# Iran: Why build the bomb?



## wayneL (8 July 2008)

OK I don't want to focus on whether Iran is building the bomb or whether we should let them build it or not. Plenty of discussion on the other thread for that, so let's keep that there.

Let's for a moment take for granted that they ARE building the bomb. The basic position if the US and Israeli hawks is that they shall not be allowed to build it.

We can then make the assumption that either the US or Israel or both, will bomb the crap out of any suspected nuclear facility... soon by the look of it.

The burning question in my mind is this;

The Iranians know that they will be/are going to be bombed, SO WHY BUILD IT only to be turned to toast?

Is this some sort of massive decoy setup or something? I don't get it.

And please, non of this "the mullahs" are all mad BS. They may be fanatics, but they ain't stupid.

What's going on?



> Iran has resumed A-bomb project, says West
> By Con Coughlin
> Last Updated: 8:13AM BST 07/07/2008
> Iran has resumed work on constructing highly sophisticated equipment that nuclear experts say is primarily used for building atomic weapons, according to the latest intelligence reports received by Western diplomats.
> ...


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

Seems logical to us probably Wayne. Lots of nationalism involved which may cloud their judgement. And they may assume the Usraelies won't pull the trigger due to the regional fallout. Like Sadam didn't really think GFII would go ahead. Massive polical risk to Usrael if they go ahead with anything preemptive.


----------



## mayk (8 July 2008)

I guess it has more to do with the west monopoly on nuclear technology. Instead of bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, they should have focused on making sellable nuclear power plant available to any country which can not be used for military purposes. 

With current technology, it is possible to sell a nuclear plant and monitor its working from a central command authority (like IAEC). Why deny the right to other countries to build peaceful nuclear power? If the West can't deliver it then they should not stop it from development either. 


They are in constant threat from Israel (before that Iraq) and KSA. They have no friendly neighbour. They are as isolated in Arabia as Israel is. They must be thinking that nuclear is the ultimate deterrent, no one will dare to touch them once they have that. 


How many suicide bombing Iranians have commited? What have they done wrong? What is their crime? Is it too much to sit on a massive resource of OIL and want to use that oil for self construction of its nation? 


I don't see why will someone need an A-bomb to wipe out Israel. This small portion of land can be completed annihalited many times over by conventional weapons (If Israel thinks that nuclear are bad then why allow conventional??). The reason does not make much sense. Apart from the fact no one will want to explod this horrible device in its back yard. The repercussions will be too dire to comprehend.


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

mayk said:


> I guess it has more to do with the west monopoly on nuclear technology. Instead of bombing Iraq and Afghanistan, they should have focused on making sellable nuclear power plant available to any country which can not be used for military purposes.
> 
> With current technology, it is possible to sell a nuclear plant and monitor its working from a central command authority (like IAEC). Why deny the right to other countries to build peaceful nuclear power? If the West can't deliver it then they should not stop it from development either.



I think Russia offered this up at one stage and they didn't want it. Why not? Because they want the bomb. Maybe.


----------



## robert toms (8 July 2008)

Why build the build...to ensure self preservation and self respect.
There are pedators out there that want their oil amongst other motivations.
Will they have the living suit-case bombed out of them?
Remember Serbia,the US and Britain had a long list of tanks that they had wiped out.Did anyone ever see the evidence of this ?
I read that the Serbs had plenty of rubber tanks and other look alikes all over the place.
The Iranians have promised to interrupt oil flows out of the Persian Gulf if there is any attack on them.Are they capable of doing this ? Probably.


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

robert toms said:


> Why build the build...to ensure self preservation and self respect.
> There are pedators out there that want their oil amongst other motivations.
> Will they have the living suit-case bombed out of them?
> Remember Serbia,the US and Britain had a long list of tanks that they had wiped out.Did anyone ever see the evidence of this ?
> ...



But Robert, I thought Wayne's point was that if they do go ahead with it, they will have Usrael bombing them with efficient weapons, and tons of them. It's virtual suicide.


----------



## juw177 (8 July 2008)

Actually, there is no evidence that they are building any bomb. The UN and even US intelligence agrees. Of course, things like these are ignored by Bush and Brown, and censored in the same media outlets that were cheerleading the lead up to Iraq war.

WayneL, is the article you posted even news? Who are these "western experts" and these people who gave this report to "western diplomats"?
The closing point of the article is that "the report deepens suspicions that Tehran has resumed work on its nuclear weapons programme"
Just a lot of baseless claims and fluff to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran



> Much of the debate about the 'Iranian nuclear threat' is driven not so much by any hard evidence about a weapon driven program but by concern that Iran's mastery of civilian technology would provide the means to rapidly develop a weapons capability should it wish to do so in the future.






> 2007 Iran National Intelligence Estimate
> 
> In December 2007 the United States National Intelligence Estimate (that represents the consensus view of all 16 American spy agencies) judged with "high confidence” that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003, with "moderate confidence" that the program remains frozen, and with "moderate-to-high confidence" that Iran is "keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons." The new estimate says that the enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade but that *intelligence agencies “do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons” at some future date. Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, said he hoped the administration would “appropriately adjust its rhetoric and policy”.[163][164] The conclusion that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in 2003 was reportedly mainly based on the contents of a laptop computer that was allegedly stolen from Iran and provided to US intelligence agencies by dissidents.[165] The Russians dismissed this conclusion, stating that they had not seen evidence that Iran had ever pursued a nuclear weapons program.*[166]
> 
> The 2007 NIE report, allegedly based on new evidence, differed from the previous 2005 NIE conclusion which asserted that Iran had an active and on-going nuclear weapons program in 2005. According to a senior administration official, in a January 2008 conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Israeli and other foreign officials asked President Bush to explain the 2007 NIE. *Bush "told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that (the NIE's) conclusions don't reflect his own views".[167] After Bush seemed to distance himself from the report, the White House later said Bush endorses the "full scope" of the US intelligence findings on Iran.*[168]


----------



## Superfly (8 July 2008)

Coming soon..


----------



## ironchef (8 July 2008)

I think we should also give some attention to the fact that throughout  history (10th century and onwards) Iran has NOT every initiated any attack on any other sovereign nation. 

Now look at the history of the west. England, France, Germany, USA, Israel.. These countries have been behind every evil for the last thousand years. I am hard pressed to understand why the USA and Israel should be trusted with nuclear weapons over Iran. 

Until 60 years ago, African-Americans were segregated because of their race in educational institutions. THATS LIVING MEMORY!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLaurin_v._Oklahoma_State_Regents

Only in the last few decades have the European-Americans started 'treating' African-Americans (Who's ancestors were stolen to be _SLAVES_ only a few centuries before) as human beings. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Rights_Movement_Timeline

If the American's took this long to recognise people they LIVED WITH for hundreds of years to be human, what chance do Iranians have who live on the other side of the world?

The USA has been the root of racism and hate in living memory. They are the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons. If anything, Iran should be doing checks on the USA's limitless stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.


----------



## saiter (8 July 2008)

They can build it because then if Israel decides to attack, the rest of the Arab world will be all over Israel, and they're hoping it won't be a repeat of the 1967 six day war.
So if Israel is going to get attacked (if it attacks the reactors), then a similar attack from the US will ignite a similar response, and so they'll probably back off as well.
In the end, Iran has no threat and goes ahead with the bomb. Maybe this way, Israel will seek an alliance with Iran to stop it from supporting other Arab states in the future? And maybe this will influence other nations in the middle east to seek alliances with Israel too? Maybe building the bomb is a good thing?


----------



## disarray (8 July 2008)

> Now look at the history of the west. England, France, Germany, USA, Israel.. These countries have been behind every evil for the last thousand years




rubbish, human history is full of evil committed by all races at one time or another. the aztecs, the mongols, the japanese, go read some history.



> Until 60 years ago, African-Americans were segregated because of their race in educational institutions. THATS LIVING MEMORY!
> 
> Only in the last few decades have the European-Americans started 'treating' African-Americans (Who's ancestors were stolen to be _SLAVES_ only a few centuries before) as human beings.




malaysia has institutionalised racism, slavery is still practiced in the middle east, china tells people they can only have 1 child. what's your point?



> The USA has been the root of racism and hate in living memory.






as for iran and nukes, probably a few things.

iran is surrounded by nuclear powers, pakistan, india, china, russia, israel and america (through iraq and afghanistan). as a regional player, which their resource base entitles them to, it is in their best interests to be on the same playing field as the people around them. 

US policy has iran on edge, and rightly so, america is insanely avaricious. all the axis of evil sabre rattling and military maneuvers around their border and fleets sitting in the gulf is very aggressive so iran would obviously like some kind of edge. nations with nukes also stop being candidates for "regime change" machinations, kim is pretty safe in north korea now, but he's so ronery.




> And please, non of this "the mullahs" are all mad BS. They may be fanatics, but they ain't stupid




don't overlook this. the Mahdi is an important figure to shia muslims, and the iranian president has mentioned it several times. religion and nationalism are closely aligned in islamic states, so pushing religious doctrine that furthers a nationalist cause is a good idea.

and the mullahs are mad, they're a theocracy.


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

ironchef said:


> Now look at the history of the west. England, France, Germany, USA, Israel.. These countries have been behind every evil for the last thousand years. I am hard pressed to understand why the USA and Israel should be trusted with nuclear weapons over Iran.



Ironchef, you are way off here, IMO, to be corrected. 

Japan raped South East Asia during WWII.
Pol Pot in Cambodia.
North v Sth Korea with Chinese support.
Chinese support of the NVA in their civil war. 
Indonesian slaughter of 500K Communists in 75.
Indonesian invasion of East Timor.
Ghengis Khan rape and pilliage through West Asia.

There are tons of other examples, but I have concetrated on Asia since that is the area you have left out in it's attrocities though history, for some reason. 

Food for thought.


----------



## juw177 (8 July 2008)

Yes, but Asian countries are not the ones preaching to bomb another country to bring about peace and democracy, which is why Ironchef was pointing out the hypocrisy.

The bottom line is that there is no hard evidence that Iran is going to build any bomb, and no evidence that they are any threat to first world alliance.


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> The bottom line is that there is no hard evidence that Iran is going to build any bomb, and no evidence that they are any threat to first world alliance.



I've heard Ahmadinajad (spelling) say that Israel should be whiped off the map.


----------



## ironchef (8 July 2008)

Guys,

I take back the comment I made regarding 'behind every evil'. I know and agree that its not JUST the nations I mentioned taking part in evil acts. I'm sorry for the miss-communication.

The point point I wanted to make in that sentence is that those particular countries I've mentioned above are not exactly heros-of-human-rights and justice themselves. They have dark pasts so it makes not sense to see them as 'the good' and anyone opposed to them as 'the evil'.

Again, sorry for my poorly thought out comment. I hope I delivered my message more clearly this time around.


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

ironchef said:


> Guys,
> 
> I take back the comment I made regarding 'behind every evil'. I know and agree that its not JUST the nations I mentioned taking part in evil acts. I'm sorry for the miss-communication.
> 
> ...



Cheers IF, My personal belief is that we are all evil but this is not the forum for that discussion..


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

And, I think the reason we don't want anymore nukes on the planet is so there is more stability. The more countries with the bomb, the more fragile the planet. That's why we have the current nuclear arrangements. (forgotton the treaty name)


----------



## juw177 (8 July 2008)

kennas said:


> I've heard Ahmadinajad (spelling) say that Israel should be whiped off the map.




It was incorrectly translated, but of course the western news just ran with it without verifying it as expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel


----------



## juw177 (8 July 2008)

kennas said:


> And, I think the reason we don't want anymore nukes on the planet is so there is more stability. The more countries with the bomb, the more fragile the planet. That's why we have the current nuclear arrangements. (forgotton the treaty name)




I will disagree with that. In the cold war, it was only because the soviets had the bomb that the US didn't dare to start a nuclear war in fear of retaliation and vice versa. If Japan had the bomb, the US probably would not have bombed them.

The US gives plenty of nukes to Israel but the UN turns a blind eye even though the Israel regime is one of the worst violators of human rights. India, as US's new ally have recently been allowed nukes. Do the weak countries that are not a part of the elite alliance have any right to resist? What is the value of a Palestinian and Iraqi life vs an Israeli?

Since the world wars, many countries have been attacked and destablised by outside powers (most cases the US). Most if not all of those countries were only targeted because they were defenseless.


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> I will disagree with that. In the cold war, it was only because the soviets had the bomb that the US didn't dare to start a nuclear war in fear of retaliation and vise versa. If Japan had the bomb, the US probably would not have bombed them.
> 
> Since the world wars, many countries have been attacked and destablised by outside powers (most cases the US). Most if not all of those countries were defenseless and poor.



I'm taking about the Nuclear Non Prolifiration Treaty which is generally accepted to be the solution to MAD.


----------



## ironchef (8 July 2008)

kennas said:


> I've heard Ahmadinajad (spelling) say that Israel should be whiped off the map.




Hi Kennas, 

Actually, what was omitted after that whole 'wiped off the map' speed was the questionable translation of Ahmadinejad's actual words.

His speech is confirmed as miss-translated. American based university professors later translated the speed and that particular statement as:


> According to Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as:
> The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12]
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel




I urge you and others to look into this.

Ahmadinejad's desire to remove the regime occupying Jerusalem is no different from Israel and America's desire of removing the many regimes they are not aligned with.

Ahmadinejad also has issues with Zionism and may wish to destroy Zionism and this can also be compared with USA's desire to remove Communism from the world. I also urge you to look into Zionism and the goals of Zionists. (Zionism should not be confused with Judaism.. Please look into it). 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

I'm a happy little Vegemite in living on this side of the world, working 9 to 5 and having drinks with mates on Friday nights, so really for me, these issues aren't a huge deal, but I do like to stay informed and have opinions based on facts. Please don't think I agree with Ahmadinejad, infact, I'd really like to less of him. He is obnoxious and loud but we shouldn't crucify him for something he DIDN'T say.


----------



## juw177 (8 July 2008)

kennas said:


> I'm taking about the Nuclear Non Prolifiration Treaty which is generally accepted to be the solution to MAD.




Yes but who is doing anything about it? The US obviously does not care for international laws?

If they want to make the world a safer place, start by disarming the aggressors (US and Israel). Disarming the countries likely to be bullied will only make a war more likely.


----------



## Sean K (8 July 2008)

juw177 said:


> Yes but who is doing anything about it? The US obviously does not care for international laws?
> 
> If they want to make the world a safer place, start by disarming the aggressors (US and Israel). Disarming the countries likely to be bullied will only make a war more likely.



I agree, no one is because the world comminuty is too divided. It's only when there is one element so risky that anyone will do something about it. Out of the 5 nuclear powers - (US, China, Britain, Franch, Russia) we also have India, Pakistan and Israel who have nukes, and maybe Nth Korea. Can't think of any others. Australia could develop one very quickly if we needed to. 

Rudd tried to get the ball rolling with disarmament and was shot down. Pretty naive actually to think any of the current 5 powers would give it up.


----------



## wildkactus (8 July 2008)

The only way to stop others building the bomb is to stop everyone from having them.

The Nuclear nations need to take the lead and start to dismantle their *entire* stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not just the one's that cost the most to upkeep.
Then they will have a leg to stand on with the other countries tring to develop the bomb, but while they have them and say to everyone else you can't, the non nuclear countries like Iran will just keep going until they get one.

If the amount of money that is spent on stopping countries from getting the bomb was put to better use, like developing a new generation of nuclear power plants or whatever good social program the world would be a lot better off.


----------



## bassmanpete (8 July 2008)

> The Nuclear nations need to take the lead and start to dismantle their entire stockpiles of nuclear weapons, not just the one's that cost the most to upkeep.




That will never happen because none of them would believe that the others had got rid of all theirs. And they'd probably be right because they'd all keep a few tucked away somewhere, "just in case...!"


----------



## wildkactus (8 July 2008)

bassmanpete said:


> That will never happen because none of them would believe that the others had got rid of all theirs. And they'd probably be right because they'd all keep a few tucked away somewhere, "just in case...!"




you are right 100%, I was stating what needs to happen, not what will happen.

And that is why it is all doomed to fail and why we will see one of these going off in a city near you.

I also do beleive that it will be one of the so call nuclear nations that will be the ones to use one, premptive they will call it!!!


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2008)

kennas said:


> But Robert, I thought Wayne's point was that if they do go ahead with it, they will have Usrael bombing them with efficient weapons, and tons of them. It's virtual suicide.




Yes, this is exactly my point. Let's not get sidetracked on other issues.

They may NOT actually be building a bomb, they may be building them as fast as they can; I don't know. But why would they, seeing as it is guaranteeing an attack and the destruction of said facility, including any peaceful power plants.

Something is wrong. Thing don't add up.


----------



## juw177 (8 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Something is wrong. Thing don't add up.




What is wrong is that the US is spreading propaganda to further zionist interests in the middle east. What Iran is doing is perfectly legal under international / UN laws. On the other hand, it would be illegal for US or Israel to infringe on Iran sovereignty.

It makes no difference to the US anyway, just like how they didn't need to prove Sadaam had WMDs before invading.


----------



## rederob (8 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> The burning question in my mind is this;
> 
> The Iranians know that they will be/are going to be bombed, SO WHY BUILD IT only to be turned to toast?



The Iranians know the Israelis may attack their nuclear program facilities, but they also know this: To get to Iran the Israelis would overfly Iraq - and Iraqi airspace is controlled by the US.
Put another way, an Israeli attack on Iran is equal to a US attack on Iran.
If that doesn't start a major northern hemisphere skirmish - world war - then I would be very surprised.
Put slightly differently, how happy would you be if Iran shut down the Straits of Hormuz - 20% of global oil output - because the US sanctioned a pre-emtive strike?
Lastly, an attack on Iran would re-activate Russia and China to its real defense.  The US is already overstretched militarily, so if they wanted to see an early grave a sanctioned attack would definitely be the way to go.
My assessment:
Risk - possible but improbable
Consequences - more dire than anyone in Australia could imagine


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2008)

rederob said:


> The Iranians know the Israelis may attack their nuclear program facilities, but they also know this: To get to Iran the Israelis would overfly Iraq - and Iraqi airspace is controlled by the US.
> Put another way, an Israeli attack on Iran is equal to a US attack on Iran.
> If that doesn't start a major northern hemisphere skirmish - world war - then I would be very surprised.
> Put slightly differently, how happy would you be if Iran shut down the Straits of Hormuz - 20% of global oil output - because the US sanctioned a pre-emtive strike?
> ...



OK this is largely along my thinking as well.

I hope you're right about it being improbable, as per your last comment.


----------



## juw177 (8 July 2008)

Obviously, the US has done their math and they have decided that Iran is worth invading. Rally a little more public support, spread more hate and plant a few more news articles. They will get there.

The consequences may be disastrous for people living in the middle east and for the US soldiers, but the few elites who are pushing for this war will benefit (just like Iraq).


----------



## mayk (8 July 2008)

Damned if you do damned if you don't. I forsee a big 'strategic' plan in the works. 

Some big heads in the middle east will roll (probably get killed). It will be 1970's again. This time the regiemes will be a bit more friendly to US. 


No nation will provide support to Iran. It is a sad fact, but no arabian country likes Iran and they might be happy if someone will reduce their military strength. 


If Iran will try to stop the oil other methods will soon be discovered. It is a big world and unless problems arise they are seldom solved. I bet an alternate route will be already in place by the time the strike happens. 


In this over charged scenario I don't think Iran will do much apart from some angry remarks. But long term they will 'eat grass' to get an atom bomb and take revenge. But by that time Oil will already be history and world focus will be on something else.


----------



## jtb (8 July 2008)

If Australia's landscape was entirely arid and our *only* resource was 20 years (maybe substantially less) of coal, and that coal was worth 100 times more on the open market than we were subsidising it to our own population/industry/generation capability for.
Would it not be a good idea to bank (leave in the ground) as much as possible of that very valuable commodity and source an alternate energy source?

Or should we just wait until once our lights sputter out in 2028 and we become a dark, cold sandpit.

As we would also have no wind,vast mineral resources, uranium, water, infrastructure,economy or alternate hydro-carbons and loads of wasteland than importing enriched uranium would probably be the rational and economic decision?

I also think the fruitcake is a major risk-but unfortunately Tehran is hardly Dubai.


----------



## Sean K (9 July 2008)

ironchef said:


> Hi Kennas,
> 
> Actually, what was omitted after that whole 'wiped off the map' speed was the questionable translation of Ahmadinejad's actual words.
> 
> ...



IF, I have looked at this, and there are actually several references to removing the Zionist regime, which can be interpreted as wipping Israel off the map, or from the pages of history, or removing the entire Jewish population, from Palestine. Interesting that the 'wipe off the map' interpretation came from his office. 

Part of the translation also provides this statement:



> I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world




I'm not sure how you can compare Zion with Communism. Communism is a political system, Zion is a place, or group of people.

(yes Zionism is the political movement, but is that what he wants to remove)

As we're using Wiki for our references let's quote it in regard to what Zion is:



> Zion (Hebrew: צִיּוֹן, tziyyon; Tiberian vocalization: tsiyyÃ´n; transliterated Zion or Sion) is a term that most often designates the Land of Israel and its capital, Jerusalem. The word is found in texts dating back almost three millennia. It commonly referred to a specific mountain near Jerusalem (Mount Zion), on which stood a Jebusite fortress of the same name that was conquered by David and was named the City of David.
> 
> The term Zion came to designate the area of Jerusalem where the fortress stood, and later became a metonym for Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem and the entire Promised Land to come, in which, according to the Hebrew Bible, God dwells among his chosen people.




So, it's not a political system but the country of Israel.

It just floats on the interpretation of his various comments regarding the policical system, or the people. Perhaps he is just saying the political system..


----------



## juw177 (9 July 2008)

kennas,
1. Israel is not a country. It is a state created by an illegal occupation.
2. Being Jewish does not equate to supporting Israel.
3. Israel's regime has one of the worst human rights record in the world.
4. Speaking out against (3) does not make you evil or anti semantic as US propaganda wants you to believe.


----------



## DB008 (25 September 2012)

wayneL said:


> The burning question in my mind is this;
> 
> The Iranians know that they will be/are going to be bombed, SO WHY BUILD IT only to be turned to toast?




Not if you bomb them first...

Could be a media beat-up...but...



> *Report: Iran mulls 'pre-emptive attack' against Israel; commander warns of 'World War III'*
> 
> Updated at 4:46 a.m. ET: Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state were preparing to attack it, a senior commander of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.
> 
> ...


----------



## saiter (25 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Not if you bomb them first...
> 
> Could be a media beat-up...but...




Cold war v2.0?


----------



## DB008 (26 September 2012)

Breaking!! Israel Lobbyist - We Need a False Flag to Start War with Iran!


----------

