Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iran, Nukes, War Casualties and Assorted Accusations

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Gun Boat View Post
    Cut the crap, neutralise their ability to lauch a nuke. The world will not be a better place if Iran has the ability. Strike now, before its to late and let the likes of 'Bigfella' whine about the fact after it is done.
    Gee, 100 posts in 3 years & you are name calling. At least it inspired me to trawl back through your post history & remind myself who you were. Nothing to see really. You haven't done enough here for me to waste my time calling you names. If I want to debate this I'll stick with the grownups & the contributors.
    sigpic

    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
      MS in Nuclear Engineering from UW Madison Wis
      Oh Master :wors:
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
        There are multiple ways to enrich Uranium - for example: gaseous effusion, centripital separation, and laser separation. Of these only gaseous effusion takes a large installation. It is well known that Iran uses centrifuges - these can be installed in smaller facilities - to produce large amounts - they only need to build a large number of small installations. Laser separation processes are even more compact, and this method has been around for quite some time, the physics principles are in the public domain - why couldn't they also be using this method?
        The argument against this position is that it's a big OPSEC headache. The more people working on this, the more likely it would leak out and while spreading it around may reduce risk of complete destruction, it also spread its vulnerability everywhere. Destroying just one point will increase production pressure on the other surviving points.

        Aside from this, I strongly doubt that Iran has the number of experts necessary to do more than 3 sites. One scientist cannot be at 3 different points in the country at the same time.

        Lastly, like Qom, it would be damned hard to hide. You need extensive power requirements and decent security measures, all of which can be seen by cameras in orbit.

        Comment


        • #49
          Double Edge Reply

          Double speak from Double Edge?

          "Not sure if damning is the right term. Maybe casting aspersions, raising suspicions or insinuating.

          Before, you had suspicions, after the nov IAEA report you have some substance to back up those suspicions..."


          Please consider CAREFULLY what you have written. Yes, we had serious suspicions prior to November 2011.

          The information since gathered for this report is credible in the eyes of the IAEA. That information for this report indicates hidden pathways towards enrichment; efforts by MILITARY personnel and their organizations to acquire nuclear-related equipment and components; design work on an indigenously-developed nuclear weapon design-to include components testing; and the acquisition of nuclear weapons design information from a clandestine network of suppliers.

          "...Very subtle..."

          Oh bullshit. There's nothing about "hidden" and "clandestine" suggesting subtlety to the IAEA's indictment. It's forthright and DAMNING.

          ...Maybe the current meeting of the IAEA officials in Iran might clarify more."

          :bang:
          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

          Comment


          • #50
            S-2, et al,

            I understand your total and complete subjugation to that war effort. I was there myself for several tours.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            Get over it. We're not going to dismantle the C.I.A nor the NSA because of your nightmares. Iraq used WMD on their own. Those leaders remained in power and, given another opportunity to resurrect a dormant program, would have done so for the exact same reasons it had been developed in the first place...unless you really think Saddam had some sort of "come-to-Jesus" revelation in the interim.

            Did you find comfort in their stewardship of Iraq?

            That latent capability remained. You know that.

            "But S-2, are you satisfied now with their removal? Why, look at the civil violence since unleashed by those American dogs of war!?"

            (Note: I did not say this. This is not from my posting. RRR)

            Yes. How messy it all is. Instead of state-sanctioned murder we have communal vendetta. Maybe even a civil war.

            Maybe they do? Maybe they don't? Really? First, you may not be the best judge of such given your nightmares. Instead, you may be pre-conditioned to believe the best of these new ambitious hegemons and ignore the accumulated information and analysis of others. Second, given your lucid if nightmarish assessment of their ambitions can you reasonably suggest that Iran would contemplate those ambitions with nothing more than a pair of 2s in their hand?

            (COMMENT)

            I did not say anything about nightmares; nor did I over dramatize. I am completely aware that you and people that agree with your argument, like to use that decade old intelligence on how Chemical Weapons were used. What they don't say is that, the US did nothing because Saddam was a US ally at the time. I know that most of the IA's are fully aware that the now famous Halabja (in Iraqi Kurdistan, circa 1988) incident was information that was more than a decade old when it was used as justification in 2002.

            And I did not, in any way, suggest in any way, that we dismantle the Intelligence Community that I was a part of for nearly 40 years.

            I don't know if "Saddam had some sort of "come-to-Jesus" revelation." I do know what the IC (Director David Kay, Iraq Survey Group) said on the matter. It is a matter of record. I am also aware of what LTG Odom said on the matter.

            It is not wrong to want to avoid making those mistakes again.

            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            Originally posted by Your exceprt from my posting
            "...It is all about what Iran will give-up, in turn, for what it wants...Iran wants to be the dominate power in the Persian Gulf. They want to be the voice of Islam - the voice of Power, the Republic that made good - commanding the respect of every nation enjoined to pay homage. They want to be the hegemony. This is what they want. Give them this and they will dispense with any Program."

            Sooo,... seem cool to you? You o.k. with the above?
            (COMMENT)

            This is about what is; the conditions at a snapshot in time. It is not about what I want, or believe we should do. It is a thumbnail view of the dilemma we face. It is real and it should be understood if we are going to find a solution to alter the paradigm.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            Originally posted by Your exceprt from my posting
            "...And the P5+1 make proposals that they know Iran will not accept..."
            Go figure. Given the above is there ANY proposal acceptable to Iran that you might seriously put forward here that will also satisfy the rest of mankind.
            (COMMENT)

            I'm not sure that there is a solution now that will satisfy "mankind;" or even a portion of the Persian Gulf neighborhood. Too many short-term gains have had an adverse impact on the long-term prospects. We might have lit the fuse on a Persian Gulf Arms Race.

            The objective now is to negotiate a condition by which we avoid conflict and further proliferation.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            Here's what David Albright said last November-

            Is Iran Capable Of Developing Nuclear Weapons-PBS Nov. 8, 2011

            "...Well, the background is, this weaponization program was abruptly ended in '03 because of international pressure. Pressure on Iran does work.


            (COMMENT)

            The Iranian programs of 8 and 10 years ago, like ours, change direction and emphasis. But as all politicians know, you take credit (the program remission) to justify the support for sanctions and negotiation efforts. That correlation, though - does not actually represent causation.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            And what was visible at the time was Iran shutting down and we called it suspending its uranium enrichment program and agreeing to additional inspections, and was very cooperative. As part of that, they made a decision to hide the nuclear weaponization program, to disassemble it in a certain way and try to make it go away so the inspectors couldn't find it.
            (COMMENT)

            This may be entirely possible. Yes - it MAY be true. But we cannot assume it to be fact. And we cannot act on it as if it were fact. Not only is it irresponsible to suggest that - but, it certainly doesn't take our "lessons learned" into account.

            Yes: We have an IAEA Team there now (left earlier this month). And they left with some suspicions (anomalous computer modeling, some R&D into what may prove to be detonation device, and questions about the very low level of HEU enrichment - not anywhere near weapons grade - but enrichment). And if the Team comes back with facts, you could be proven right. But I advocate working with the facts and understanding what those facts mean.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            Unfortunately, the negotiations that were part of that process didn't bear fruit. And you can blame all kinds of sides in that, but they didn't bear fruit. And Iran broke with the suspension. And I think most countries in Europe, for example, that are involved in this issue thought that Iran's weaponization program also restarted, albeit at a smaller level.
            (COMMENT)

            It might be as you say: "albeit at a smaller level." There is some very suspicious research in progress. But we do not know what it means. It may be to stretch Iran's fifteen minutes of fame, to get more lime light, to sweeten their position at the bargaining table. We simply do not know.

            What we do know is that the IRGC-QF and MOIS are scavenger hunting for knowledge, skills, abilities and material on the underground market. While they have succeeded, in the past, at a acquiring some weapons grade material, it wasn't in sufficient quantity to make a device workable.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            The United States took the position that it had not restarted. The IAEA today takes the position that, yes, there is evidence that indeed it did restart.
            ...No, their enrichment program isn't working very well. And the report today shows they continue to have problems. They're more slowly deploying the advanced centrifuges than Iran had intended. So, the long pole in the tent, the ability to make weapon-grade uranium, is not going so well in Iran.
            (COMMENT)

            This is the key. I believe you are correct. This is about the fuel and their abilities. And as long as the world thinks they are are the pathway to the fuel, the greater the Iranian bargaining power is at the table.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            What we don't know is how much progress has Iran made on weaponization? But the evidence supports that they're not able to build a reliable warhead to put on a ballistic missile, that they didn't finish that work in 2003 and it remains unfinished today."
            • "...42. The information which serves as the basis for the Agency’s analysis and concerns, as identified in the Annex, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved, and time frames.

            The P5+1 know what they have contributed to the Iranian Nuclear Research Program. They also have a pretty good idea of what Iran has acquired from the underground networks. SO! They've put together a "worst case scenario" on where Iran "could be" in the development of a device, if there is a program.
            • 43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

            • Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
            • Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
            • The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
            • Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).
            This is analysis in probability. Some of this information is rather old. But we generally think that they have a working design of a weapon, possibly a first generation prototype, that is untested. The computer modeling that I mentioned (supra), and the design work on a detonator would suggest that they are trying to match the design, to a yield, and determine what the mass of the weapons grade material would be at that yield. Then that gives you the requirements on which you base you detonation device around.
            • 44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons..."

            This is the idea I've just describe to you. It is anomalous research that requires explanation.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            In sum, the report and its annex is damning. Your comment suggesting it is very unclear simply cannot be written with any semblance of credibility in light of this report. Simply. Cannot. Be. Written.
            (COMMENT)

            The report says different things to me, then it obviously does to you. It is a matter of interpretation. Again, my judgment on it being very unclear is the same conclusion that GEN Clapper, The Director of National Intelligence, came to in his testimony on The Hill. I am not saying you are wrong, I'm merely saying we need more information.
            Originally posted by S2 View Post
            I await your dissemblance, obfuscation and/or subterfuge to diminish this report's credibility or, alternatively, concession that Iran is, indeed, up to no good and must be stopped.

            I can't imagine you'll admit they're up to no good but should be permitted achievement of their goals anyway. Then again, nothing surprises me any longer.:)
            (COMMENT)

            I've spent too much time in the Region to trust any of of the players. Again, you might be proven right, later on. Then what is unclear today, may be more clear tomorrow. And if you are right, I will give you that credit and acknowledgement, and you'll have to share with me the source on your crytal ball.

            Most Respectfully,
            R

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
              I did not say anything about nightmares; nor did I over dramatize. I am completely aware that you and people that agree with your argument, like to use that decade old intelligence on how Chemical Weapons were used. What they don't say is that, the US did nothing because Saddam was a US ally at the time. I know that most of the IA's are fully aware that the now famous Halabja (in Iraqi Kurdistan, circa 1988) incident was information that was more than a decade old when it was used as justification in 2002.
              So, your moral indignation over the wests failure to curb the Saddam regime earlier aside, you're agreed that said regime used and had the potential to again use WMD's?
              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

              Leibniz

              Comment


              • #52
                Parihaka, et al,

                With clarification.
                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                So, your moral indignation over the wests failure to curb the Saddam regime earlier aside, you're agreed that said regime used and had the potential to again use WMD's?
                (COMMENT)

                Hussein Iraq Regime had a history prior to 1991 of using Chemical Weapons in both domestic and foreign entanglements.

                Any country, the US included, that has a history of using NBC Weapons, has the potential to use them again.

                But I believe it is out of context. Like a legal triangle, there are three aspect angles to the intent of the statement.
                • Do we use "potential" as a legitimate reason for intervention or retribution?
                • Do we ignore past indiscretions only to call them up and use them when it is politically expedient?
                • Do we justify inaccurate charges of today, based on historical evidence of past indiscretions that were not worthy of interdiction at the time?


                In context, the commentary was meant to highlight that, at the time, the US was pleading a case that Iraq was an eminent threat to the US and the Region based on intelligence analysis, and a trusted national security decision making process, that Iraq maintained enormous quantities of WMD. And that the US and the Region was in danger of Iraq releasing such weapons either directly or indirectly through surrogates (terrorist).

                Today, we know that the intelligence analysis, and a trusted national security decision making process were faulty at the time. That inaccurate and sensationalized claims were made in the scope and magnitude of the threat presented by Iraq, at that time. The nature of my comment was to suggest that we avoid these mistakes in the future and objectively analyze and understand to true nature of the threat (near-term and long-term) that the question of Iran poses.

                If the US has to take action, relative to Iran, let us do it for the right reasons --- and not guess work. Let everyone understand the true nature of the threat Iran poses today and the direction it is head with some measure of confidence. Let us not act like some cowboy vigilantes acting emotionally and irrationally on the most scanty of evidence.

                Is that so wrong?

                Most Respectfully,
                R

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  The argument against this position is that it's a big OPSEC headache. The more people working on this, the more likely it would leak out and while spreading it around may reduce risk of complete destruction, it also spread its vulnerability everywhere. Destroying just one point will increase production pressure on the other surviving points.

                  Aside from this, I strongly doubt that Iran has the number of experts necessary to do more than 3 sites. One scientist cannot be at 3 different points in the country at the same time.

                  Lastly, like Qom, it would be damned hard to hide. You need extensive power requirements and decent security measures, all of which can be seen by cameras in orbit.
                  Sir, I will acceed to your opinion on this - I don't feel comfortable discussing this in greater depth in an open forum, since it might provide information that could be useful to foreign agencies seeking to accomplish distributed enrichment strategies. It is my opinion that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons at this time. The articles cited, additional information in the public domain and general facts surrounding the issue support my belief.

                  Technology is very different today than it was even 20 yrs ago - and many people are using even older information to make arguments about how hard it is for a well funded nation to do this - a 1964 study (mentioned earlier in this thread) has little relavence today with regard to the challenges that have been substantially reduced with current technology and political changes that have occured - including some unfortunate lapses in the control of nuclear materials - in 1964 two physicists were able to design a bomb - but were unable to secure fissile fuel for it -today many things are different.
                  sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                  If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Parihaka;

                    Post Script: We "WE" are in our understanding.
                    Leon Edward Panetta, United States Secretary of Defense, said that Iran is not making nukes:


                    "To make them understand that they cannot continue to do what they’re doing. Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they’re trying to develop a nuclear capability, and that’s what concerns us. And our red line to Iran is, do not develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us."

                    SOURCE: Panetta admits Iran not developing nukes | The Raw Story

                    This is about understanding were our (US exclusive) RED Line is (today).

                    Most Respectfully,
                    R

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      That video seems to say nothing at all - nuclear weapon no, nuclear capability yes --- :confu::Zzzzzz:

                      The thing the Iranians appear to be doing is developing a capacity to produce fissile material. Chances are that they already have a bomb - and they are quite likely to have some fuel for it - but a bomb or two is not a nuclear arsenal, or even a deterrant. It is really more of a liability.

                      To build a credible nuclear stockpile (40 or 50 warheads) - they need to have the means to produce the fuel, and they need to have tested a device. They can probably get by without a test for quite a while (if they used a gun type device - they might not even need a test), but the means to produce fissile fuel (HEU) is what they are working on now.
                      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        RoccoR

                        Do we use "potential" as a legitimate reason for intervention or retribution?
                        Yes.

                        Do we ignore past indiscretions only to call them up and use them when it is politically expedient?
                        We didn't ignore past indiscretions, we used them as evidence of potential indiscretions

                        Do we justify inaccurate charges of today, based on historical evidence of past indiscretions
                        Yes as they were concrete evidence of potential

                        that were not worthy of interdiction at the time?
                        Simply because the time line didn't suit you does not justify not taking action.


                        If the US has to take action, relative to Iran, let us do it for the right reasons --- and not guess work.

                        What are the right reasons?
                        Last edited by Parihaka; 31 Jan 12,, 01:17.
                        In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                        Leibniz

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          USSWisconsin, et al,

                          Yes, you are probably right on the money, on your assessment. The video, the SECDEF and former CIA Director, is saying that there is a deference between having a weapon and being able to produce a weapon. There are a number of countries that have the technical capacity to produce a weapon in short order; but, have no inclination.
                          Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                          That video seems to say nothing at all - nuclear weapon no, nuclear capability yes --- :confu::Zzzzzz:

                          The thing the Iranians appear to be doing is developing a capacity to produce fissile material. Chances are that they already have a bomb - and they are quite likely to have some fuel for it - but a bomb or two is not a nuclear arsenal, or even a deterrant. It is really more of a liability.

                          To build a credible nuclear stockpile (40 or 50 warheads) - they need to have the means to produce the fuel, and they need to have tested a device. They can probably get by without a test for quite a while (if they used a gun type device - they might not even need a test), but the means to produce fissile fuel (HEU) is what they are working on now.
                          (COMMENT)

                          The device itself is a precision Machine Shop Project. It is not the important piece; and, until they are ready for testing, we probably will not see it.

                          But the creation of the fuel, as you point-out, is now the critical piece. And we can detect that in a number of different ways. Right now, they don't have the capacity to enrich the material to the desired purity level, suitable for a weapon. They are about 75% short of that ability.

                          Most Respectfully,
                          R

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Parihaka, et al,

                            I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

                            There are many countries that have the potential to build a weapon, and the potential to enrich uranium.

                            What makes America different is our stead-fast belief in "The Rule of Law." I follow that belief.

                            • I don't think America should take action on the possibility that there are latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness. (Potential)

                            • I tend to think America should have the facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed. (Cause for Action)


                            I am but one man, and one opinion.

                            I don't think that we should wait ten years if the "cause for action" is happening now. As anyone knows, you don't correct the dog for something they did an hour ago while you where watching. You take corrective action on the spot, not a decade later.

                            Again, just my opinion and where I stand.

                            Most Respectfully,
                            R

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                              Parihaka,

                              There are many countries that have the potential to build a weapon, and the potential to enrich uranium.
                              Indeed there are, only two however have shown indication that they are doing so.
                              Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                              What makes America different is our stead-fast belief in "The Rule of Law." I follow that belief.
                              Good for you, perhaps you should point me in the direction of the particular law you are referring to.


                              Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                              [*]I don't think America should take action on the possibility that there are latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness. (Potential)

                              I tend to think America should have the facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed. (Cause for Action)
                              No, evidence that would make the IAEA believe.

                              To re-quote S2's post

                              Originally posted by S2;859241[URL="http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf"
                              Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran-Report by the Director General 18 November 2011[/URL] If so, can you explain this-

                              "...42. The information which serves as the basis for the Agency’s analysis and concerns, as identified in the Annex, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information comes from a wide variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agency’s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself. It is consistent in terms of technical content, individuals and organizations involved, and time frames.

                              43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:
                              • Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);
                              • Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex, Section C.3);
                              • The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and
                              • Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of components (Annex, Sections C.5–C.12).

                              44. While some of the activities identified in the Annex have civilian as well as military applications, others are specific to nuclear weapons..."

                              I'll regard the IAEA as the qualified authority thanks, not some non-specific 'reasonable person'.

                              Originally posted by RoccoR View Post
                              I don't think that we should wait ten years if the "cause for action" is happening now. As anyone knows, you don't correct the dog for something they did an hour ago while you where watching. You take corrective action on the spot, not a decade later.
                              Has it occurred to you that punitive actions against nation states are rather more complex than training a dog?
                              I am however interested in your opinion that Iraq should have been immediately invaded and the Saddam regime toppled after they first used WMD.

                              Can you give me your justifications for this?
                              Last edited by Parihaka; 31 Jan 12,, 03:05.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Parihaka, et al,

                                You are a tough audience. Don't mistake me for someone trying to defend Iran. For, as I have said before, I am not.
                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                Indeed there are, only two however have shown indication that they are doing so.
                                (COMMENT)

                                How can that be, there are Five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT?
                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                Good for you, perhaps you should point me in the direction of the particular law you are referring to.
                                (COMMENT)

                                I think I said "The Rule of Law;" and not a law. Two points.
                                • Probable Cause vs Possible Cause
                                • The Additional Protocols are not in force. From the IAEA Report:
                                  "Iran’s Additional Protocol was approved by the Board on 21 November 2003 and signed by Iran on 18 December 2003, although it has not been brought into force. Iran provisionally implemented its Additional Protocol between December 2003 and February 2006."



                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                No, evidence that would make the IAEA believe.
                                (COMMENT)

                                The IAEA is probably as fair a Compliance Oriented Inspection Activity there ever was. No organization is perfect. But the IAEA has done much to be proud of and seldom sensationalize their findings.
                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                To re-quote S2's post
                                (COMMENT)

                                Paragraphs 43 and 44 of Section G are famous and often quoted. I have mentioned the material findings in substance, several times myself.
                                • Bullet #1 refers to "Dual Use" which is neither in violation of the NPT or the Additional Protocols.
                                • Bullet #2 This bullet also refers to the Iranian Enrichment upgrade to above 20%. But while this is technically HEU, it is no where near what is necessary for a weapons system and has civilian applications. I've discussed this in detail.
                                • Bullet #3 Refers to the Scavenger Hunt (IRGC-QF and MOIS) that I discussed in Post #37. It is suspicious, but not unusual for intelligence activities. What makes it a concern is that it appears to be the equivalent of what the US would call: A Priority Collection Requirement.
                                • 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.
                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                I'll regard the IAEA as the qualified authority thanks, not some non-specific 'reasonable person'.
                                (COMMENT)

                                In "The Rule of Law," there is the requirement for competency. Oddly enough, I consider the IAEA a competent authority under the reasonable man concept.
                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                Has it occurred to you that punitive actions against nation states are rather more complex than training a dog?
                                (COMMENT)

                                Why - YES.

                                But I also look at measures (like sanctions) designed to motivate the Iran to be more cooperative. But Iran is also a sovereign nation. And while US military action has been extremely effective against its military opponents in the region, our foreign policy, over the last half century has had only marginal successes.
                                Originally posted by Albert Einstein
                                "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
                                Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                                I am however interested in your opinion that Iraq should have been immediately invaded and the Saddam regime toppled after they first used WMD.

                                Can you give me your justifications for this?

                                (COMMENT)

                                This is a misinterpretation of what I said, and the context (probably my fault).

                                Behavior modification and justification for military action are two different, but competing ideas in foreign policy. The use of WMD by Iraq in the late 1980's was not really challenged by the US. It is odd that the US should use it as justification for war a decade after Iraq collapsed it various NBC project and then disbanded them. It is an anomaly.

                                I am generally opposed to the US intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. I am but one man - who's opinion here is in the minority. But I believe that military intervention by US Forces should only be undertaken when the national security of the US is in peril. In a belief that the White House was right in its assessment, I believed Iraq was a national security threat. I don't believe that now - but it is water over the bridge.

                                "Don't start a fight, but if someone hits you, defend yourself."
                                "Never Start A Fight... But Always Finish It."

                                I'm not quite sure who said these words, but they were passed on to me by my parents. I think nations should consider them more closely.

                                Most Respectfully,
                                R

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X