Report: Iran has 'extremely advanced' nuclear program

[Carver]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Really? I always thought Israel had an airforce on par--or better--than the US. Honestly, I'm fairly certain Israel could reduce Damascus, Baghdad, Tehran, Riyadh, and Beirut to rubble within a week, if not for the homicide bomber orgy that would be sure to follow.

The training of Israel's opponents has led the Israeli Air Force to become rather overrated. Soviet pilots flying Syrian aircraft scored numerous kills against Israel. It's all relative. With the US putting the F-22 into service our supreamacy is unquestionable.

As for Iran, Israel can't maintain air superiority over Iran without opening up Israel proper to attack. The Iranian Air Force is quite good and, despite rumors, their F-14s are still flying. Striking the Osirak (sp?) reactor in Bagdad and the F-15 strike on Tunisia were the limits of the IAF's reach, and those kinds of missions can't be sustained. The IAF simply doesn't have the equipment to defend the tankers and the airborne control aircraft needed to support large scale, distant operations.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Azazel: The thing is, I don't think Iran is a country whose leaders we can expect full rationality from. It's leaders are religious fundamentalists who believe they are on a mission from God. Iran is currently funding anti-Israel terrorists, and I think a nuclear Iran would represent the most serious threat to Israeli security by far. The IDF is strong enough to humiliate any Arab country which tries to stop them from using their air space, so I don't think diplomatic concerns over whose airspace will be violated should be too much of a concern. If it takes a somewhat lengthy bombing campaign to deny Iran nuclear capability, then that may be the thing to do.

let me creatively edit part of this paragraph

The thing is, I don't think the United States is a country whose leaders we can expect full rationality from. Its leaders are deeply religious christians who believe they are on a mission from God to protect israel.

all a matter of perspective

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap
Not all of Iran falls within range of Israeli aircraft: Iran is a very big country. I do not think Israel would expend the forces needed to actually take out all of Iran's nuiclear facilities, which would need a significant assault: and might very well spark a huge atatck on Israel by hizbollah, and then, a war in Lebanon or a war with Syria.

So no, Israel can't styop iran from developing nukes;

as for why Iran, under any regime, might want nukes? Regional neighbors of Iran: Israel (nuclear), Iraq (WMD) Turkey (NATO ally of US), Pakistan (nuclear) Russia (nuclear) Afghanistan (a mess). If you lived in that sort of neighborhoodf, why wouldn't you want nuclear weapons?

And as for Iran's leaders: they are hardly irrational, if fanatical: just like our leadership in the US....

hi ,

we do have tanker's , ......

huh , since when do we have a regional border with Iran , .......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, right now, Israel and the US look like states willing to attack Iran under certain circumstances. Why does the US need nukes? Nukes are an extra trump card, and no, you are never sure who might want nukes and who might not. If your neighbors have nukes, why shouldn't you? Iran's relations with Pakistan are not super, as I said, afghanistan is a black hole..who knows what might come of it. Iran as a state has various reasons to have nukes to try to solidify its position.

If the Shah was in power still, Iran would still be working towards nukes, but doing it with US built facilities.

hi ,

unless they attack us on our own soil , we shall leave Iran alone , .....

does "iran - contra" ring a bell , ......

have a nice day

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Well, if you hadn't said "supports terrorism" that would have been a snappy reply.

AUC, Contra, just to begin with.

[PLATO]

"freedom Fighters" UR..."Freedom Fighters"

I have already been duly chastized for that one!

As I said then, It is a matter of perspective for all of us.

To add to that though, I can't remember eithier of those groups blowing up buses and flying airplanes into buildings. Nor do I remember them trying to overthrow democratically elected governments.

[Az]

If the Shah was in power still, Iran would still be working towards nukes, but doing it with US built facilities.

If the Shah would be trying to get nukes, I wouldn't have any problems with it. I still maintain that the shah was much better than the Islamic "Republic".

[Az]

The training of Israel's opponents has led the Israeli Air Force to become rather overrated. Soviet pilots flying Syrian aircraft scored numerous kills against Israel. It's all relative.

actually, AFAIK, The Soviets let their own pilots fly only on the egyptian front of 73'. They operated lots of the airdefence on both sides, though. But even against the SU pilots, we came out with superior training.

As for Iran, Israel can't maintain air superiority over Iran without opening up Israel proper to attack. The Iranian Air Force is quite good and, despite rumors, their F-14s are still flying. Striking the Osirak (sp?) reactor in Bagdad and the F-15 strike on Tunisia were the limits of the IAF's reach, and those kinds of missions can't be sustained. The IAF simply doesn't have the equipment to defend the tankers and the airborne control aircraft needed to support large scale, distant operations.

any real info to substanciate those claims? when was the last time the Irani airforce had to deal with any airborn threat? I say that the IAF probably could do it, but it would be very hard, esp. geo-politically.
If The IAF gets... half of its' fighter bomber force into the operation, it will still be able to defend Israel, due to the rediculous superiority against the only threat existing, Syria.
If Israel srambles those 250-300 fighters, Iran won't be able to stop it. Noone else will have either the balls or the will.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin
The reason Iran wants nukes, I bet, is Israel and Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech. It is a self defence and a "don't mess with us" thing. I don't think Iran has any intention of using them, they want nukes as a deterant. I'm sick of Bush acting like the US is the only nation allowed to have nukes.

Odin, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty called for the nuclear powers to negotiate mutual reductions to zero. The US has been doing that. There is a treaty with Russia to dramatically cut US warheads - by about 4,000 IIRC.

I have heard this same argument about the US double standard so often from the left that it makes me puke. I even heard it from Donahue, before he was fired. His guest had to remind him of the terms of the NPT. He simply stared blankly. Made not a peep.

I bet the next day he repeated his anti-US mantra, like all good anti-US fellow travelers should.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned
There is a treaty with Russia to dramatically cut US warheads - by about 4,000 IIRC.

Wow, a whole 4,000? How many does that leave you with, 50,000? 100,000?


EDIT: By the way, I'm pretty sure that treaty is to get the number of nuclear warheads below 2,000, not to zero.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Osweld


Wow, a whole 4,000? How many does that leave you with, 50,000? 100,000?

Somewhere in the 2,000's, I beleive.

[uh Clem]

If the Shah would be trying to get nukes, I wouldn't have any problems with it. I still maintain that the shah was much better than the Islamic "Republic".

Yeah, that would have been terrific if the Shah had acquired nukes in, say '77 or '78. Just in time to hand them over to Khomeini!

Oh well, at least today we wouldn't have Saddam to worry about in the Middle East...or much else, either...

[uh Clem]

Originally posted by Ned


Odin, the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty called for the nuclear powers to negotiate mutual reductions to zero. The US has been doing that. There is a treaty with Russia to dramatically cut US warheads - by about 4,000 IIRC.

I have heard this same argument about the US double standard so often from the left that it makes me puke. I even heard it from Donahue, before he was fired. His guest had to remind him of the terms of the NPT. He simply stared blankly. Made not a peep.

I bet the next day he repeated his anti-US mantra, like all good anti-US fellow travelers should.

How about if the US enforces the NPT against the one Middle Eastern country known to have nuclear waepons?

[Ned]

Originally posted by uh Clem


How about if the US enforces the NPT against the one Middle Eastern country known to have nuclear waepons?

Israel has not signed the NPT.

Futher, Israel is not a threat to peace. It is not attacking its neighbors as is Iran.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ned


Somewhere in the 2,000's, I beleive.

No, much more then that.


I did a quick search and came up with this: http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/facts-at-a-glance-pr.cfm

With stockpiled and operational warheads, it's more like 10,000-20,000 (with only 274 awaiting dismantlement I might add)

And I was wrong, the treaty isn't for reducing the number of nuclear warheads below 2,000, it's for reducing the number of operational warheads to 1,700-2,200. There'll just be more in reserve instead of ready to launch.

[uh Clem]

It's the outlaw nations that don't sign that need to policing. We came down hard on Pakistan for much less (until we needed them again). Maybe the Pakistanis should start spying on us...

Futher, Israel is not a threat to peace. It is not attacking its neighbors as is Iran.

Israel never invaded Lebanon. Israel did not shell Beirut. Israel did not occupy southern Lebananon for the better part of 2 decades. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.

[Ned]

Originally posted by uh Clem
It's the outlaw nations that don't sign that need to policing. We came down hard on Pakistan for much less (until we needed them again). Maybe the Pakistanis should start spying on us...



Israel never invaded Lebanon. Israel did not shell Beirut. Israel did not occupy southern Lebabon for the better part of 2 decades. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.

Israel was attacked by the PLO from Lebanon. Israel were allies with the Christians. Israel has an inherent right of self defense.

Iran, however, is attacking Israel through its support and direction of Hizbollah.

[GePap]

Azazel: the Iranian people certainly did not think so. If remember correctly, they got rid of the Shah.. and he had a much better represion system than the Ayatollahs have been able to pull of. Nothing beat Savak.

Israel made a power play in lebanon in 1982. It lost, and ended up with a worse situation in its northen fronteir vis a vis Lebanon than it started with. And no, while Iran supports and funds hizbullah, they do not run it, anymore than Israel ran the phalangist militias in Lebanon.

As for the issue: The Us can't stop Iran from the development of nuclear power: that is the deal implicit in the NPT: one sides gives up the chance for nukes while getting help for civilian uses of nuclear power. Now, the US has the right to demand Iran follow its end of the bargian, about not getting nukes, though Iran can always pull out, as any state has the right to, and if Iran did pull out of the treaty, we would have no more legitimate argument to try to stop them form having nukes than we have against Israel, india and Pakistan. Unless you believe the NPT is a deal that can't be broken at all, regardless fo the letter of the treaty.

[DaShi]

Jaako:

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Azazel: the Iranian people certainly did not think so. If remember correctly, they got rid of the Shah.. and he had a much better represion system than the Ayatollahs have been able to pull of. Nothing beat Savak.

Israel made a power play in lebanon in 1982. It lost, and ended up with a worse situation in its northen fronteir vis a vis Lebanon than it started with. And no, while Iran supports and funds hizbullah, they do not run it, anymore than Israel ran the phalangist militias in Lebanon.

As for the issue: The Us can't stop Iran from the development of nuclear power: that is the deal implicit in the NPT: one sides gives up the chance for nukes while getting help for civilian uses of nuclear power. Now, the US has the right to demand Iran follow its end of the bargian, about not getting nukes, though Iran can always pull out, as any state has the right to, and if Iran did pull out of the treaty, we would have no more legitimate argument to try to stop them form having nukes than we have against Israel, india and Pakistan. Unless you believe the NPT is a deal that can't be broken at all, regardless fo the letter of the treaty.

GePap, I think the IAEA will ask the SC to impose sanctions on Iran if it begins to violate the NPT. It has already asked for sanctions against NK.

If you recall, the US imposed sanctions on both Pakistan and India when they went nuclear.

Now, I don't believe the US will do anything more than agree to sanctions in the case of Iran. Similar to our positions on NK and Pakistan and India. But, obviously, sanctions alone are not enough of a deterent to keep a state from developing nuclear weapons if they really want them. Further, given the debacle in the current Iraq crisis, I doubt of Security Council would ever authorized use of force against Iran or North Korea unless they disarmed.

This is why states like Japan and Israel, in the bullseye of NK and Iran, respectively, talk of preemptive strikes. Nuclear weapons are tremedously destabalizing.

Now those are my view on what will happen. GePap, et al., do you think the SC should do more? Like authorize a war unless these two countries cease and desist?

[Az]

Yeah, that would have been terrific if the Shah had acquired nukes in, say '77 or '78. Just in time to hand them over to Khomeini!

Oh well, at least today we wouldn't have Saddam to worry about in the Middle East...or much else, either...

I am glad that you agree that the Islamic regime in Iran presents a danger to world stability.

How about if the US enforces the NPT against the one Middle Eastern country known to have nuclear waepons?

we never signed it. could sign it now, probably would mean that we won't let other countries have nukes.

Israel never invaded Lebanon. Israel did not shell Beirut. Israel did not occupy southern Lebananon for the better part of 2 decades. We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq.

Actually, Lebanon is still occupied, but somehow, noone cares, now that it is not Israel. double standards, tsk tsk.

It's the outlaw nations that don't sign that need to policing. We came down hard on Pakistan for much less (until we needed them again). Maybe the Pakistanis should start spying on us...

Since the only reason we didn't sign the NPT is on the US' request, take it up with your government.

Azazel: the Iranian people certainly did not think so. If remember correctly, they got rid of the Shah.. and he had a much better represion system than the Ayatollahs have been able to pull of. Nothing beat Savak.

Actually you're ignoring the inherent opression of the system towards half of the population. In any case, the "Iranian people" did put the Ayatollas into power, but not volountarily. The revolution was hijacked by the extremist muslim elements.

Israel made a power play in lebanon in 1982. It lost, and ended up with a worse situation in its northen fronteir vis a vis Lebanon than it started with. And no, while Iran supports and funds hizbullah, they do not run it, anymore than Israel ran the phalangist militias in Lebanon.

Kind of, sort of correct. Israel made a power play in lebanon, but basically was drawn to it by the Syrian intervention in the civil war.
The second part is true, but the phalangist militas were not targetting any other nation, they were simply our boys in Lebanon.

[uh Clem]

Khomeini was as loony as they get, Azazel, but he's been dead for some time now.

Actually, Lebanon is still occupied, but somehow, noone cares, now that it is not Israel. double standards, tsk tsk.

When Syria receives $90+ billion from US taxpayers (and says thanks by spying on us then selling the info to the Soviet Union), and when I have to wonder whether my own elected officials are more loyal to the US or to Syria, then I'll worry about a "double standard" in Lebanon.

[KrazyHorse]

Israel receives 90 billion dollars from the US?

[KrazyHorse]

Closer to 4-6 billion total (military and direct aid), IIRC.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh. Did you mean over the course of its existence?

[Carver]

Over Israel's existence, that sound's like a close figure. And now the Israelis are proud that they asked for an end to US economic assistance; the only thing being US military assistance is being increased by almost the same amount.

[uh Clem]

Frogger: No. Yes. Yes.

[Ned]

The question remains for everyone, do you think the SC will authorize anything more than just sanctions if Iran acquires nukes?

Of course, sanctions have never worked. So, why bother?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ned
The question remains for everyone, do you think the SC will authorize anything more than just sanctions if Iran acquires nukes?

Of course, sanctions have never worked. So, why bother?

No, I can't see them authorizing force against Iran. As for sanctions not working, I would have to disagree. They may not work in every case, but they certainly can't be plesant.

[Ned]

Nations learn to live with sanctions because the dishonest avoid them. I understand, for example, that France has done land office business in the past few months re-equiping Saddam.

Why in the world would anyone support sanctions that simply have to be endured? They are almost always ineffective. A some point, the UN simply declares victory by taking accepting symbolic cooperation and moves on.

The UN is hopelessly ineffective.

As we have seen both here on Apolyton and in the world at large, absolutely no one believes the UN can be effective in keeping nukes out of countries like NK and Iran - that is, unless the US is leading the effort. But even then we have seen that the UN is ineffective, and, in fact, is a roadblock to effectiveness.

Imagine if Kennedy had not acted until the SC issued a resolution during the Cuban missile crisis? Nothing would have been accomplished. The only reason Kennedy succeeding was by threatening force.

Iraq is the very first time the US has gone through the UN where its own vital interests were at stake. This has proven to be a fiasco.