Bomb Iran

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

John McCain infamously "sang" Bomb Iran in front of a veterans group a few years back. He, rightly, dismissed the furore over it as a storm in a teacup. It was the type of raw humour shared amongst vets, and was not a declaration of intent.

But... is it time to entertain the idea of bombing Iran?

[vison]

No.

[River]

[axordil]

Mmmmm no.

[tinwë]

At what point during the last 33 years have we not been "entertaining" the idea of bombing Iran? Beyond that, well, no.

[Inanna]

No.

Period.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

At what point during the last 33 years have we not been "entertaining" the idea of bombing Iran? Beyond that, well, no.

For me? All 33 years of the last 33 years have been spent not entertaining bombing Iran. But drumbeats sound louder right now, and it is becoming more difficult to ignore the hawks.

[Holbytla]

Iraq and Israel have done more than entertain the idea.
I suspect the US have no overt plans to become embroiled in another mid-east conflict, nor is there any appetite to do so anytime soon.
I also suspect that we would be better off trusting the fox with the chickens, rather trusting Ahmadinejad with nukes.
Be that as it may, we won't do anything as yet.

[Teremia]

We all need to resist the attempt to make "bombing Iran" seem inevitable, or like a reasonable choice, or an "option on the table."

A table with options like that on it is one heck of an apocalyptic table.

Short version: no.

[SirDennis]

Thought there was a recent report that an investigation into whether Iran posed a threat (nuclear or otherwise) to anyone found nothing to suggest they were even arming themselves.

Short answer: no.

[Holbytla]

Nuclear power plants use uranium that is enriched to 5%, Gundersen said. Making a nuclear bomb requires uranium to be enriched 20% or more, he said.
That means the centrifuge must spin at 50,000 revolutions per minute for a longer amount of time. A more sophisticated centrifuge would make the process easier, Gundersen said.
"To be able to make any centrifuge, let alone a high-speed centrifuge, is technologically a very substantial step," he said.
A November IAEA report found "credible" information that Tehran has carried out work toward nuclear weapons -- including tests of possible bomb components.

Who knows what is true? Although I suspect it would be difficult to hide enriched plutonium for very long.

[SirDennis]

Nuclear power plants use uranium that is enriched to 5%, Gundersen said. Making a nuclear bomb requires uranium to be enriched 20% or more, he said.
That means the centrifuge must spin at 50,000 revolutions per minute for a longer amount of time. A more sophisticated centrifuge would make the process easier, Gundersen said.
"To be able to make any centrifuge, let alone a high-speed centrifuge, is technologically a very substantial step," he said.
A November IAEA report found "credible" information that Tehran has carried out work toward nuclear weapons -- including tests of possible bomb components.

Who knows what is true? Although I suspect it would be difficult to hide enriched plutonium for very long.

Yes a quick search turned up nothing other than a story I misheard. Talks to allow an international inspection agency to tour a suspected weapons site in Iran broke off within the past few days. Talks were "futile" not the search... the search has not been completed.

A friend, a former Iranian soldier (now a Canadian citizen for over 20 years), said that the Iranian government has been trying to provoke attacks to justify their existence and anti-west rhetoric. The thing is, the people of Iran do not support or agree with their government (sound familiar?)... if provocation lead to war, it is those same people who would suffer most.

Therefore my answer is still no.

[River]

The Iranian nuclear sites are, AFAIK, buried under mountains. You'd need nukes to take them out and even those might fail (there's a reason NORAD is housed under a mountain).

Thing is, for all the song and dance, thus far Iran's really been toeing the line. They aren't enriching to weapons grade, they are allowing inspectors in, and so on. Meanwhile, Israel is positioning itself for...something. This whole thing is potentially self-destructive for both Iran and Israel. I wonder what the brinksmanship is all about.

ETA: Holby, I think you mean enriched uranium. You can't get fissile plutonium before you've built a reactor.

[Dave_LF]

The irony of Israel taking someone to task for maybe having an undeclared nuclear weapons program is...well; it's something.

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

In terms of right and wrong, no, it is not time to bomb Iran. They are posing no threat to the US, although selling oil for alternate currencies does threaten the petro-dollar. They have not initiated a war in many decades.

In terms of practical politics and corrupt politicians, I'm surprised enough reality has penetrated through their protective shells of sycophants that they haven't started bombing already.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

In terms of right and wrong, no, it is not time to bomb Iran. They are posing no threat to the US, although selling oil for alternate currencies does threaten the petro-dollar. They have not initiated a war in many decades.

In terms of practical politics and corrupt politicians, I'm surprised enough reality has penetrated through their protective shells of sycophants that they haven't started bombing already.

There's an election on the horizon. War wins votes. Perhaps...

As for your statement that Iran hasn't initiated a war in decades; decades? When exactly? Off the top of my head, the last time Iran/Persia initiated war was under Xerxes' rule...

Iraq and Israel have done more than entertain the idea.
I suspect the US have no overt plans to become embroiled in another mid-east conflict, nor is there any appetite to do so anytime soon.
I also suspect that we would be better off trusting the fox with the chickens, rather trusting Ahmadinejad with nukes.
Be that as it may, we won't do anything as yet.

I notice this implied condemnation of Ahmadinejad repeatedly, but I'm not sure why it is justified. Much of what he says (in Farsi) is seemingly deliberately mistranslated, or taken out of context, yet even after this distortion, there is nothing he says that trumps the belligerence of the Republican candidates, or (to recognise Dave_LF's pithy interjection) Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Then there is the potential elephant in the room; considering Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers (Iraq being a US vassal state), and also considering the deterrent nature of nuclear weapons (no two nuclear states have ever engaged in direct conflict), Iran would be crazy not to seek nuclear weapons. So...

To further peace in the cauldron that is the Middle East, would a nuclear weaponised Iran not be an asset?

[Cenedril_Gildinaur]

You're right, it's been centuries, and that depends on whether you count some of the empires are Persian or conquerors of Persia. The history of Persia is one of repelling invaders, sometimes successfully and sometimes less so.

[Holbytla]

I notice this implied condemnation of Ahmadinejad repeatedly, but I'm not sure why it is justified.

I don't understand the use of the word repeatedly here, but in any case, no I don't trust him or the regime he controls or the human rights record that borders on barbarism.

Then there is the potential elephant in the room; considering Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers (Iraq being a US vassal state), and also considering the deterrent nature of nuclear weapons (no two nuclear states have ever engaged in direct conflict), Iran would be crazy not to seek nuclear weapons. So...

There are some states that appear unstable. Iran is one of them. I neither trust them to control their inventory, nor do I trust that nukes possessed by them would be used as deterrents only.

To further peace in the cauldron that is the Middle East, would a nuclear weaponised Iran not be an asset?

Doubtful, and in any case, China, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia have enough weapons to offset any others in the area.

Personally I hope to live long enough to see the day that there is worldwide disarmament, but at best that would be a painstakingly slow process. Adding more to the inventory is not the way to fly. I would rather see attrition by all rather than addition by any, (including the US and its allies) especially in an unstable climate that is the mid-east.

I think we have progressed enough as a people to recognize that nuclear weapons have no place or meaning on the planet. The trouble is, the technology is here to stay and as long as one person has one, others will have them as well. We have enough balance/counter-balance to destroy the planet a thousand times over, and as it is the inventory is already unstable. Adding more instability in an already unstable program in an unstable area of the world is trouble in the making.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I notice this implied condemnation of Ahmadinejad repeatedly, but I'm not sure why it is justified.

I don't understand the use of the word repeatedly here, but in any case, no I don't trust him or the regime he controls or the human rights record that borders on barbarism.

By "repeatedly" I meant generally, as in a consistent, biased media portrayal. And, yes, there are human rights violations in Iran that are totally objectionable. Yet it is, I think, somewhat ironic that Ahmadinejad is "accused" of controlling the regime. Ahmadinejad controls the Iranian theocracy? Pray what role remains for the Ayatollahs? And then there is the question of "how bad is Iran"? Worse than Uzbekistan? Worse than China? Worse than Israel? Worse than... Human rights infractions are eminently quantifiable, but to quantify requires acknowledgement that the parameters are subjective. The USA incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than all (or most) other countries, and there is assuredly a racial component to this (examine the statistics). What conclusion should we draw from this? It depends on the criteria used...

Then there is the potential elephant in the room; considering Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers (Iraq being a US vassal state), and also considering the deterrent nature of nuclear weapons (no two nuclear states have ever engaged in direct conflict), Iran would be crazy not to seek nuclear weapons. So...

There are some states that appear unstable. Iran is one of them. I neither trust them to control their inventory, nor do I trust that nukes possessed by them would be used as deterrents only.

Funnily(?) enough, I don't "trust" the USA (the only country to have actually used nuclear weapons) or Russia, or Pakistan, or France, or... etc. Neither do I distrust Iran more. On the contrary, as has been pointed out, compared to those nuclear states mentioned, and unlike them, Iran has a track record of nothing but defensive actions. So, why distrust Iran? Might it not be coloured by simple prejudice?

To further peace in the cauldron that is the Middle East, would a nuclear weaponised Iran not be an asset?

Doubtful, and in any case, China, North Korea, Pakistan and Russia have enough weapons to offset any others in the area.

Personally I hope to live long enough to see the day that there is worldwide disarmament, but at best that would be a painstakingly slow process. Adding more to the inventory is not the way to fly. I would rather see attrition by all rather than addition by any, (including the US and its allies) especially in an unstable climate that is the mid-east.

I think we have progressed enough as a people to recognize that nuclear weapons have no place or meaning on the planet. The trouble is, the technology is here to stay and as long as one person has one, others will have them as well. We have enough balance/counter-balance to destroy the planet a thousand times over, and as it is the inventory is already unstable. Adding more instability in an already unstable program in an unstable area of the world is trouble in the making.

But it has ceased being a question of either/or nukes/no nukes. Nuclear powers are not going to give up their weapons. The only country that has is South Africa, and that was predicated on racist imperatives: SA was fine having nuclear weapons under white control, but once black majority rule became a certainty, bye bye nukes...

I agree totally with the sentiment that we have progressed enough as a people to recognize that nuclear weapons have no place or meaning on the planet. And, yes, sadly they aren't going away. But where I differ is in this approach that, somehow, stability is engendered by x country having nukes, and y not. Iraq was known by those in the know not to have WMD (see Rice et al pre-2003), and so was attacked. With impunity. If Iraq had actually had nukes, then there would have been far more circumspection. I like circumspection!

If it takes a nuclear armed Iran to inculcate a bit of circumspection in the Middle East then... arm Iran.

[Holbytla]

You'll never convince me that it the right thing to do to arm Iran at this point in time. What may look good on paper and in theory is not necessarily ever going to be good in practical terms.

Am I prejudiced against Iran? Absolutely. Is it fair? Maybe, maybe not. All I have is my own experience to draw upon.

One of the things I dislike most about the US, is the propensity for close-minded, self righteous, religious fanaticism. It drives me crazy that too many people have learned so little given the vast amount of history we have to draw on, and it drives me crazy that so many people believe their religion is the one righteous religion and all the rest of the world are misguided barbarians.

Still the level of fanaticism in this country pales in comparison to the deep dark history of the Holy Roman Catholic Church in the days of the Crusades, witch hunts and inquisitions, and imo to the level of fanaticism found in parts of the middle east today. The last thing I would want to do is arm a country that engenders that level of fanaticism.

The US, England, Russia and France et al, are by no means absent of guilt, but I don't find the level of instability, wanton, misguided, and archaic barbarism as plentiful in any of those places either.

Bomb Iran? No way. Get embroiled in another useless and senseless war? No way. Keep a watchful eye on the situation? You bet.

I may be dead wrong in my beliefs, but before a suitcase sized weapon ends up beneath King Edwards Coronation chair, or under the escalator in Elephant and Castle Station, or at the Lincoln Memorial, I am ok with some form of intervention. Others would prefer to act later a la 9-11. Some would rather turn the other cheek all together. I don't profess to have the correct solution, but I do have a belief, and I know many others share that belief.

I believe there are very few US military leaders, politicians or citizens that think the recent events in which the Koran was burned by US soldiers a worthy endeavor, righteous, justified or not in opposition with our own Constitution. It was a stupid act carried out by a few idiots (in a military far too replete with idiots) that was condemned by leaders from the top of the totem pole to the bottom. As it should have been. We as a country didn't condone it in any way. That is what I think separates us from countries like Iran, who seem to fully get behind ugly situations like embassy hostages, hangings and rapes.

We are all guilty, but sometimes there are practices that go beyond the pale, and societies that are less than trustworthy. An Iranian walking in downtown Boston today has a very good chance at survival, providing he/she isn't run over by a taxi cab. An American walking in downtown Tehran has not so much a chance.

IMO the buck stops at the president's desk. If a country cannot control their own destiny without serious intervention from a religion, then perhaps they should take a lesson from Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Beckett....


err nevermind.