Iran Air War: U.S. Plans For Possibility, But Goal Remains Unclear

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Mar 12,, 01:25

Originally Posted by Double Edge

So why no formal declaration of Iranian NPT violations ?

Could it be the Russians do not agree (yet).

Namely because the Iranians are not there yet. They still have a lot of technical hurdles to go through. However, it would seemed that they're now concentrating on facility survival against an Israeli strike before going ahead further with weapons development.

David Albright summarize, Preventing Iran From Getting Nuclear Weapons, that it has become vastly more difficult for Iran to maintain covert development and that negotiation is the best way to entice Iran to stop development.

S2 · 08 Mar 12,, 03:08

"See Rocco and Dago's answers. Sufficently stated."

I saw them. Neither had your name attached. I asked you-not them. Can you explain your viewpoint on those resolutions?

"...Has Iran tested a nuke? Has Iran set off a nuke? The only evidence is that Iran bought blueprints of AQK's designs. Big deal. That is not even prima facie case of Iran building nukes. After all, Iran could be studying Pakistan's nukes and gauge whether Pakistan has a working nuke or a dud for intelligence purposes, a perfectly acceptable answer..."

I asked you whether Iran was engaged solely in the development of peaceful nuclear energy. It'd be a simple answer to which I still await your response. Will I ever receive it in a clear, concise and unambiguous manner or shall you continue to obfuscate and dissemble?

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Mar 12,, 03:14

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Has Iran tested a nuke? Has Iran set off a nuke? The only evidence is that Iran bought blueprints of AQK's designs. Big deal. That is not even prima facie case of Iran building nukes. After all, Iran could be studying Pakistan's nukes and gauge whether Pakistan has a working nuke or a dud for intelligence purposes, a perfectly acceptable answer.

Hitesh, I cannot believe you wrote this. So, Iran has working knowledge to judge Pakistani warhead designs.

**RoccoR** · 08 Mar 12,, 04:25

Officer of Engineers, S2, Dago, Blademaster, et al,

I wanted to clarify something.

Originally Posted by S2

I asked you whether Iran was engaged solely in the development of peaceful nuclear energy. It'd be a simple answer to which I still await your response. Will I every receive it in a clear, concise and unambiguous manner or shall you continue to obfuscate and dissemble?

(COMMENT)

S2's concerns are not totally unfounded; as I have stated before. I would like to bring your attention to a comment made back on 31 Jan 12, 00:05; Thread: "Iran, Nukes, War Casualties and Assorted Accusations."

Originally Posted by RoccoR

Paragraphs 43 and 44 of Section G are famous and often quoted. I have mentioned the material findings in substance, several times myself.

Bullet #4 I've discussed this. It is the only bullet point really worth mentioning. This refers to the computer modeling, implosion simulations and the R&D into the detonation devices. CLEARLY, this is suspicious activity. But it is in the R&D realm. It bares further evaluation and explanation.

Paragraph 44, actually is a amplification of Bullet #4 in Paragraph 43. Obviously, the modeling of a implosion type detonation devices sounds ominously like a military application; without a civilian application.

This comment directly relates to the input provided by "Dago," 7 Mar 2012, Today 16:44.

Originally Posted by Dago

AP Exclusive: Iran may be cleaning up nuke work
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press – 8 minutes ago
VIENNA (AP) — Satellite images of an Iranian military facility appear to show trucks and earth-moving vehicles at the site, indicating an attempted cleanup of radioactive traces possibly left by tests of a nuclear-weapon trigger, diplomats told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

The assertions from the diplomats, all nuclear experts accredited to the International Atomic Energy Agency, could add to the growing international pressure on Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes.

I believe this article is dated information, re-released for public consumption for emphasis. I believe we are talking about the same place, same event, and the same suspicion.

S2's inference is not entirely wrong. There is a strongly held belief in certain quarters that this is a clean-up effort in a post-test of a neutron initiator (detonation device). There appears to be some indication that some R&D and testing has been performed that could only be described as suspiciously for military application.

I apologize for butting in to the question specifically not directed at me.

Most Respectfully,
R

S2 · 08 Mar 12,, 04:40

"...I apologize for butting in to the question specifically not directed at me."

No apology necessary. Your views are always welcome. Neither do your views relieve Blademaster from precisely stating his own answers. I'd suspected he'd attempt to piggy-back on your response.

He may answer or not as he sees fit but his silence on such simply-stated but profound questions would be damning. Blademaster would benefit through clarification by providing clear, concise answers to my questions.

He's yet to do so IMV.

**TopHatter** · 08 Mar 12,, 05:17

Originally Posted by Double Edge

And you're assuming suicide tactics scale up from a group right to up to the size of a nation. How ?

And there's the next point, for a group its a tactic but for an entire nation its a strategy. Is there a connect between the two. What i mean is even for a group it does not make sense for everybody to die.

And you're only assuming a nation when in fact we're dealing with, at the very least, an entire region.

**Blademaster** · 08 Mar 12,, 06:01

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Hitesh, I cannot believe you wrote this. So, Iran has working knowledge to judge Pakistani warhead designs.

So do other non-nuclear states. Remember I am speaking from a lawyer's stand point. You are making the case for an attack. I am challenging your basis, forcing you to come up with concrete proof. Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate.

**Blademaster** · 08 Mar 12,, 06:03

Originally Posted by S2

"See Rocco and Dago's answers. Sufficently stated."

I saw them. Neither had your name attached. I asked you-not them. Can you explain your viewpoint on those resolutions?

"...Has Iran tested a nuke? Has Iran set off a nuke? The only evidence is that Iran bought blueprints of AQK's designs. Big deal. That is not even prima facie case of Iran building nukes. After all, Iran could be studying Pakistan's nukes and gauge whether Pakistan has a working nuke or a dud for intelligence purposes, a perfectly acceptable answer..."

I asked you whether Iran was engaged solely in the development of peaceful nuclear energy. It'd be a simple answer to which I still await your response. Will I ever receive it in a clear, concise and unambiguous manner or shall you continue to obfuscate and dissemble?

No because I know where you are going with this and I am not falling for this. You are setting up a strawman's argument. Don't think I am stupid to fall for that. I have stated what I need to state. You don't like it, that's your problem, not mine.

**Double Edge** · 08 Mar 12,, 08:50

Originally Posted by Blademaster

No because I know where you are going with this and I am not falling for this. You are setting up a strawman's argument. Don't think I am stupid to fall for that.

Am not following you here. Where is the strawman.

Do you mean to say instead that it is a leading question.

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Mar 12,, 13:47

Originally Posted by Blademaster

So do other non-nuclear states.

Those states acquired their knowledge before signing the NPT and as of right now, individuals are allowed to have that knowledge provided that they work for a nuclear weapons states. Sucks to be Iran but there it is.

In simple terms, no Iran does not have the knowledge to judge Pakistani designs. Hell, it took this long to reverse engineer AQ Khan's junk wheras it took India less than 2 to find out what's wrong.

And do recall that AQ Khan sold what Pakistan thought was to be a working design. It was only after their tests that they discovered they were flawed. Iran would have no way to determine where the flaw is without test data.

The N5 and a few others with nuclear weapons experience might be able to deduce the flaw. Iran is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Remember I am speaking from a lawyer's stand point. You are making the case for an attack. I am challenging your basis, forcing you to come up with concrete proof. Nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate.

And you're missing the point of international behaviour when it comes to international law. We don't do what is legal. We do what is not illegal. It is not illegal to enforce the NPT through force.

And despite what the UN Charter says, it does not forbid the use of force in any international dispute. It only says that the dispute should be dealt with peacefully, no language in stating that a forceful response is illegal.

**Captain Worley** · 08 Mar 12,, 14:11

Wouldn't implosion simulations be for a Plutonium bomb, rather than gun type Uranium bombs? they're pretty far away from Plutonium, aren't they?

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Mar 12,, 14:17

Implosion devices can be both.

**Double Edge** · 08 Mar 12,, 14:20

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Namely because the Iranians are not there yet. They still have a lot of technical hurdles to go through.

Where/What is 'there' ? A test, proof of a prototype, break out, anything else ?

If Iran is not there yet, and no formal charge has yet been made then how can it be said that Iran has violated the NPT. Well, any number of people can make that charge but to stick it must have authority. John Bolton mentioned it in the 2004 NPT review conference and Hilary in 2010 but i guess it does not count as the question is still pending.

In short, nobody with the required authority has made a formal charge therefore the charge of violation cannot be substantiated. This does not mean because there is no charge that Iran is in the clear. Its just as the CRS report put it, whether or not Iran has violated the NPT remains unclear. There isn't a yes/no answer as yet.

The language in articles i read speaks about non-compliance and efforts required to ensure Iran meets NPT obligations rather than violation.

Did NoK violate the NPT. They never attained compliance and then withdrew.

Has any country ever been formally charged with violating the NPT. I wonder if its pointless as in stating the bleeding obvious. That is to say its redundant to state that a country has violated the NPT when they get 'there'.

What is the basic grievance here ? Bolton says its using the NPT as a cover to develop weapons through repeated non-compliance as NoK did. Such an outcome would be a contradiction and failure of what the NPT stands for. But nobody can be charged with any violations until its too late. They have a 'bomb' where they explicitly agreed that they would not make one.

So the argument turns on non-compliance. How many infractions are required until that charge can be made. Not complying with just one clause or more. If non-compliance is flagged & acted on early enough then maybe violations can be prevented. Nobody wants things to get that far because it demonstrates a failure of the NPT. NoK already did it.

The question then becoms is non-compliance sufficient to act upon. Depends on the action. Sanctions are ok but military options i would think not. This is why i asked for a formal declartion of NPT violations but I doubt we will get it.

The idea of additional protocols was introduced due to Iraq's example in the early 1990s. But unless a country ratifies those protocols its not bound by them as is the case with Iran presently.

**Officer of Engineers** · 08 Mar 12,, 14:27

Originally Posted by Double Edge

Where/What is 'there' ? A test, proof of a prototype, break out, anything else ?

The Iranians are not in a position to put together an implosion device, even a test device. At current levels, it is evaluated that they did all the book and computer simulation work that they can. They now need to get the materials and manufacture the parts to go further.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

In short, nobody with the required authority has made a formal charge therefore the charge of violation cannot be substantiated. This does not mean because there is no charge that Iran is in the clear. Its just as the CRS report put it, whether or not Iran has violated the NPT remains unclear. There isn't a yes/no answer as yet.

I offer the timing in which the NPT came into being and the timing of the escalation of the Sino-Soviet dispute. It was quite convenient for the Soviets to author a treaty that made Chinese nukes illegal just in time when they were ready to attack Lop Nor and nuke Beijing.

Both the Soviets and the Americans knew exactly what they were doing when they left language out.

S2 · 08 Mar 12,, 14:54

"No because I know where you are going with this and I am not falling for this. You are setting up a strawman's argument..."

Not so. I'm not that duplicitous. I simply wished to strip away your subterfuge and dissemblance and discern what you truly believe.

I see such will prove impossible.

"...Don't think I am stupid to fall for that."

I promise I shall not believe you stupid for that.

Thread: Iran Air War: U.S. Plans For Possibility, But Goal Remains Unclear

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Blademaster Reply

RoccoR Reply

Blademaster Reply

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

US 'Iran attack plans' revealed

Afghan soldier's motive for killing Brits unclear

Iran says UN has no right to stop enrichment plans

Israel has plans for nuclear strike on Iran

Iran plans terror fund freeze

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions