An Update On Iran's Nuclear Program & The Stuxnet virus

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:21 am

Personally I think it is the sanctions that have made matters worse.
An entire people led to believe that they are beng punished by the west.
Media manipulation etc is the norm.
Now imagine that the sanctions were never implemented.
Imagine that the West decided to act in a manner more concerned with the creation of safe nuclear power for energy in Iran.
I can then imagine that the people would be better off better aware and would not be so supportive of a leader as crazy as they have right now.
If the west had over the last decades been actively assisting with peaceful intent and development of infrastructure in Iran It is indeed feazable that the fanatiscm may have worn down.
The Iranian leaders have its people convinced that they are being punished by the west and in many respects it is an easy lie to fabricate when I look at the results of sanctions that have been proven to be a hardship upon the people.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:31 am

Sanctions always do, some countries have been under sanctions for years, don't seem to bother the dictators. Its the UN and the West's doing, the UN is weak as piss, they should be known as a force to be reakoned with if they want to be the worlds police, instead they are mocked. Same as the West, the people tire of war too easily, take Australia, everytime a soilder is killed now a days all the dogooders - ' bring our troops home" you have that going up angainst an enemy who will happily die for their cause, you will never win like that. I'm not condoning war but if you are going to do it, do it properly and stop pussy footing around, 1000's of allied troop loses for nothing in the last 20 years and the end result is Iran laughing at us.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:58 am

Very true.....
Barnett stated that the can of whoop arse sorted iraq in only six weeks.
Problem is soldiers are trained to shoot not to give out aid. Most all those soldiers who died in irag died not in action but were victims of murder. bombs snipers etc.
The west can kick anyones arse but wtf to do afterwards. The UN is about as useful as a wet tissue and taking down a nutcase leader is a total waste of time if there is no mechanism in place to actually support and rebuild afterwards.
I just think the sanctions in the case of Iran have only led to strengthen the leaders as they are constantly lecturing their people on how wonderful they are and that their suffering is the result of the West's attitude.
Basically the UN and its sanctions create a situation where a nation firmly under control of its leadership see the entire West as an enemy. Even if the West were to go in and do something then the reaction of the local people is going to be uncertain. Will they cheer in the streets or hide in the windows and start sniping ???

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:16 am

I think it is worrying. I do think something has to be done, and although i agree sanctions can be counter productive at times, i dont see personally we are left with much other options.

I also don't see it as being another Iraq 'phantom' WMD hunt. Not the same at all. The United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency said there is 'credible' information that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Back around the time before invasion of Iraq, the UN watchdog clearly stated there was 'No' evidence to think there was. We all now know it was a fabricated story to get troops in.

But its kinda like the boy who cried wolf. THe US made a big song and dance about WMDs in Iraq, and turns out they lied. Now they are saying the same about Iran. And even though the UN Watchdog seem to be backing up their claims (to a degree, requires more inscpections of course), no one seems to care as much as before. Sad really.

The main thing that needs to happen is for everything possible be done to get the UNIAE in there as much as possible. The more they are involved, and the more credible evidence they can show, the better. Whether anything good will come of that, who knows. But better to have the UN leading the cause, trying to impose sanctions and have action taken, rather than the US who will be seen to just be war mongering.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:06 am

its the song n dance that is for me the issue.
If we the west were really to tackle the problem then in my humble opinion there is only one way. And that is for the western governments to cease the pompous shit and get around to doing something positive.
I really think that iran even if it were to build reactors for peaceful usage and creation of energy then it is still a frigging nightmare waiting to happen.
Think about it. ??
No access to the high end tech that can enable safety...Russia had a melt down, USA has had a melt down and more recently japan......WTF must we think about an adhoc assembly of mismatched clunky shite that the Iranians might go and build without real help and experienced western engineers.
If for no other reason it is in my mind of utmost importance that the west go there and assist and at the same time have the ability to control and supervise. Sanctions and sabre rattling always lead to an eventual conflict....how big the conflict is a guessing game.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:31 am

Ya i understand what you mean johnno. I just dont think its feasible, well maybe it is, but can we take a chance on it? Giving them the expertise and technology needed. They could then turn around and build weapons from them. Granted the giving of technologies and so forth, would come with conditions such as regular and unrestricted access by UN nuclear inspectors etc.

But whats to stop them going back on such arrangements as soon as they have what they want. Granted then, it would not be accepted by western goverments and would lead to serious sanctions and most likely war/conflict. But the problem is then, you are going to war with a nuclear power. Not a country thats trying to go nuclear.

Or what if they manage to build nuclear weapons in secret, thanks to technology etc given to them by western governments. Imagine them detonating a nuclear weapon against some country. A nuclear weapon that western governements made possible.

Now granted, they are on their way to making these weapons themselves already. But i guess thats the whole problem and why the west is trying to stop it. I doubt it will ever come to pass that they will be helped along with their nuclear program, no matter what conditions are put with it.

But I do see your point johnno, and while i suppose in a perfect world it would be the answer, I cant see it ever happening. Nor do I think I would want to take a chance on it if there were the possibility of it happening.

But then, I dont really know what can be done to avoid war/conflict given the path its currently going down. I think you said it best when you said 'how big a conflict' being the real question the way things are going.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:40 am

The issue with Iran getting nukes and using them is not the point, them or North Korea and anyone other "rouge" state is never going to fire a nuke at someone and the reason is simple. Iran builds a couple of nukes, the west has thousands of them and can make more every week, if Iran builds them they aint going to use one because - The chances of them hitting what they aim for is remote, the chance of it getting knocked out before it gets halfway is pretty good and once they fire the few they have they would not have them anymore, defeats the purpose of having them. The issue is terrorists getting hold of them, that is what panics the west, not them getting hold of nucler missle, but getting hold of the technology beacuse they would like nothing more to set one off in Times Square.

Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:39 pm

The problem with the UN is the veto power that a small number of self important countries have, that can shut down the majority. when are they gonna pull the stick out from up XXX and ignore the veto power, and say if you dont wanna play anymore whithout veto then bugger off

Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 8:38 am

johnno23 wrote:

Personally I think it is the sanctions that have made matters worse.
An entire people led to believe that they are beng punished by the west.
Media manipulation etc is the norm.
Now imagine that the sanctions were never implemented.
Imagine that the West decided to act in a manner more concerned with the creation of safe nuclear power for energy in Iran.
.

This approach was tried. The offer was made to supply Iran with reactor grade plutonium and help with technology in exchange for Iran stopping their enrichment program and monitoring. The offer was flatly refused. There are, I think, two reasons for this. First, Iran does not want to be seen as dependent on western assistance and second they are really wanting to pursue nuclear weapons.

I can understand why you are against sanctions. They certainly are an imperfect solution. It seems like it is the Irani citizens are the ones who suffer the most. Surely the sanctions are used as a propaganda tool by the leaders to deny responsibility for inflation, shortages, and currency devaluation etc... Western countries are made to be the scapegoats.

If you agree that a nuclear armed Iran is a bad thing then I am not sure what else to do. When we tried inspections and monitoring the Iranis simply tried to hide their facilities and stalled for time as they continued their weapons program.

If Iran does do a successful nuclear test then it will probably lead to a Middle eastern nuclear arms race.

Report: Saudi Arabia to buy nukes if Iran tests A-bomb

Quote:

Saudia Arabia would move quickly to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran successfully tests an atomic bomb, according to a report.

Citing an unidentified Saudi Arabian source, the Times newspaper in the U.K. (which operates behind a paywall) said that the kingdom would seek to buy ready-made warheads and also begin its own program to enrich weapons-grade uranium.

The paper suggested that Pakistan was the country most likely to supply Saudi Arabia with weapons, saying Western officials were convinced there was an understanding between the countries to do so if the security situation in the Persian Gulf gets worse. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have denied such an arrangement exists.

This can't be good for anyone. While it is probably true that the existing governments of these countries would not use these weapons, What would happen if they are overthrown and those bombs fall into other hands? Its not to hard to imagine a scenario where truly awful things could happen.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:59 am

flatearthling wrote:

Iran wishes to become one of the world's nuclear armed countries and has been refining uranium and developing missile technology.

I say let them join. As the saying goes..."With great power comes great responsibility" (Voltaire). If countries such as Iran want to play with the big boys... they will have to earn it.

Park a few Carrier tasks groups in the Med and Persion Gulf.. then send in the cruise missiles/drones...

Then talk ... The west can be very diplomatic when needed with....

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 9:59 am

It is easy enough to go in kick arse and rid the country of its leaders but then what ????

I am not convinced the people of Iran will take it as a liberation but see it as an all out assault on their homeland.
I am aware that many of the educated in Iran are held in check by fear but many of the citizens see their leaders and government as heroes.
Whilst we can debate that they have been deceived I think it would be a bloodbath.....it is not so easy to just remove the leaders and then tell the people they are now free! They see us, "the west" as the enemy. Right or wrong this perception needs to be changed if the west should act in a military manner.
Talk of Israel will go in and bomb any facility with nuclear arms production capability is also a dangerous option. Israel is seen by many as just a tool for the USA. Again if true or not it will not change such opinions of a great number of people living in the area. The true fear I think is as trollster stated.....the wrong people getting hold of the material and doing their martyrdom in a western city.
I personally see little option other than to open dialogue and assist with a peaceful development of energy with western aid. If our western diplomats are really worth a 10th of what they get paid then they will have ample opportunity to discuss and talk to those in Iran that are more open to moving forward and becoming a country of stability and wealth rather than a state run upon ideology and repression.
We could of course hope for mother nature to lend a hand......would be a true bonus if a mega quake were to occur during an assembly of the countries leaders. In an instant humanitarian aid is sent in and the west are seen as helpers and no longer an enemy.......but thats wishful thinking unless the conspiracy nuts are right and we can make earthquakes.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:51 pm

trollster wrote:

The issue is terrorists getting hold of them, that is what panics the west, not them getting hold of nucler missle, but getting hold of the technology beacuse they would like nothing more to set one off in Times Square.

That's one wise statement.
Personally, I also think no country is stupid enough to fire a nuke on another .
But terrorists are, and that totally makes the West poop on his pants.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:09 pm

My image of the States government politics is bad since years. It doesn't matter what topic the politics I read of, are about - they are always in the States interest, and not in the interest of the world.

The US have the way of politics to "act no matter what". There seems to be no problem this country is not somehow involoved in. The reputation of the States is fearful, is a country against the US' politics it must fear to get "democratisized" and maybe rid of it's oil in the name of freedom.

The politics against the Iranian atomar program are for that no different. First of I don't know if the program is going the get to nuclear weapons, but even if this worst case was the real case: the US have nuclear weapon themselfs (and a massive amount), what gives them the right to say an other country can't have? You just can't hit a guy and tell him not to hit you back. You just can't possess a gun and tell someone else he can't bacause he seems dangerous to you. There is no argument, it's just silly and childish and not the way a country is entitled to threat others. It's ok on the playground becuase there will no one lose his life, but when it concerns the matter weather a country will be attacked or not it's something entirely different.

An other argument not to attack Iran: the US have no money. At all. The US-infrasturcture decays, the rich-poor scissor is getting further apart and the depts are so overwhelming the US will never be able to pay them back in dollars.

To think they won't attack the Iran becuase of these arguments seems to me on the other hand very utopic. The propaganda machinery is working hard to direct the populations emotions against the Iran. I say 70% they will attack within the next 5 years. And I think the question weather they will attack or not is in no direction related to a president of the democrats or the republicans, so I guess it doesn't matter whom they vote for this november.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 2:20 pm

i'm wondering about your argument, are you saying they should have a nuclear arsenal or they should have nuclear power plant? it's just a bit of confusion i'd like cleared up before we go on.

secondly if Iran wants a source of power why not go for something greener. instead of nuclear get solar instead. or get those wind machines they got in Europe. much more greener and environ-friendly.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:26 pm

[quote="killa1986"]i'm wondering about your argument, are you saying they should have a nuclear arsenal or they should have nuclear power plant? it's just a bit of confusion i'd like cleared up before we go on.[/quote]

Thanks for asking Smile

I'm also pro alternative energy.
I think the waste of nuclear energy is something really bad for our environment. And also nuclear weapons are to me something of the worst and most desturctive existing on this planet.
It's not necessary for Iran to have power plants, the costs for energy won't go down much with nuclear energy, becuase the disposal, research and production is so expensive. Iran does not need nuclear power plants as it does not need nuclear weapons to rise up in world economics.

But they have the right to have it, when other countrys have this right. If the US say they can't, there might be more than a diplomatic dispute.

To avoid a war with Iran is first priority, becuase with Iran it looks different than with Iraq, Vietnam or North Korea who had not the power for a real strategy. China and Russia have interests in Iran's great oil reserves, and they will not just happily leave it to the US. They know how staggering the US economy today is and may want to join the theft on those reserves.
A war with Iran is more than serious, and other strong countrys may join this fight. Iran has a huge army, each and every Iranian male joins for 2 years the armed forces. And don't forget the instable neighbous, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and of course Israel and Palesina, who also are not too far away. The risk of a 3rd WW is there in my opinion.

What I mostly disagree with the US politics, is the way they treat Iran and other countrys in this concern. Instead of showing how to do it, by reducing their own arsenal, they just threat others with their massive force to resign to nuclear weapons. I say that Iran and all other country's should be able to have whatever the States have, so both power plants as nuke arsenal. Everything else is inconsequent and as I said, a childish arguing.