintain THEIR standard of life.

Even with all the animosity between Iran and the West, if we ordered "ten tankers full please!" they would be filling up those tankers so fast your head would spin.

The truth is that our misadventures over there causes increases in oil prices. It seems to me that reason we do these things isnt so much to guarantee a cheap supply, its to try to get a piece of the pie for western oil companies.

Let me ellaborate on this a little bit.

Between 1948 and 1973, even in the face of escalating demand, prices went from 20 dollars per barrel down to about 15. This was the longest period of "relative" peace in the middle east. There was a tiny spike during the suez crisis back up to 20, but overall prices were trending down.

The the Yom Kippur war hit and in less than 2 years, oil prices more than doubled to about 42 dollars.

But they started to trend downwards and by 1978 oil prices had receded to about 36 dollars, and were steeply trending down.

Then more turbulence... The Iranian Revolution, followed by the Iran/Iraq war. This happened in the late 70's and early 80's and by the time the dust settled the price of oil was OVER 70 DOLLARS.

But as soon as the war was over prices started a steep down-trend again! And by the late 80's prices were back down to about 23 bucks and still trending down.

BANG! Gulf war 1. Oil prices spike to over 30 dollars again. But again once theres relative peace prices start to plummet. By 1998 prices were agains below 20 dollars!.

But now the prices are TOO low. Opec cuts production, and by 2001 we are back up to about 30 dollars per barrel.

911!, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq. 7 years of war, turbulence, and instability. By 2007 the price of oil was over 90 dollars.

Edited September 14, 2012 by dre