Iran 3 months away from Nuclear bomb

[Argus]

The head of the UN's nuclear regulatory body has told the Independant that he believes Iran can develop nuclear weapons in 3 months.

Let us recall that a previous Iranian president - the runner up in the recent "elections" said that as soon as Iran gets nuclear weapons it must use them on Israel. Although millions of Muslims would die in the retaliation, Islam would survive, because there were many Muslims spread out. But Israel would be destroyed.

More recently, Iran's president said that Israel must be "wiped off the map".

I know it's difficult for people to conceive of a country crazy enough to actually use nukes, but Islamic fundamentalists ARE, by our standards, crazy. So what happens if, in 3 months, Iran becomes a nuclear power and uses the nukes it builds on Israel? I am guessing they would not simply launch missiles, but rather, build small, portable nuclear devices which they would then arrange to have smuggled into Israel.

I don't think Israel would make any distinction. If a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv, I believe Israel would immediately launch nukes at Iran's major cities, and possibly, at the major cities of all Arab nations around it. Tens of millions could die, oil fields would be wiped out, throwing the world into an energy crisis and quite likely, another depression. That, and the turmoil which would result from Arab capital cities being wiped out, along with the poisonous cloud which would drift across Asia, would kill millions more.

This is a worst case scenario, I admit, but I don't think it's unlikely enough that anyone sane should accept the odds. I think, quite frankly, that military action against Iran is justified to prevent it from gaining control of nukes.

[Black Dog]

I know it's difficult for people to conceive of a country crazy enough to actually use nukes, but Islamic fundamentalists ARE, by our standards, crazy.

The mullahs of Iran are many things. Cruel, controlling and power mad? Yes. Crazy? No. Suicidal? No. Putting aside the demagogary and inflamatory rhetoric, is there any reason to believe people whose sole reason to exist is to extert control and weild power would willingly sacrifice themselves and their regime?

[sharkman]

If we consider the recent tirade their leader went on regarding Israel, it sheds light on things. His rantings betrays him. I don't think he'd sacrifice his regime, but use the new influence that nukes bring to pressure whomever he doesn't like, and menace the borders of Iraq just because their gov. is now friendly to the U.S. And they could try to nuke Israel.

Israel is now sweating what to do about this new threat. They could take out the offending Iranian facilities, but that would have a bad downside. But is it worse than a nuke going off in Israel?

Edited December 6, 2005 by sharkman

[BHS]

Does anyone have a link to this story in the Independent? I'm having some trouble locating it by search engine.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus (and sharkman)

I don't think Israel would make any distinction. If a nuke goes off in Tel Aviv, I believe Israel would immediately launch nukes at Iran's major cities, and possibly, at the major cities of all Arab nations around it.

I think Israel will act pre-emptively, and worry about the 'fallout' later. Some suff about Israel's capabilities...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/iran.htm

Black Dog is only partly right with

Cruel, controlling and power mad? Yes. Crazy? No. Suicidal? No.

After the 9/11 attacks, there was some speculation as to whether or not the only the pilot was aware of the type of mission (although the others were most likely 'suicide mission volunteers'). Suppose Iran has (or will have) a suicidal but patient pilot at the wheel? It doesn't matter what the passengers think, unless they think to rebel in time and take back control of the vehicle.

If Israel dos stike first, us lefties will condemn Israel for breaking international law, point out some of their own hypocrisies, the US will get blamed for abetting Israel in the venture, true or not, and things will be back to normal in no time.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Does anyone have a link to this story in the Independent? I'm having some trouble locating it by search engine.

Don't have the Idependent link, but here is one from The Jerusalem Post.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...icle%2FShowFull

[August1991]

Here is one Israeli link.

The reference is to "a few months".

[Argus]

I know it's difficult for people to conceive of a country crazy enough to actually use nukes, but Islamic fundamentalists ARE, by our standards, crazy.

The mullahs of Iran are many things. Cruel, controlling and power mad? Yes. Crazy? No. Suicidal? No. Putting aside the demagogary and inflamatory rhetoric, is there any reason to believe people whose sole reason to exist is to extert control and weild power would willingly sacrifice themselves and their regime?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're pretending that because you are secular, and perhaps don't really believe in God, that the Mullahs of Iran are of a similar bent. They're not. They believe more wholeheartedly than you can probably imagine. They BELIEVE God is telling them to destroy the infidels. And if they die, they go to paradise as a holy warrior.

Or do you think they don't actually believe in the Quoranic verses they spout?

Besides, who's to say they don't believe they can survive, in some undeground bunker somewhere, with Allah's help? Or that if they give the nukes to some terrorist group to smuggle into Israel, the Israelis won't know who to blame?

Hell, if a nuke goes off in New York, would the US know who to launch its counter attack at? Do the mullah's think they'd know (which is just as important)?

When you're dealing with extremely religious people you're not dealing with people who are rational as we know the term.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

Here is the Independent link,

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article331219.ece

Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for Natanz to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be "a few months" away from a nuclear weapon.

[GostHacked]

You know what?? Screw it. Let them build nukes. The sooner we are rid of BOTH those countries the better. Let them take each other out. I really don't care anymore. Let the damn nukes fly, turn the whole area to glass.

This would end the conflict in a hurry. Not much left though. So who wins? Isreal? Iran? I think they both know in the end they will both loose, but really don't give a flying explitive.

[Argus]

You know what?? Screw it. Let them build nukes. The sooner we are rid of BOTH those countries the better. Let them take each other out. I really don't care anymore. Let the damn nukes fly, turn the whole area to glass.

This would end the conflict in a hurry. Not much left though. So who wins? Isreal? Iran?  I think they both know in the end they will both loose, but really don't give a flying explitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you are shivering in the cold because all the oil fields in the middle east have been irradiated and gas is now $100 a gallon you might have second thoughts.

[Army Guy]

A leader of a nation does not go on International TV and make threats that they have no intention of carring out. that works both ways Irans leadership has been quoting they will use Nuk wpns against Israel and Israel has said they will not permit Iran to have Nuk wpns. They are not threats but promises.

Here is another is another link.My Webpage

This new wpn system actually works unlike the one the US has been developing and surprise who is backing it all the US. I'd also like to piont out Israel naval capabilities.

[Black Dog]

You're pretending that because you are secular, and perhaps don't really believe in God, that the Mullahs of Iran are of a similar bent. They're not. They believe more wholeheartedly than you can probably imagine. They BELIEVE God is telling them to destroy the infidels. And if they die, they go to paradise as a holy warrior.

No. My personal belies ae irrelevant. I simply question whethe rthe leaders of a country wold be willing to act in a manner completely unprecedented in human history and invite the destruction of their country as a political entity.

Besides, who's to say they don't believe they can survive, in some undeground bunker somewhere, with Allah's help?

It doesn't matter if they personally survive. As I say they are motivated by power: to be a ruler, you have to have a country to rule.

Or that if they give the nukes to some terrorist group to smuggle into Israel, the Israelis won't know who to blame?

Right. Like they'd spend years and millions on building a nuke and then hand it off.

Hell, if a nuke goes off in New York, would the US know who to launch its counter attack at? Do the mullah's think they'd know (which is just as important)?

If Iran gets a nuke and then, by mere coincidence, one goes off somewhere, who do you think would get blamed?

Although IAEA officials have said it would take at least two years for Natanz to become fully operational, Mr ElBaradei believes that once the facility is up and running, the Iranians could be "a few months" away from a nuclear weapon.

AH. So they are actually still years away from a nuke.

A leader of a nation does not go on International TV and make threats that they have no intention of carring out.

Sure they do. Denouncing the Gtreat Satan and pledging the destruction of it and the "Zionist entity" are par for the course for these guys going bak to Khomeni.

[Army Guy]

Sure they do. Denouncing the Gtreat Satan and pledging the destruction of it and the "Zionist entity" are par for the course for these guys going bak to Khomeni.

I agree, however that does not mean you don't take every threat serious. i mean were are not talking about a couple of AK's here, but a Nuk wpn that could cripple Israel enough so that other Arab nations or even Iran could easily finish the job.

No. My personal belies ae irrelevant. I simply question whethe rthe leaders of a country wold be willing to act in a manner completely unprecedented in human history and invite the destruction of their country as a political entity.

What about Sadam, You can not tell me that he did not know what the US or Coalition forces could do militarily. perhaps maybe the first gulf war, but the second. He had to have known that he would be overthrown. This is a man that allowed his SON's to die in combat...what else could he sacrafice perhaps his own life...making me think that nothing else matter except his own life, (or he to would have died in combat next to his sons or during capture ) and he or others like him think they will survive any attack.

[Black Dog]

agree, however that does not mean you don't take every threat serious. i mean were are not talking about a couple of AK's here, but a Nuk wpn that could cripple Israel enough so that other Arab nations or even Iran could easily finish the job.

Iran's nuke capability will initially, be very small. Israel's capability is not (they have between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons). And you can bet a lot of those are trained on Tehran right now.

What about Sadam, You can not tell me that he did not know what the US or Coalition forces could do militarily. perhaps maybe the first gulf war, but the second. He had to have known that he would be overthrown.

Well, Saddam didn''t stat the fight, did he? Another difference is Saddam saw himself as the regime. There's no such unity in Iran, as diffrent factions are continuously jockeying for position and power, meaning the chances of a single fanatic being able to force his agenda through are less than in a personality-driven regime like Baathist Iraq.

[GostHacked]

You know what?? Screw it. Let them build nukes. The sooner we are rid of BOTH those countries the better. Let them take each other out. I really don't care anymore. Let the damn nukes fly, turn the whole area to glass.

This would end the conflict in a hurry. Not much left though. So who wins? Isreal? Iran?  I think they both know in the end they will both loose, but really don't give a flying explitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you are shivering in the cold because all the oil fields in the middle east have been irradiated and gas is now $100 a gallon you might have second thoughts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are many other methods of providing heat to the home. Also I take public transportation. Owning a car is too much for my pocket book anyways. Let the rpices go up, waaaaaayyyyy up.

[Argus]

You know what?? Screw it. Let them build nukes. The sooner we are rid of BOTH those countries the better. Let them take each other out. I really don't care anymore. Let the damn nukes fly, turn the whole area to glass.

This would end the conflict in a hurry. Not much left though. So who wins? Isreal? Iran?  I think they both know in the end they will both loose, but really don't give a flying explitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When you are shivering in the cold because all the oil fields in the middle east have been irradiated and gas is now $100 a gallon you might have second thoughts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are many other methods of providing heat to the home. Also I take public transportation. Owning a car is too much for my pocket book anyways. Let the rpices go up, waaaaaayyyyy up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure. It's not like we need an auto industry in Ontario, or an aircraft industry in Quebec, and it's not like energy use is intensive in mining, or trucking, or such industries as steel making. Forty percent unemployment would just bring us back to the good old days of the Great Depression anyway, and lots of people are nostalgic for the old days.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

Sure. It's not like we need an auto industry in Ontario, or an aircraft industry in Quebec, and it's not like energy use is intensive in mining, or trucking, or such industries as steel making. Forty percent unemployment would just bring us back to the good old days of the Great Depression anyway, and lots of people are nostalgic for the old days.

From the ashes shall rise the Pheonix...many 'right-wingers' feel that market forces, and not conscious or responsible choices, should dictate our actions and what and how much we produce and use. So, cleaner, safer and more reliable energy should become more available when $100-200 oil hits...

While the cause of it, in this case, may be deemed 'artificial', it would be more or less permanent, albeit early. Making the automobile 'a thing of the past' doesn't have to be a bad thing....