Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bunker Busters shipped to Diego Garcia

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    What are the advantages to the NPT? Whenever I start reading treaties and resolutions and all those my eyes start glazing over after 3 sentences
    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

    Comment


    • #32
      Non-proliferation, disarmament, and peaceful trade of nuclear materials and technologies.

      Comment


      • #33
        OOE, I don't know whether Iran is in violation of the NPT.

        I do know, however, that neither the enrichment of uranium, nor the breeding of plutonium, is forbidden by the treaty.

        There's no problem under the NPT with Iran producing highly enriched uranium. Any signatory to the NPT can enrich uranium to any level they like, or breed as much plutonium as they like.

        The Iranians have therefore been quite right to refuse demands that their uranium be enriched elsewhere. No NPT signatory should have to put up with the sort of harassment and threats Iran has gotten.

        Comment


        • #34
          I don't know, but I think you guys are wrong. A unilateral strike at this point in time would be a major mistake. What I want to see happen before we go it alone is we hit the absolute and final point where we and our European allies all realize there is no other way than to strike. Then if they get cold feet, which wouldn't surprise me in the least, we do the deed alone.

          The problem is our tendency to reset the clock every time Iran makes a gesture in our direction. All their gestures come up empty. It's time we blew off their gestures and reminded them we are only after one thing here and time is limited. Unfortunately, it's questionable whether Obama has the grit to do it.

          Openly shipping bunker busters to Diego might make the Iranians wonder what else is in the pipeline. The message to Iran is clear: we're getting ready. They can bare their chests and call it a bluff, but they can't know for sure.
          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by cape_royds View Post
            do know, however, that neither the enrichment of uranium, nor the breeding of plutonium, is forbidden by the treaty.
            Not if they intend to use that ur or pu for bombs.

            Originally posted by cape_royds View Post
            The Iranians have therefore been quite right to refuse demands that their uranium be enriched elsewhere. No NPT signatory should have to put up with the sort of harassment and threats Iran has gotten.
            They've bought bomb making designs, bomb making equipment, bomb making expertise, and bomb making standards from a bomb maker who specifically has stated that Pakistan (two officials acknoledging such facts) that Iran has bought a bomb making kit to build bombs.

            Now, they are using that kit and you're saying that they have a right to?

            I point this out to you again, Article II does not allow Iran to have bomb making kits no matter what they want to use that kit for ... and Pakistan ... and Iran have stated specifically that they've got bomb making kits.
            Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 20 Mar 10,, 17:15.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by cape_royds View Post
              OOE, I don't know whether Iran is in violation of the NPT.
              They are, secret sites are illegal. The mere existence of them is forbidden. They have also failed to disclose what they are doing, or how much yellow cake, LEU/HEU they have.

              I do know, however, that neither the enrichment of uranium, nor the breeding of plutonium, is forbidden by the treaty.

              There's no problem under the NPT with Iran producing highly enriched uranium. Any signatory to the NPT can enrich uranium to any level they like, or breed as much plutonium as they like.
              If their entire program was above board from day 1 then yes you would be correct. However since they have knowingly and willingly violated the NPT on numerous occasions and comboine that with the worlds most aggressive ballsitic missile development program you have the signs of a weaponization program. A program that based on the statements of the Iranian president is probably aimed at Israel.

              To this you add the Iranian conventional ballsitic missile terror force and its sea mine economic blockade ability and you have an unstable region sitting on the gateway to the worlds oil making threats against a people who collectively have already suffered 2 genocides in living memory.

              You do realize that Iran is warding off attack by threatening to choke the worlds economy, not just the US, the world. They are quite willing to hold 6 billion people hostage to get what they want. They have also threatened to attack the gulf states and Israel is attacked.

              Then theres that crazy subset of Shia Islam that thinks you need WWIII to bring back the hidden iman. A-jad subscribes to that school and he is the real power in Iran not Khameni.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by zraver View Post
                Russia has been stalling on S-300 deliveries for years. Russia may be worried the S-300 may not live up to its reputation.
                The Russians are holding the S-300 as a card against the Israelis. The S-300 wouldn't stand against a salvo of US cruise missiles to say the least. Russia has an interest in disuading Israel from Georgia amongst other things, hence it makes sense why they are playing cat and mouse games.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by cape_royds View Post
                  You do realize, of course, that there's nothing in the NPT that forbids a signatory nation from enriching uranium, or breeding plutonium?
                  This horse has been bitten so much its not funny anymore.

                  Iran's pretense to be enriching for medical isotopes is ludicrous to any sane person. Even if they can enrich to required levels, Iran has no technical know how to make the required plates for the medical reactor. The reactor would have long run out of fuel by the time Iran has even began to understand how to make the plates.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I can't help but feel mighty discouraged whenever I read calls to bomb Iran to solve this problem. I cannot think of a worse course of action for the broader US security interest, than bombing Iran. Sure, it would work in the short term. But in the long term, we'd do severe damage to our middle east security posture.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      And just what do you think will happen to the Middle Easts security posture if this regime is capable of making the threats, but if not stopped will also posess the capability of carrying them out? But yet no sense to their religious bias and support for extremeisms and you want to trust that regime with a nuke? These idiots will fan the flames until you do have a full out war in the region, either by their partcipation (as they do now in Afghanistan and Iraq) or in direct support such as in Lebannon and Syria. Or as in proxy through Hamas and Hezbollah. If you have kept up with late news, they have been dragging foot and offering inuendo in a time where they need to come clean with the NPT. They as in the regime have made the threats time and time again, so it is also "they" that better start making progress before "they" have a really big problem with the nations "they" have provoked.

                      They brought it upon themselves and their people. The blame for this lies upon that regime not US security interests, its in all of those countries interests (Iraq, Saudi's,Afghanistan,Israel Yemen,Bahrain etc) that Iran not be able to weild a nuclear weapon and enforce her extremism influence over any other country or government in the region as they have in Lebannon and Syria.

                      Hell, this regime cannot even manage basic god given rights to their people as we have seen for a long time, not only do they treat their people like dirt, but also insult them as far as fair and tranparent elections among god knows how many other burdens they have. Do you really think that they can rationally,responsibly manage a nuclear weapon or arsenal based upon their track record over the last 10-20 years?
                      Last edited by Dreadnought; 20 Mar 10,, 19:42.
                      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        No. But if you attack them, you'll only set their nuke program back a few years and have the current regime, which is in a very precarious state with respect to its illegitimate election and the riots and such, a rallying cry. You'll see the anti-government side go from gaining steam and ground, to rallying behind the current government. You want to crush the hopes of a more open, responsible Iran? Bomb them. Add onto that the havoc they would wreak in the oil market, Lebanon and the Strip, Iraq and Afghanistan and you have a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions for our current defense posture.

                        I know bombing is sexy, but as Berzezinski says, we have to play the long game. Kilcullen theorizes that bombing Iran would give the government 10 more years of semi-legitimate rule as the people would be whipped up in a nationalistic fervor. Besides, the Iranian government isn't just a bag of fundamental nutjobs. There are pragmatic elements with self-preservation instincts. A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Dread:

                          I don't hear anyone here saying never take military action. Sure, it would be a nasty outcome, if it comes to that. I don't agree with Obama's pussyfooting around, but in a way it might help when push comes to shove. We will be able to say, we tried to do it in a nice way, but you turned down the offer.

                          What we need is a deadline we and our allies agree upon, a policy of rejecting empty gestures from the Iranians and clear threat of what is to come if they don't act.
                          To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ASparr View Post
                            No. But if you attack them, you'll only set their nuke program back a few years and have the current regime, which is in a very precarious state with respect to its illegitimate election and the riots and such, a rallying cry. You'll see the anti-government side go from gaining steam and ground, to rallying behind the current government. You want to crush the hopes of a more open, responsible Iran? Bomb them. Add onto that the havoc they would wreak in the oil market, Lebanon and the Strip, Iraq and Afghanistan and you have a recipe for a disaster of epic proportions for our current defense posture.

                            I know bombing is sexy, but as Berzezinski says, we have to play the long game. Kilcullen theorizes that bombing Iran would give the government 10 more years of semi-legitimate rule as the people would be whipped up in a nationalistic fervor. Besides, the Iranian government isn't just a bag of fundamental nutjobs. There are pragmatic elements with self-preservation instincts. A solid US defense umbrella should be sufficient to deter Iran from any funny business.

                            Bombing sexy? Maybe in political minds but certainly not to those that would have to do it, those that would watch it happen, and those that would have to live with the aftermath. Bombing is not "sexy" at all, if anything a good majority of guys here would tell you that its more of a nightmare then anything else.

                            So you propose, the coutries that are all concerned just go away and never mind and let them produce even know they constantly break the NPT Treaty along with building clandestine reactors in Syria with NK's help that was bombed by Israel and the other reactor they announced at Qom even know they were about to be exposed for even building another before notifing the NPT? Major Laws and Articles broken in the NPT rite there.

                            Who would be to blame if they built such a weapon and used it, or helped another radical regime build theirs and they used it? The UN Security council would be to blame. The US included. They have proven they cannot be trusted and I wouldnt blame Israel in the least for knocking Irans dick in the dirt for how many times that regime has threatened them with destruction. Could you? Or hows about the frequent rocket attacks in Gaza. Iran through its Quds forces supplies them it's been known for a long time now and yes they do have proof.
                            Last edited by Dreadnought; 20 Mar 10,, 20:00.
                            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                              Dread:

                              I don't hear anyone here saying never take military action. Sure, it would be a nasty outcome, if it comes to that. I don't agree with Obama's pussyfooting around, but in a way it might help when push comes to shove. We will be able to say, we tried to do it in a nice way, but you turned down the offer.

                              What we need is a deadline we and our allies agree upon, a policy of rejecting empty gestures from the Iranians and clear threat of what is to come if they don't act.
                              In full agreement JAD but you also know we will never get it from China or Russia until they have bomb in hand since they both have interests there and are both on the Security Council. Those two are the primary reason the sanctions are not allowed to be more severe and crippling.
                              Last edited by Dreadnought; 20 Mar 10,, 20:08.
                              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                                Bombing sexy? Maybe in political minds but certainly not to those that would have to do it, those that would watch it happen, and those that would have to live with the aftermath. Bombing is not "sexy" at all, if anything a good majority of guys here would tell you that its more of a nightmare then anything else.

                                So you propose, the coutries that are all concerned just go away and never mind and let them produce even know they constantly break the NPT Treaty along with building clandestine reactors in Syria with NK's help that was bombed by Israel and the other reactor they announced at Qom even know they were about to be exposed for even building another before notifing the NPT? Law and Aticles broken in the NPT rite there.

                                Who would be to blame if they built such a weapon and used it, or helped another radical regime build theirs and they used it? The UN Security council would be to blame. The US included. They have proven they cannot be trusted and I wouldnt blame Israel in the least for knocking Irans dick in the dirt for how many times that regime has threatened them with destruction. Could you? Or hows about the frequent rocket attacks in Gaza. Iran supplies them itas been known for a long time now and yes they do have proof.
                                Bombing is sexy to those who want to look tough on defense without actually knowing what they're doing (politicians looking to burnish their defense credentials). I agree completely that bombing is a nightmare.

                                No, did I say that? Sanctions are nice, diplomatic isolation, consolidating the threatened arab nations under a formal defense treaty would be good, encouragement of the anti-government minority.

                                Iran is not as stupid and suicidal as you seem to think. They know the repercussions of such an attack and would only used it if we backed them into a corner. Say, by bombing them. Yes, Iran is a tumor on the international stage. I know. But you'll have much more luck accomplishing your goals if you don't submit to every emotional whim and take the strategic view out past 6 months.

                                Let me ask you something: What would happen if the US took out all -all- of Iran's nuclear sites? They just say "ok" and withdraw support for hamas and hizbullah, and shiite militias? They just throw up their hands and give up the nuclear program?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X