5
hours
ago
Mustafa Ozer / AFP - Getty Images, file
Saudi special forces take part in a military parade in the holy city of Mecca on November 10, 2010.
Saudia Arabia would move quickly to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran successfully tests an atomic bomb, according to a report.
Citing an unidentified Saudi Arabian source, the Times newspaper in the U.K. (which operates behind a paywall) said that the kingdom would seek to buy ready-made warheads and also begin its own program to enrich weapons-grade uranium.
The paper suggested that Pakistan was the country most likely to supply Saudi Arabia with weapons, saying Western officials were convinced there was an understanding between the countries to do so if the security situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have denied such an arrangement exists.
iv> Iran, which follows the Shiite branch of Islam, and Sunni Saudi Arabia are major regional rivals.
The Times described its source for the story as a "senior Saudi," but gave no other details.
Israel uses MEK terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, US officials say
Mohammad Javad Larijani, a senior aide to Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, describes what Iranian leaders believe is a close relationship between Israel's secret service, the Mossad, and the People's Mujahedin of Iran, or MEK, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States.
"There is no intention currently to pursue a unilateral military nuclear program, but the dynamics will change immediately if the Iranians develop their own nuclear capability," the source told the newspaper. "Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom."
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta now believes there's a strong possibility that Israel will attack Iran in an attempt to thwart Tehran's nuclear ambitions, according to U.S. officials. NBC's Richard Engel reports.
Iran envoy: We could hit US forces anywhere in world if attacked
Asked whether Saudi Arabia would maintain its commitment against acquiring WMD, Turki said: "What I suggest for Saudi Arabia and for the other Gulf states ... is that we must study carefully all the options, including the option of acquiring weapons of mass destruction. We can't simply leave it for somebody else to decide for us."
Turki is also a former Saudi intelligence chief and remains an influential member of the Saudi royal family.
In October, the U.S. claimed that agents linked to Iran's Qud's Force, an elite wing of the Revolutionary Guard, were involved in a plot to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., Adel Al-Jubeir. Iran said the claims were "baseless."
The Saudi government has also accused a terror cell linked to Iran of plotting to blow up its embassy in Bahrain, as well as the causeway linking the island kingdom to Saudi Arabia.
In a secret diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks, Saudi King Abdullah allegedly urged Washington to strike at Iran and "cut off the head of the snake."
He said military action would only stiffen Iran's resolve, rally support for the regime and at best delay, but not halt, the nuclear program. "Such an act I think would be foolish, and to undertake it I think would be tragic," he said.
Great Atomic Power
Do you fear this man's invention
That they call atomic power
Are we all in great confusion
Do we know the time or hour
When a terrible explosion
May rain down upon our land
Leaving horrible destruction
Blotting out the works of man
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power?
There is one way to escape it
Be prepared to meet the lord
Give your heart and soul to Jesus
He will be your shielding sword
He will surely stand beside you
And you'll never taste of death
For your soul will fly to safety
And eternal peace and rest
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power
There's an army who can conquer
All the enemy's great band
It's a regiment of Christians
Guided by the Savior's hand
When the mushroom of destruction
falls in all it's fury great
God will surely save His children
From that awful awful fate
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power
The Louvin Brothers [1952]
#1.55 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:14 AM ESTDo you fear this man's invention
That they call atomic power
Are we all in great confusion
Do we know the time or hour
When a terrible explosion
May rain down upon our land
Leaving horrible destruction
Blotting out the works of man
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power?
There is one way to escape it
Be prepared to meet the lord
Give your heart and soul to Jesus
He will be your shielding sword
He will surely stand beside you
And you'll never taste of death
For your soul will fly to safety
And eternal peace and rest
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power
There's an army who can conquer
All the enemy's great band
It's a regiment of Christians
Guided by the Savior's hand
When the mushroom of destruction
falls in all it's fury great
God will surely save His children
From that awful awful fate
Are you ready
For that great atomic power?
Will you rise and meet your Savior in the air?
Will you shout or will you cry
When the fire rains from on high?
Are you ready for that great atomic power
The Louvin Brothers [1952]
Chris has a point that if you ONLY read MSNBC - points will be bankrupt of actual information.
For instance, an ex- Israeli Mossad Chief, has said that bombing or starting a war with Iran would be "the stupidest thing" to do. In the Mossad circle he is not alone. It is looking like Netanyahu is more unstable than the leaders in Iran.
Interestingly, it appears that many countries who are not in the know - have said Iran would use nuclear weapons IF they had them - Iran has never stated this - they have only stated that they will close the strait of Hormuz if attacked. Guess what the Israeli government is now concerned about - if they will get nuclear fallout when they bomb Iran.....
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Israelis-Debate-Possible-Fallout-From-Any-Attack-on-Iran-139009379.html
Israel has no problem bombing innocent civilians, or assassinating one of their own leaders who was for peace (Rabin). This is not looking good for anyone.
For instance, an ex- Israeli Mossad Chief, has said that bombing or starting a war with Iran would be "the stupidest thing" to do. In the Mossad circle he is not alone. It is looking like Netanyahu is more unstable than the leaders in Iran.
Baer [former CIA agent in Mid East] didn't name sources for his prediction of an Israeli attack, but the few he did cite are all Israeli security figures who have publically warned that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are hell-bent on war.Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/former-cia-official-israe_b_900117.html
Baer is especially impressed by the unprecedented warning about Netanyahu's plans by former Mossad chief, Meir Dagan. Dagan left the Israeli intelligence agency in September 2010 and two months ago predicted that Israel would attack and that doing so would be "the stupidest thing" he could imagine.
...later in article
Dagan is "one of the most rightwing militant people ever born here. ... When this man says that the leadership has no vision and is irresponsible, we should stop sleeping soundly at night."
Dagan describes the current Israeli government as "dangerous and irresponsible" and views speaking out against Netanyahu as his patriotic duty.
And his abhorrence of Netanyahu is not uncommon in the Israeli security establishment. According to Think Progress, citing the Forward newspaper, 12 of the 18 living ex-chiefs of Israel's two security agencies (Mossad and Shin Bet), are "either actively opposing Netanyahu's stances or have spoken out against them." Of the remaining six, two are current ministers in Netanyahu government, leaving a grand total of four out of 18 who independently support the prime minister.
Interestingly, it appears that many countries who are not in the know - have said Iran would use nuclear weapons IF they had them - Iran has never stated this - they have only stated that they will close the strait of Hormuz if attacked. Guess what the Israeli government is now concerned about - if they will get nuclear fallout when they bomb Iran.....
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Israelis-Debate-Possible-Fallout-From-Any-Attack-on-Iran-139009379.html
Lately they are warning that such an attack could come this year.It appears that most agree that Israel will attack THIS YEAR... statement below from first link
A longtime CIA officer who spent 21 years in the Middle East is predicting that Israel will bomb Iran this fall, dragging the United States into another major war and endangering U.S. military and civilian personnel (and other interests) throughout the Middle East and beyond.Everyone is in accord that Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons now - if they are in development, they are a few years away - so why is Israel bent on war THIS year? Iran has elections coming up, it is likely that the young people in the country who have grown up with satellite television from the US and abroad would elect a President who was for reform and not for making enemies. It seems Israel is not in the mood to get along with Iran even if the Dali Lama was Iran's President. Something just doesn't make sense, oh wait, I forgot - all the US troops are supposed to be home by the end of the year, Israel needs to attack while we are still there and force us into this war.
Israel has no problem bombing innocent civilians, or assassinating one of their own leaders who was for peace (Rabin). This is not looking good for anyone.
- 5 votes
Saudi Arabia is finally finding itself in the cross hairs of radicals.
Up until now they've played a friend to the West, while playing games
in the League of Arab Nations, OPEC, funded various anti-west groups,
etc. They've played all the cards they could to make as much as
possible, supress their people, quietly support terrorism, and keep
their neighbors happy.
Now they are being put in the position where radical Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood) said that this year they are going to start taking on "the kings"(last year was the year of "the regimes"). When Iran gets their nuclear weapons up and ready this year they will have the big stick to threaten everyone in the region. I continue to believe that Iran will attack Israel as soon as possible, but once they've gone there it's not much of a push to attempt to control the oil of the region. They've got Russia and China's support, so it will be hard to control them.
Funny thing that Saudi Arabia will likely go to Packistan for their nukes. They should be able to buy scientists, materials, and weapons pretty cheaply with their deep pockets. I wonder how the UN, the US, and others will deal with their interests. I'd guess it'll end up sounding like this, "Well, they have to protect themselves now that Iran has them."
Now they are being put in the position where radical Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood) said that this year they are going to start taking on "the kings"(last year was the year of "the regimes"). When Iran gets their nuclear weapons up and ready this year they will have the big stick to threaten everyone in the region. I continue to believe that Iran will attack Israel as soon as possible, but once they've gone there it's not much of a push to attempt to control the oil of the region. They've got Russia and China's support, so it will be hard to control them.
Funny thing that Saudi Arabia will likely go to Packistan for their nukes. They should be able to buy scientists, materials, and weapons pretty cheaply with their deep pockets. I wonder how the UN, the US, and others will deal with their interests. I'd guess it'll end up sounding like this, "Well, they have to protect themselves now that Iran has them."
- 1 vote
Judsi-2161644
You are the one that is not making sense. Apparently you are confused. The US is not against the nuclear power plant the Russians built in Iran. That is for civilian power. Just like the power plants here in the US. But, we are against Iran developing nuclear weapons, which is what they are trying to do as a separate thing from their civilian power program. The weapons program includes a host of things ranging from centrifuges making uranium enriched at higher levels than needed for civilian use (a short and easy step away from weapons grade enrichment), to nuclear weapons missile technology, to bomb trigger mechanism, to work on advanced implosion technologies (which when perfected makes it easier to place nukes on smaller missiles that would be capable of hitting places like Tel Aviv). I suggest that you Google the IAEA and read the last two reports they issued on Iran's program. And please, also be informed that in the most recent visit to Iran, the IAEA team was denied access to certain facilities and to individuals knowledgeable about Iran's weapons program.
If their program was truly for peaceful purposes, they would have nothing to hide and would make all of their personnel available for interviews. Please educate yourself a little bit about what is going on before making comments that make little sense.
#1.58 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:22 AM ESTYou are the one that is not making sense. Apparently you are confused. The US is not against the nuclear power plant the Russians built in Iran. That is for civilian power. Just like the power plants here in the US. But, we are against Iran developing nuclear weapons, which is what they are trying to do as a separate thing from their civilian power program. The weapons program includes a host of things ranging from centrifuges making uranium enriched at higher levels than needed for civilian use (a short and easy step away from weapons grade enrichment), to nuclear weapons missile technology, to bomb trigger mechanism, to work on advanced implosion technologies (which when perfected makes it easier to place nukes on smaller missiles that would be capable of hitting places like Tel Aviv). I suggest that you Google the IAEA and read the last two reports they issued on Iran's program. And please, also be informed that in the most recent visit to Iran, the IAEA team was denied access to certain facilities and to individuals knowledgeable about Iran's weapons program.
If their program was truly for peaceful purposes, they would have nothing to hide and would make all of their personnel available for interviews. Please educate yourself a little bit about what is going on before making comments that make little sense.
Wonder why the U.S. wants to build another nuclear facility if it is telling Iran to get rid of theirs? Nothing makes sense.New Flash: The US is thirty years behind in replacing old nuclear facilities and building new nuclear facilities. Despite what die-hard environmentalists may think, green energy is not a viable base-line energy source, unlike nuclear and fossil fuel fired power plants. But does Iran need nuclear energy for peaceful purposes? Given its oil reserves, Iran's claim lacks credibility. If they had nukes, they'd use them on Israel, but Israel would strike first.
- 1 vote
Oh
so now nuclear reactors are the same as nuclear bombs. Okay if that's
the case, then I argue that the oil and natural gas that you use for
energy in your house is the same as napalm.
Since you think nuclear bad, and nuclear reactors = nuclear bombs, so therefore nuclear reactors = bad, I shall argue
napalm = bad, and oil and natural gas = napalm, so therefore oil and natural gas = bad.
See the flawed logic?
#1.60 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:42 AM ESTSince you think nuclear bad, and nuclear reactors = nuclear bombs, so therefore nuclear reactors = bad, I shall argue
napalm = bad, and oil and natural gas = napalm, so therefore oil and natural gas = bad.
See the flawed logic?
John
- as another poster reported said on NV - yes, Iran has oil but it does
NOT have refineries...it can refine only 2% of it's oil, that is not
enough to support a large nation's electrical, etc. needs. It does need
nuclear energy to support the country.
Additionally - Iran has the same problem as Saudi Arabia, it is difficult to refine "desert" oil - it is cheaper to sell it "as-is," then to try and refine it.
Additionally - Iran has the same problem as Saudi Arabia, it is difficult to refine "desert" oil - it is cheaper to sell it "as-is," then to try and refine it.
Heavy oil, which can be as thick as molasses, is harder to get out of the ground than light oil and costs more to refine into gasoline. Nevertheless, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have embarked on an ambitious experiment to coax it out of the Wafra oil field, located in a sparsely populated expanse of desert shared by the two nations.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576299421455133398.html
That the Saudis are even considering such a project shows how difficult and costly it is becoming to slake the world's thirst for oil. It also suggests that even the Saudis may not be able to boost production quickly in the future if demand rises unexpectedly. Neither issue bodes well for the return of cheap oil over the long term.
- 1 vote
@ Charles the Hammerhead
I do believe nuclear weapons are powered by nuclear fission, not fusion and unless you're referring to cold fusion, having a regular fusion reactor would be pretty bad since it would just melt everything around it.
=]
I do believe nuclear weapons are powered by nuclear fission, not fusion and unless you're referring to cold fusion, having a regular fusion reactor would be pretty bad since it would just melt everything around it.
=]
- 1 vote
op2388
Nuclear leads to Thermonuclear. It's simply the next inevitable step. Both processes (fission and fusion) involve the atomic nucleus. And for your information, cold fusion thus far is a failed hypothesis.
In escalation there will always be the move to bigger and more powerful. Remember that dominion is obtained by whomever creates the loudest bang.
By all appearances Iran's secretive program is taking the first step, not yet the second. Saudi Arabia is threatening to take the fist step if Iran tests a device. Israel has taken 1st and 2nd steps. It has only been since 1945 that we have been in the nuclear age. This is a blip of time.
My original point was about the developement of nuclear or implicitly, thermonuclear devices. If Iran is willing to allow full UN monitoring of a civilian nuclear power program then there would be no discussion of an escallating arms race, and this article would never have been written.
#1.64 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:24 PM ESTNuclear leads to Thermonuclear. It's simply the next inevitable step. Both processes (fission and fusion) involve the atomic nucleus. And for your information, cold fusion thus far is a failed hypothesis.
In escalation there will always be the move to bigger and more powerful. Remember that dominion is obtained by whomever creates the loudest bang.
By all appearances Iran's secretive program is taking the first step, not yet the second. Saudi Arabia is threatening to take the fist step if Iran tests a device. Israel has taken 1st and 2nd steps. It has only been since 1945 that we have been in the nuclear age. This is a blip of time.
My original point was about the developement of nuclear or implicitly, thermonuclear devices. If Iran is willing to allow full UN monitoring of a civilian nuclear power program then there would be no discussion of an escallating arms race, and this article would never have been written.
Russia
developed nuclear weapons because the US had them. Pakistan developed
nuclear weapons because India had them. If Iran develops a nuclear
weapon, it only makes sense that the Saudi's and the UAE would acquire
them. That is what will keep the peace, MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction), is the only thing that will keep millions from getting
killed and the world from being poisoned. A nuclear weapon has not been
used on a population center since 11:02 am on August 11, 1945, when a US
B-29 bomber dropped a single Mk-II "Fat Man" atomic bomb over Nagasaki,
estimated population 240,000. MAD has worked to ensure peace for over
66 years. I don't want to see nuclear arms spread, but if Iran gets a
nuclear weapon then it has already been proven that the only thing that
will ensure peace is if their enemies in the region get them too.
- 53 votes
#1.2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 AM EST
"Politically, it would be completely unacceptable to have Iran with a nuclear capability and not the kingdom."
So there you have it....for all of you Religious fanatics! It looks like the Middle East is bringing you closer to you Heavenly Kingdom every day. .....
So there you have it....for all of you Religious fanatics! It looks like the Middle East is bringing you closer to you Heavenly Kingdom every day. .....
- 24 votes
Mutually
Assured Destruction worked with the Us and Russia because we/they are
not suicidal. Not so with the nut cases in the Middle East. They blow
themselves up with dynamite, just imaging how "glorious" these idiots
will feel being nuked.
- 70 votes
Vince from Maryland
#1.2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 AM EST
Vince from Maryland
#1.2 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 6:47 AM EST
#1.9 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:20 AM EST
Russia
developed nuclear weapons because the US had them. Pakistan developed
nuclear weapons because India had them. If Iran develops a nuclear
weapon, it only makes sense that the Saudi's and the UAE would acquire
them. That is what will keep the peace, MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction), is the only thing that will keep millions from getting
killed and the world from being poisoned. A nuclear weapon has not been
used on a population center since 11:02 am on August 11, 1945, when a US
B-29 bomber dropped a single Mk-II "Fat Man" atomic bomb over Nagasaki,
estimated population 240,000. MAD has worked to ensure peace for over
66 years. I don't want to see nuclear arms spread, but if Iran gets a
nuclear weapon then it has already been proven that the only thing that
will ensure peace is if their enemies in the region get them too.
- 53 votes
Sorry to say Vince but you're incorrect. Iran has already VOWED
to use nuclear weapons as soon as it has them in hand against both the
US and Israel. Iran has made it clear that they WILL wipe both nations
off the face of the earth. To make matters worse, Iran has also stated
that as soon as it has nuclear weapons, it will share them with all
muslim nations!
This is not about peace but rather about control. Islam's religion demands that muslims rule the earth and if it means using military power to do then that wil what they will do. By dropping the bomb on any nation, specifically the US and Israel, the muslims believe this will bring their messiah back to rule the earth. We are not dealing with a mentality that you can negotiate with. This is not an option for them but rather a neccessity. Is it unthinkable for them NOT to do this.
The world needs to wake up at last and fully understand the crisis at hand. If we don't deal with them first then they will deal with us asap!
This is not about peace but rather about control. Islam's religion demands that muslims rule the earth and if it means using military power to do then that wil what they will do. By dropping the bomb on any nation, specifically the US and Israel, the muslims believe this will bring their messiah back to rule the earth. We are not dealing with a mentality that you can negotiate with. This is not an option for them but rather a neccessity. Is it unthinkable for them NOT to do this.
The world needs to wake up at last and fully understand the crisis at hand. If we don't deal with them first then they will deal with us asap!
- 38 votes
Russia
developed nuclear weapons because the US had them. Pakistan developed
nuclear weapons because India had them. If Iran develops a nuclear
weapon, it only makes sense that the Saudi's and the UAE would acquire
them. That is what will keep the peace, MAD (Mutually Assured
Destruction), is the only thing that will keep millions from getting
killed and the world from being poisoned. A nuclear weapon has not been
used on a population center since 11:02 am on August 11, 1945, when a US
B-29 bomber dropped a single Mk-II "Fat Man" atomic bomb over Nagasaki,
estimated population 240,000. MAD has worked to ensure peace for over
66 years. I don't want to see nuclear arms spread, but if Iran gets a
nuclear weapon then it has already been proven that the only thing that
will ensure peace is if their enemies in the region get them too.
- 53 votes
Sorry to say Vince but you're incorrect. Iran has already VOWED
to use nuclear weapons as soon as it has them in hand against both the
US and Israel. Iran has made it clear that they WILL wipe both nations
off the face of the earth. To make matters worse, Iran has also stated
that as soon as it has nuclear weapons, it will share them with all
muslim nations!
This is not about peace but rather about control. Islam's religion demands that muslims rule the earth and if it means using military power to do then that wil what they will do. By dropping the bomb on any nation, specifically the US and Israel, the muslims believe this will bring their messiah back to rule the earth. We are not dealing with a mentality that you can negotiate with. This is not an option for them but rather a neccessity. Is it unthinkable for them NOT to do this.
The world needs to wake up at last and fully understand the crisis at hand. If we don't deal with them first then they will deal with us asap!
This is not about peace but rather about control. Islam's religion demands that muslims rule the earth and if it means using military power to do then that wil what they will do. By dropping the bomb on any nation, specifically the US and Israel, the muslims believe this will bring their messiah back to rule the earth. We are not dealing with a mentality that you can negotiate with. This is not an option for them but rather a neccessity. Is it unthinkable for them NOT to do this.
The world needs to wake up at last and fully understand the crisis at hand. If we don't deal with them first then they will deal with us asap!
- 38 votes
I
agree with Barry. These dopes are dumb enough to beleive they will be
granted 72 virgins in heaven if they blow themselves up. If Iran gets
the bomb, Saudi Arabia will get the bomb. Iran will eventually launch,
which will lead Saudi Arabia to counter.
Population Iran = 75,000,000
Population Saudi Arabia = 27,000,000
Number of young virgins needed for pedophiles (assuming half population is male) = 3,672,000,000
Sorry ladies, you are the real losers of this conflct
Population Iran = 75,000,000
Population Saudi Arabia = 27,000,000
Number of young virgins needed for pedophiles (assuming half population is male) = 3,672,000,000
Sorry ladies, you are the real losers of this conflct
- 33 votes
Simon
- Please provide a link to support your statement that Iran has
publicly stated that once they have the bomb they will use it agianst us
and Israel. I find this rather hard to believe considering they have
continued to deny that they are even building or attempting to build a
bomb. You claim they have said they will use the bomb to destroy us as
soon as they have it, but the reality is they continue to deny even
trying to attain it, so please provide some evidence to support your
claim. The truth is that all of you can call me naive or stupid, but the
Iranain regime is not has crazy or suicidal as most of you think. This
is a way for the current leaders to solidify their hold on power and
whether or not you like to admit it they are pretty pragmatic, and know
that if they attacked Israel it is Iran that would be wiped off the map.
The goal of the Iranians isn't their own destruction, but rather to
disrupt Israel's nuclear hegemony in the region. This isn't about
control but rather as a foil to the nuclear arsenal of Israel. Having
nukes would allow greater impunity to its proxies such as Hamas, but
would not be used in a pre-emptive attempt to destroy Israel. Simon all
your doing is spreading lies and war mongering
- 15 votes
Carlof,
Sorry ladies, you are the real losers of this conflctYour post was hilarious! Thanks for bringing some humor to this morning....Iran's nuclear direction isn't funny, I
know, but it's nice to have some humor thrown in anyway!!
- 14 votes
The
Saudi statement is designed to deter Iran from developing nuclear
weaponry. That makes sense. I hope it works. It certainly adds
considerable weight to the recent 'announcement' that Israel is behind
assassination of those working on nuclear weaponry in Iran and that most
of the international community doesn't mind that a bit.
As for MAD, it is an appropriate acronym; it wastes resources, costs a lot, and is more than a little crazy. In this day and age, we don't need nuclear weapons. We haven't reached the era when we can scrap them all (witness the puke that ran North Korea until recently, the puke that took over from him, and the puke that pretends to be 'supreme' in Iran).
Nuclear power plants are a different issue, however. In the long run, it is inevitable that Iran will develop nuclear power plants, since they have uranium ore resources.
As for MAD, it is an appropriate acronym; it wastes resources, costs a lot, and is more than a little crazy. In this day and age, we don't need nuclear weapons. We haven't reached the era when we can scrap them all (witness the puke that ran North Korea until recently, the puke that took over from him, and the puke that pretends to be 'supreme' in Iran).
Nuclear power plants are a different issue, however. In the long run, it is inevitable that Iran will develop nuclear power plants, since they have uranium ore resources.
- 6 votes
The questions:
How many lives are lost now for going in before they have a WMD?
How many lives will be lost once they get a WMD and use it?
Will Iran use it either directly or to bully other countries into obeying their radical religion and ideals?
Can we actually stop them without military intervention?
What military action would be sufficient to stop them? (i.e. genocide, driving them back to the stone age, replace current leadership with US puppet leaders...)
How many lives are lost now for going in before they have a WMD?
How many lives will be lost once they get a WMD and use it?
Will Iran use it either directly or to bully other countries into obeying their radical religion and ideals?
Can we actually stop them without military intervention?
What military action would be sufficient to stop them? (i.e. genocide, driving them back to the stone age, replace current leadership with US puppet leaders...)
- 2 votes
- Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:24 AM EST
The goal of the Iranians isn't their own destruction, but rather to disrupt Israel's nuclear hegemony in the region.You had a pretty good comment until you got to that part. Nuclear hegemony? Meaningless phrase.
You can say Iran having or building nuclear weapons invites attack and invasion but not having them didn't help or do anything for Iraq to defend itself from invasion.I hope Ali Khamenei doesn't read that.
Nothing made sense ... till I read ...Please tell us you're not trying to revive the Nazi fantasy of an international Jewish conspiracy. There are too many copies of Mein Kampf littering bookstores around the world already.
Number of young virgins needed for pedophiles ...Not funny, just offensive. Comments like that are just mean-spirited bigotry. If that's not enough reason to stop, comments like that play into al Qaeda's hands.
Iran has already VOWED to use nuclear weapons as soon as it has themThat would be suicidal. Ali Khamenei may be a vicious dictator, but he is not suicidal.
US does not stop Iran from building a civilian nuclear facility unless it is under UN monitor to make sure it is not used for making nuclear weapons. If Iran complies with the UN Nuclear Watch Dog then there would be no more discussion here. Beside that, US or The West have no reason to stop Iran from building it. YesAgreed. Excellent comment.
- 3 votes
Hegemony
- authority or control: control or dominating influence by one person
or group, especially by one political group over society or one nation
over others. One of the synonoms SUPREMECY. Israel has nuclear supremacy
in the Middle East and has had so since the late 1960's. This allows
for greater latitude in the military decision making in Israel. I could
argue that at the time if Iran had a nuclear weapon we probably would
have never seen Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. If you and I want the same
thing, but Im the only one with a gun, who do you think is gonna get it?
- 8 votes
The
middle East is the origin of civilization. At the end of the last ice
age, the nomadic tribes of the drying savannahs resettled in crowded
communities around the levant, and the river valleys of the Tigress and
Euphrates and the Nile. The Sahara was a Savannah and so was Saudi
Arabia. The resuling influx was the impetus to invent agriculture, to
build cities, to create social laws and monumental architecture,
institutional gavernment, and even writing and documentation. It was
also in the middle east that larger armies and weapons technology, (iron
and bronze age), became a result of the newfounded civilizations.
If there is a nuclear arms race in the middle east, it could also commence the end of civilization.
The scientist Julius Oppenheimer said, after the successful Trinity nuclear explosion, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds". Perhaps he and his team are to blame for the knowledge of how to destroy each other, or perhaps it is human nature, our incentive to create such a device, and our quest to win and dominate at any cost, or to destroy our perceived enemy when we fail.
It is a strange irony, that the fusion of hydrogen on the sun is due to immense mass and gravitational pressure. On earth the fusion of hydrogen is caused by immense social and survival pressure to hold or resist dominion. It is as though survival pressure is a physical, inherent property of life, even to its demise.
Iran cannot afford to join the nuclear club, it will be the beginning of the end, they have too many enemies. Israel must eventually abandon its own and rely on the domion of others outside of the middle east, lest Oppenheimer's prophecy come true.
If there is a nuclear arms race in the middle east, it could also commence the end of civilization.
The scientist Julius Oppenheimer said, after the successful Trinity nuclear explosion, "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds". Perhaps he and his team are to blame for the knowledge of how to destroy each other, or perhaps it is human nature, our incentive to create such a device, and our quest to win and dominate at any cost, or to destroy our perceived enemy when we fail.
It is a strange irony, that the fusion of hydrogen on the sun is due to immense mass and gravitational pressure. On earth the fusion of hydrogen is caused by immense social and survival pressure to hold or resist dominion. It is as though survival pressure is a physical, inherent property of life, even to its demise.
Iran cannot afford to join the nuclear club, it will be the beginning of the end, they have too many enemies. Israel must eventually abandon its own and rely on the domion of others outside of the middle east, lest Oppenheimer's prophecy come true.
- 10 votes
I
hate to burst everyones bubble, but the problems arose many, many
centuries ago and will continue until mankind is ultimately destroyed.
People profess superiority through religious philosophies and wage wars
in the name of freedom, but God knows what is in every mans heart, and
from what I can see, most men are heartless. The NWO is being
established today, and those that rule it will do so in the name of
peace yet will require everyone to adhere to strict policies, which will
be presented with monetary enticement via an international currency.
We may prolong or even deny our foretold demise, but we may all rest
assured that true vengence will be left to God.
- 3 votes
The
9/11 bombers were Saudi's not Iranians, why would anyone think that the
Iranians would do something as evil as the Saudi's did? If history
counts you must remember that it was the Saudi's who attacked us not
Iranians.
- 5 votes
Give
it a rest Mike! Saying it was the Saudi's who attacked us on 9/11 would
be like calling Oklahoma City a civil war. I mean it was the Americans
that attacked us, right? What you are doing is holding an entire country
responsible for the actions of a handul of its most extreme citizens.
Your comment is reckless in the fact that it alludes to the Saudi
government having sponsored those terrorist, which is completly untrue.
Imagine if the whole world judged America and all Americans by the most
ignorant bigotted rants on this site. Would that be fair?
- 6 votes
The 9/11 bombers were Saudi's not Iranians, why would anyone think that the Iranians would do something as evil as the Saudi's did? If history counts you must remember that it was the Saudi's who attacked us not Iranians.You're forgetting three things:
1. Saudi Arabia has what the world wants: OIL,
2. We didn't invade Saudi Arabia because those who flew those airplanes into our buildings were from the same group that tried unsuccessfully to OVERTHROW the Saudi government itself, and
3. Saudi Arabia is BY FAR the wealthiest nation over there, and they have NO interest ( I repeat- NIL) in rocking the boat. They have FAR more at stake than the practically failed state of Iran does.
- 9 votes
Hypocrisy,
to ask others to do what you yourself wouldn't. Even when espousing
democracy we want to make it quite clear that some humans are more equal
than others.
- 5 votes
@Judsi:
The reason(s) the US is getting to build not one but two new nuclear reactors are:
1. We're not a theocratic nation of radical terrorist hell-bent on converting the rest of the world to our state-religion or kill them if they resist.
2. To thumb our noses at Iran because we have both things they want, nuclear power and nuclear bombs.
3. To move towards consuming less terrorist oil for energy production, thus cutting a major source of their funding.
And finally, we nuked Japan, not once, but twice, and the world is still here. Granted, those were much smaller yields, but we've learned so much since vaporizing those two cities we're positive we could a much better job next time.
The reason(s) the US is getting to build not one but two new nuclear reactors are:
1. We're not a theocratic nation of radical terrorist hell-bent on converting the rest of the world to our state-religion or kill them if they resist.
2. To thumb our noses at Iran because we have both things they want, nuclear power and nuclear bombs.
3. To move towards consuming less terrorist oil for energy production, thus cutting a major source of their funding.
And finally, we nuked Japan, not once, but twice, and the world is still here. Granted, those were much smaller yields, but we've learned so much since vaporizing those two cities we're positive we could a much better job next time.
- 3 votes
It's
all about religion. Religion has killed more humans than any other
cause of death. It seems that the less intelligent people are the
strongest believers. To blow yourself up so you can go to heaven is
pretty dumb. That is what the religious leaders teach the suicide
bombers. Muslims are taught to destroy the infidels, anybody who isn't
Muslim. Iran is a Muslim country. You figure it out.
- 1 vote
Actually
its nothing more than an excuse to acquire nukes with a plausible
explanation,why weren't the saudi's demanding the same when the U.S.
gave nukes to israel or why weren't they whinning about india having
over 40 and pakistan with 23 nukes? At least Iran was willing to sign Non-Proliferation
Treaty or NPT which allows International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
to inspect the facilities and control the purchase of fuel and monitor
the spent fuel.
- 1 vote
Ed-1118000
Israel will attack Iran before they produce any kind of nuclear war head. Heck, they already are killing off their nuclear scientists.
#1.42 - Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:57 AM ESTMICHAEL-595198 Just how did you come the the conclusion Obama wants to be "king of the world?" Or was that your sad attempt at blaming Obama for everything , every chance you get?What makes you think he doesn't? Wouldn't any politician love to be the "king of the world"? Now who's being nieve?
Israel will attack Iran before they produce any kind of nuclear war head. Heck, they already are killing off their nuclear scientists.
Israel has nuclear supremacy in the Middle East and has had so since the late 1960's.Big deal. That is a deterrent to Israel's neighbors attempting to 'wipe them off the map'. Iran has no such realistic concerns. "Breaking the Israeli nuclear hegemony" is not a legitimate policy goal.
Nuclear weapons for Israel are essentially a defensive deterrent. They are NOT an option on offense, and have nothing to do with military decisions regarding Gaza.
If you and I want the same thing, but Im the only one with a gun, who do you think is gonna get it?The gun is irrelevant. You wouldn't use it, so I'm not afraid of it.
Are we talking about the last potato chip in the bowl (you can have it even without the gun) or you wanting to kidnap my family (in which case waving your gun around wouldn't prevent me from trying to stop you no matter what)?
By the way, I really like your first post, except for the "nuclear hegemony" part. Keep up the good work.
- 2 votes
The 9/11 bombers were Saudi's not Iranians, why would anyone think that the Iranians would do something as evil as the Saudi's did? If history counts you must remember that it was the Saudi's who attacked us not Iranians.Most of the terriorist involved in the bombings of September 11, 2001, were originally of Saudi Arabia nationality. They were not part of Saudi Arabia nation though. Your parallel is about as equivalent as saying that your are a terrorist because Jihad Jane was an American and you are an American.
That being said with regards to Iran, it has been showed several times over the last 2-3 decades that Iran has given covert support to Hezbollah and Hommas. Most nations have classified these organizations as terrorist organizations. It has been stated that the elite guard of Iran attempted to have the Saudi ambassador to the United States assassinated, of which even Turkey has stated they believe. It may be in doubt that Iran would use or see that a nuclear weapon they created to be used. When making the decision as to what they could do, all we have to judge such actions is their past actions. And to be prepared to accept the outcome if we are wrong on our decisions. Are you prepared to accept the outcome if you are wrong?
- 1 vote
Much
of the discussion on this thread is bankrupt --- either the
short-sighted "bomb 'em all" rants of the hawks and right wing or the
"maybe if we just ignore 'em they'll go away" thinking of the doves and
far left wing. Teddy Roosevelt had it right --- "Speak softly and carry
a big stick." It was TR who negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese
War. And it was TR who dealt with the Kaiser when he was preparing to
invade the United States. (Hadn't heard that one, had you?) TR used
the most basic of naval maneuvers and diplomacy to completely humiliate
the Kaiser. The trouncing was so thorough that it was kep[t sub rosa
for decades, but ended up being one of the major causes of WWI.
Saudi Arabia does not leak this sort of stories. They have repeatedly stated in the past that if Iran goes nuclear, then they must re-examine their positions. Nothing new here. But if the Saudi government is letting this sort of thing get into the press, it is a certain sign that they are sending Iran a clear message.
And one small correction: While many Saudi Arabians are Sunni, as is most of the Arab world, (only Iran and Iraq are predominantly Shiite) the ruling elite in The Kingdom are Wahhabi (Salafis.) The Wahhabis are so far to the right of Sunnis that they actually advocate the destruction of huge popular mosques and all sites of religious veneration, including Mecca's religious buildings.
The only viable solution to a nuclear-armed Middle East similar to the nuclear-armed Sub Asia, is exactly what is described in the article. The nuclear superpowers of the US, China, Russia, France and Britain should create a "force guarantor" that would guarantee a nuclear-free Middle East by simply assuring that any country developing a nuclear weapon would be subject to immediate retaliation, without prior UN consultation, together or singly, against any country known to develop nuclear weapons. The major presumption would be caused by a nuclear bomb test of any type. But this will never work because it would require Israel to both give up their nuclear weapons and to allow international inspection --- both of which they refuse to do. Israel is so far out of the loop that they are still denying that they have nuclear weapons (while threatening to use them) and do not allow inspectors based on the premise that they have no nuclear weapons to inspect (while castigating Iran for making the same argument.) Israel's current policies and government are a guarantee that there will be a nuclear-armed Middle East. First Iran, then Saudi Arabia in some sort of peninsular coalition, then Egypt, then Syria.
And for people who claim that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is workable, you are mad (as in insane.) MAD was at best a very tenuous understanding between two technologically advanced and secular countries. MAD led us to the brink of war in the Cuban Missile Crisis and it took both huge concessions to the Russians in conjunction with extreme sabre-rattling and intense diplomacy to prevent it from actually happening. But MAD requires that a) it be no more than two countries, b) that both countries have some sort of rational government, c) that the military and government are entirely secular, and d) that there is never a single miscalculation by anyone on either side.
If you tried MAD with Middle Eastern countries:
a) there are too many countries involved with too many squabbles pending to keep track of. If two nuclear countries are a baseline, then three nuclear countries would be six times as complex a situation. Four countries would be 24 times as complex and so on.
b) it is difficult to see some of these governments as stable enough to be called "rational." Israel has had a series of religious pandering right-wing coalition governments they depend on tension with the Arabs to stay in power. Iran has a religious government and is a Persian country that wished to lead an Arab community. Saudi Arabia is a fricking 16th century religious dynastic kingdom, Egypt is in the midst of a huge transformation, most likely to a right-of-center religious government. And Syria is falling apart at the seams and has passed the breakeven point of becoming a failed state. None of these countries are capable of rational government at this time.
c) the nature of religious politics is that they are not rational. Any time you interject the supernatural into politics, you get a failed governmental solution. It doesn't matter what religion or culture, it always fails. And this applies to Jews just as much as to Muslims.
d) But the best reason that prohibits MAD is that the governments in the Middle East are fragile on their good days and self-destructive the rest of the time. This is an environment that just begs for miscalculations. All it takes is one low-level military officer who flips out to start a nuclear war. All it takes is one bluff that gets called. All it takes is one stament that gets made into a sound bite. And a nuclear war can start. A good example of the kind of thing that gets out of hand is Iran's supposed vows to destroy Israel. The full quote says that "Islam will wipe Israel from the map of history." That is not exactly Iran threatening to bomb Israel. But it's the kind of jingoism that fuels hawks.
Saudi Arabia does not leak this sort of stories. They have repeatedly stated in the past that if Iran goes nuclear, then they must re-examine their positions. Nothing new here. But if the Saudi government is letting this sort of thing get into the press, it is a certain sign that they are sending Iran a clear message.
And one small correction: While many Saudi Arabians are Sunni, as is most of the Arab world, (only Iran and Iraq are predominantly Shiite) the ruling elite in The Kingdom are Wahhabi (Salafis.) The Wahhabis are so far to the right of Sunnis that they actually advocate the destruction of huge popular mosques and all sites of religious veneration, including Mecca's religious buildings.
The only viable solution to a nuclear-armed Middle East similar to the nuclear-armed Sub Asia, is exactly what is described in the article. The nuclear superpowers of the US, China, Russia, France and Britain should create a "force guarantor" that would guarantee a nuclear-free Middle East by simply assuring that any country developing a nuclear weapon would be subject to immediate retaliation, without prior UN consultation, together or singly, against any country known to develop nuclear weapons. The major presumption would be caused by a nuclear bomb test of any type. But this will never work because it would require Israel to both give up their nuclear weapons and to allow international inspection --- both of which they refuse to do. Israel is so far out of the loop that they are still denying that they have nuclear weapons (while threatening to use them) and do not allow inspectors based on the premise that they have no nuclear weapons to inspect (while castigating Iran for making the same argument.) Israel's current policies and government are a guarantee that there will be a nuclear-armed Middle East. First Iran, then Saudi Arabia in some sort of peninsular coalition, then Egypt, then Syria.
And for people who claim that Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is workable, you are mad (as in insane.) MAD was at best a very tenuous understanding between two technologically advanced and secular countries. MAD led us to the brink of war in the Cuban Missile Crisis and it took both huge concessions to the Russians in conjunction with extreme sabre-rattling and intense diplomacy to prevent it from actually happening. But MAD requires that a) it be no more than two countries, b) that both countries have some sort of rational government, c) that the military and government are entirely secular, and d) that there is never a single miscalculation by anyone on either side.
If you tried MAD with Middle Eastern countries:
a) there are too many countries involved with too many squabbles pending to keep track of. If two nuclear countries are a baseline, then three nuclear countries would be six times as complex a situation. Four countries would be 24 times as complex and so on.
b) it is difficult to see some of these governments as stable enough to be called "rational." Israel has had a series of religious pandering right-wing coalition governments they depend on tension with the Arabs to stay in power. Iran has a religious government and is a Persian country that wished to lead an Arab community. Saudi Arabia is a fricking 16th century religious dynastic kingdom, Egypt is in the midst of a huge transformation, most likely to a right-of-center religious government. And Syria is falling apart at the seams and has passed the breakeven point of becoming a failed state. None of these countries are capable of rational government at this time.
c) the nature of religious politics is that they are not rational. Any time you interject the supernatural into politics, you get a failed governmental solution. It doesn't matter what religion or culture, it always fails. And this applies to Jews just as much as to Muslims.
d) But the best reason that prohibits MAD is that the governments in the Middle East are fragile on their good days and self-destructive the rest of the time. This is an environment that just begs for miscalculations. All it takes is one low-level military officer who flips out to start a nuclear war. All it takes is one bluff that gets called. All it takes is one stament that gets made into a sound bite. And a nuclear war can start. A good example of the kind of thing that gets out of hand is Iran's supposed vows to destroy Israel. The full quote says that "Islam will wipe Israel from the map of history." That is not exactly Iran threatening to bomb Israel. But it's the kind of jingoism that fuels hawks.
- 4 votes
No comments:
Post a Comment