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.
The reactor of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant. Iran insists its nuclear programme is peaceful
AP
Tehran announced that it has no intention of halting its uranium enrichment programme

The work is aimed at developing the blueprint provided by Dr AQ Khan, the "father" of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, who sold Iran details of how to build atom bombs in the early 1990s. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...an-has-resumed-A-bomb-project,-says-West.html

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 ?
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.

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.

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.

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.

Iran: Why build the bomb?

wayneL

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Sean K

Moderator

mayk

Sean K

Moderator

robert toms

Sean K

Moderator

juw177

Superfly

Attachments

ironchef

saiter

disarray

Sean K

Moderator

juw177

Sean K

Moderator

ironchef

Sean K

Moderator

Sean K

Moderator

juw177

juw177

Sean K

Moderator

Similar threads

Iran: Why build the bomb?

VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency