• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Associated Press believes it found evidence of Iran's work on nuclear weapons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uncritical, fear-mongering media propaganda is far too common to take note of each time it appears, but sometimes, what is produced is so ludicrous that its illustrative value should not be ignored. Such is the case with a highly trumpeted Associated Press "exclusive" from Tuesday which claims in its red headline to have discovered evidence of "Iran Working on Bomb".

What is this newly discovered, scary evidence? It is a "graph" which AP says was "leaked" to it by "officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran's nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon" (how mysterious: the globe is gripped with befuddlement as it tries to guess which country that might be). Here's how AP presents the graph in all its incriminating, frightening glory:

ap.png

This, says AP, shows that "Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima." Moreover, "an intelligence summary provided with the drawing" - provided, that is, by the mysterious "country critical of Iran's atomic program" - "linked [the graph] to other alleged nuclear weapons work - significant because it would indicate that Iran is working not on isolated experiments, but rather on a single program aimed at mastering all aspects of nuclear arms development."

Where to begin? First, note that AP granted anonymity here not merely to an individual but to an entire country. What's the proffered justification for doing so? The officials wanted it, so AP gave it: "officials provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country not be named." That's very accommodating of AP.

Second, this graph - which is only slightly less hilariously primitive than the one Benjamin Netanyahu infamously touted with a straight face at the UN - has Farsi written under it to imbue it with that menacing Iranian-ish feel, but also helpfully uses English to ensure that US audiences can easily drink up its scariness. As The Atlantic's Robert Wright noted: "How considerate of the Iranians to label their secret nefarious nuke graph in English!". It's certainly possible that Iranian scientists use English as a universal language of science, but the convenient mixing of Farsi and English should at least trigger some skepticism.

Third, even if one assumes that this graph is something other than a fraud, the very idea that computer simulations constitute "evidence" that Iran is working toward a nuclear weapon is self-evidently inane. As John Glaser extensively documents, "experts from across the spectrum have agreed with the military and intelligence consensus [from the US and Israel] that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and presents no imminent threat." Buried in the AP article is a quote from David Albright explaining that though "the diagram looks genuine [it] seems to be designed more 'to understand the process' than as part of a blueprint for an actual weapon in the making."

The case for the attack on Iraq was driven, of course, by a mountain of fabricated documents and deliberately manipulated intelligence which western media outlets uncritically amplified. Yet again, any doubts that they are willing and eager to do exactly the same with regard to the equally fictitious Iranian Threat should be forever dispelled by behavior like this.

As always, the two key facts to note on Iran are these: 1) the desperation to prevent Iran from possessing a nuclear weapon has nothing to do with fear that they would commit national suicide by using it offensively, but rather has everything to do with the deterrent capability it would provide - i.e., nukes would prevent the US or Israel from attacking Iran at will or bullying it with threats of such an attack; and 2) the US-led sanctions regime now in place based on this fear-mongering continues to impose mass suffering and death on innocent Iranians. But as long as media outlets like AP continue to blindly trumpet whatever is shoveled to them by the shielded, unnamed "country critical of Iran's atomic program", these facts will be suppressed and fear levels kept sky-high, thus enabling the continuation and escalation of the hideous sanctions regime, if not an outright attack.​

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/28/ap-iran-nuclear-bomb
 

Kinyou

Member
This, says AP, shows that "Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima."
That sounds pretty tame compared to what other countries have in their stock
 

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
Iran is going to be the next Iraq isn't it?

Fool me once, ect..

Does anyone think an Iranian official would draw any sort of document like this? FFS
 

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
Iran is going to be the next Iraq isn't it?

Fool me once, ect..

Does anyone think an Iranian official would draw any sort of document like this? FFS
Hey, the media and the governments are beating that war drum pretty fucking hard. It's disgusting.
 
A country could have a strategic interest in the western populace believing that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Why should we believe an anonymous country, and for what purpose? Sounds pretty idiotic to me. And hey, what's the worst that could happen if Iran does develop a nuclear weapon? They exert a geopolitical pressure that causes the U.S.A to piss away less money in the middle east? Sounds like a win-win personally.
 

commedieu

Banned
Can someone explain to me why Pakistan, a nuclear power, pretty much under control of terrorists, is ok to have nukes. Iran, cant though? Why can North Korea have them...? And Iran Can't....Is it about the 1000 years of chest beating between Israel and Iran, is that it? But then factor in pakistan.

Why can't Iran have nukes..?
 

Biff

Member
Second, this graph - which is only slightly less hilariously primitive than the one Benjamin Netanyahu infamously touted with a straight face at the UN - has Farsi written under it to imbue it with that menacing Iranian-ish feel, but also helpfully uses English to ensure that US audiences can easily drink up its scariness. As The Atlantic's Robert Wright noted: "How considerate of the Iranians to label their secret nefarious nuke graph in English!". It's certainly possible that Iranian scientists use English as a universal language of science, but the convenient mixing of Farsi and English should at least trigger some skepticism.

For anyone with a science background this is silly.

English is the language used to identify measurements, whereas interpretations remain in the author's language.

I have spent way too much of my life sort through scientific journals in different languages for my thesis to let this slip by unopposed.
 
For anyone with a science background this is silly.

English is the language used to identify measurements, whereas interpretations remain in the author's language.

I have spent way too much of my life sort through scientific journals in different languages for my thesis to let this slip by unopposed.

I agree, the English terminology isn't evidence of a fraudulent graph
 

KHarvey16

Member
Hahahahahaha, wow. That description is fantastic. Yes, technically I guess calculating the energy in an atomic blast might be a key to developing atomic weapons. Even owning a device capable of calculating would be key. Graph paper is similarly a key ingredient. Don't forget a pencil to write down the numbers! All indispensable ingredients for creating the atom bomb. The proof is irrefutable.
 

Tookay

Member
Can someone explain to me why Pakistan, a nuclear power, pretty much under control of terrorists, is ok to have nukes. Iran, cant though? Why can North Korea have them...? And Iran Can't....Is it about the 1000 years of chest beating between Israel and Iran, is that it? But then factor in pakistan.

Why can't Iran have nukes..?

Because if you admit that one nuclear country with terrorists (and therefore acting as a deterrent to act against them) is bad, then you'd probably like to stop OTHER countries from reaching such a stage where you cannot act against them?
 
As far as I can tell this is the Guardian UK making a big deal out of an AP article that the AP isn't really making a big deal about.

BTW - ALL their stories carry "The Big Story" banner on that site.
 
how did i know this was a Greenwald article. why did the guardian hire him?

For anyone with a science background this is silly.

English is the language used to identify measurements, whereas interpretations remain in the author's language.

I have spent way too much of my life sort through scientific journals in different languages for my thesis to let this slip by unopposed.
this is glenn greenwald everything the west does with regards to security is amoral, wrong or a conspiracy.
 

commedieu

Banned
Because if you admit that one nuclear country with terrorists (and therefore acting as a deterrent to act against them) is bad, then you'd probably like to stop OTHER countries from reaching such a stage where you cannot act against them?

But the threat a nuclear Iran is an immediate nuclear war/detonation because they are mean, and intend to blow up israel/west. The West is acting as if the firs thing Iran is going to do is blow up the world. That specific threat, is shared by the people controlling Pakistans weaponry, who have implicitly been involved in actions against the USA, including hiding Osama. Israels safe and sound.

Its precrime at this point, when everyone else is allowed to have them. No one uses them. I agree its definitely a deterrent, thats why the West doesn't bother Pakistan too much. And yes, thats why the West doesn't want Iran to get one. But its to stop western meddling, as everyone else who has them uses them.

I don't feel safe with the USA having Nukes, or anyone else in the world. Its not as if Iran getting nukes is any significant blow to that safety. Dirty bombs and bio weapons are just as threatening and more realistic, as they aren't going to trigger MAD.

The money and lives that are going to be wasted going to war with Iran aren't worth the unrealistic threat considering the USA is still #1 when it comes to using nuclear weapons to kill people. I've heard all this shit before about wmd's and imminent threats, we see the outcome. Iran is no different.

If Iran wanted to buy a nuke, and nuke israel. They could. As could many others, its such an archaic fear mongering tactic.
 

Lambtron

Unconfirmed Member
this is glenn greenwald everything the west does with regards to security is amoral, wrong or a conspiracy.
Pretty much everything the US has done with regards to the War on Terror was amoral and/or wrong. I'm not so sure it's all a conspiracy, but most of it is indefensible in my eyes.

Did you miss the election and the debates? Which government are you talking about? The imaginary one that won't be sworn in in January?
Well, for one the Israeli government. Once they start some shit it's only a matter of time before the US joins in. But even if we're not dropping bombs on their country, we are imposing harsh sanctions that are hurting the people of the country for things that are largely out of their control.
 
Pretty much everything the US has done with regards to the War on Terror was amoral and/or wrong. I'm not so sure it's all a conspiracy, but most of it is indefensible in my eyes.
then you'll love his writing, but if you don't want a pompous morally righteous tone in every article its best to stay away. There are smarter, and better criticism out there on the web.
 

Matt

Member
But the threat a nuclear Iran is an immediate nuclear war/detonation because they are mean, and intend to blow up israel/west. The West is acting as if the firs thing Iran is going to do is blow up the world. That specific threat, is shared by the people controlling Pakistans weaponry, who have implicitly been involved in actions against the USA, including hiding Osama. Israels safe and sound.

Its precrime at this point, when everyone else is allowed to have them. No one uses them. I agree its definitely a deterrent, thats why the West doesn't bother Pakistan too much. And yes, thats why the West doesn't want Iran to get one. But its to stop western meddling, as everyone else who has them uses them.

I don't feel safe with the USA having Nukes, or anyone else in the world. Its not as if Iran getting nukes is any significant blow to that safety. Dirty bombs and bio weapons are just as threatening and more realistic, as they aren't going to trigger MAD.

The money and lives that are going to be wasted going to war with Iran aren't worth the unrealistic threat considering the USA is still #1 when it comes to using nuclear weapons to kill people. I've heard all this shit before about wmd's and imminent threats, we see the outcome. Iran is no different.

If Iran wanted to buy a nuke, and nuke israel. They could. As could many others, its such an archaic fear mongering tactic.

Basically, because Nuclear weapons are bad, and the less people that have them the better, period. Pakistan has them and there is nothing we can do about it, but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to stop everyone else from getting to that stage.
 
You liberals! Take your "logic" and stick it up your butt instead of sticking flowers in our solders' gun barrels for once!


I pray to God in Heaven and the devil in Hell that we aren't dumb enough to fall for this propaganda again.
 

besada

Banned
Can someone explain to me why Pakistan, a nuclear power, pretty much under control of terrorists, is ok to have nukes. Iran, cant though? Why can North Korea have them...? And Iran Can't....Is it about the 1000 years of chest beating between Israel and Iran, is that it? But then factor in pakistan.

Why can't Iran have nukes..?
Because they, unlike Pakistan, India, or Israel, are signatories to the NPT, which explicitly denies them the right to work towards making nukes.

N. Korea was a signatory of the NPT, but withdrew from it, and were punished by sanctions. States withdrawing from the NPT ate required to give three months notice of their withdrawal.
 

goomba

Banned
Basically, because Nuclear weapons are bad, and the less people that have them the better, period. Pakistan has them and there is nothing we can do about it, but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to stop everyone else from getting to that stage.

So why did the US sign the nuclear deal with India which includes weapon technology?
 

commedieu

Banned
Because they, unlike Pakistan, India, or Israel, are signatories to the NPT, which explicitly denies them the right to work towards making nukes.

N. Korea was a signatory of the NPT, but withdrew from it, and were punished by sanctions. States withdrawing from the NPT ate required to give three months notice of their withdrawal.

We didn't bomb north korea for developing nukes.

Next..

I know no one can answer it, as its loaded with Western ties. I just don't want my taxes wasted on political reasons Iran shouldn't have what every other nation has/has access to/can get easily, or create something just as effective to blow up somewhere.

The threat isn't real. We went over this in Iraq already.

Basically, because Nuclear weapons are bad, and the less people that have them the better, period. Pakistan has them and there is nothing we can do about it, but that does not mean that we shouldn't try to stop everyone else from getting to that stage.

As above mentioned North Korea, they have nukes. Our trying didn't include blowing them up first.
 

goomba

Banned
Because they, unlike Pakistan, India, or Israel, are signatories to the NPT, which explicitly denies them the right to work towards making nukes.

N. Korea was a signatory of the NPT, but withdrew from it, and were punished by sanctions. States withdrawing from the NPT ate required to give three months notice of their withdrawal.

Considering Iran are already being sanctioned, they should just withdraw from the NPT as it's not achieving anything for them at the moment.
 

leadbelly

Banned
Can someone explain to me why Pakistan, a nuclear power, pretty much under control of terrorists, is ok to have nukes. Iran, cant though? Why can North Korea have them...? And Iran Can't....Is it about the 1000 years of chest beating between Israel and Iran, is that it? But then factor in pakistan.

Why can't Iran have nukes..?

Don't think it works like that.

Pressler was also the key sponsor of the "Pressler Amendment", which banned most economic and military assistance to Pakistan unless the President certified on an annual basis that[11]“Pakistan does not possess a nuclear explosive device and that the proposed United States assistance program will reduce significantly the risk that Pakistan will possess a nuclear explosive device.”[12] No President has issued this certification since October 1989. When President George H. W. Bush determined that Pakistan had developed such a weapon, aid and many commercial relations to Pakistan were cut off. However, Pakistan had already footed the $463.7 million bill for a fleet of F-16 aircraft and had emerged empty-handed from this aborted purchase.[13] More than eight years after George H.W. Bush issued the Pressler sanctions, Clinton agreed in December 1998 that the United States would eventually reimburse Pakistan.[14]

Once a country actually has nuclear weapons capability what do you do? Threaten to nuke them? lol
 

Bo-Locks

Member
Can someone explain to me why Pakistan, a nuclear power, pretty much under control of terrorists, is ok to have nukes. Iran, cant though? Why can North Korea have them...? And Iran Can't....Is it about the 1000 years of chest beating between Israel and Iran, is that it? But then factor in pakistan.

Why can't Iran have nukes..?

Pakistan (along with India and Israel) is not a signatory of the NPT, so there is no legal basis as to why they can't have them.

At this point Pakistan is pretty much a failed state and Western intelligence agencies are highly concerned about the security of its nuclear weapons. It was also Pakistan that gave their nuclear research to North Korea, remember. The West isn't "OK" with such a precarious state as Pakistan running a nuclear program, but there is very little they can do, both legally and diplomatically, since Pakistan is a key ally.

Iran is a signatory to the NPT, has broken the terms many times and has concealed information from the IAEA.

The goal of the NPT is in the name, to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. When states sign it and then dick the IAEA around, then they can expect sanctions like the ones Iran is currently suffering.

Two very different situations, and neither is ideal.

Nuclear weapons are horrific things, so please don't distill the debate down to "Why can't X have them if Y already has them?". The goal of NPT first and foremost is non proliferation i.e. to stop new and potentially dangerous states from acquiring them.

Treaties like START will help reduce the number of nuclear warheads stored by the major powers.
 

besada

Banned
We didn't bomb north korea for developing nukes.

Next..
We haven't bombed Iran, either.

goomba I generally agree. There's no real benefit for Iran in being a signatory. And they have a legal right to withdraw. It would wreck relations with most other states, but they'd certainly have some supporters.

I'd be curious to see what happened if they followed the letter of the law and weren't bound by additional agreements, unlike N Korea.
 

commedieu

Banned
We haven't bombed Iran, either.

goomba I generally agree. There's no real benefit for Iran in being a signatory. And they have a legal right to withdraw. It would wreck relations with most other states, but they'd certainly have some supporters.

I'd be curious to see what happened if they followed the letter of the law and weren't bound by additional agreements, unlike N Korea.

Think you wanna at least pencil in, yet. ;-)


Right, north korea as said above. World hasn't ended in Nuclear war. And isn't worth(troop and civilian deaths) stopping the non-threat of Irans nukes to keep the west out of their business, just as it isn't worth it toppling Pakistans government(Ran by "terrorists"..) from using nukes.

The call to stop Iran isn't just law, its being sold as an imminent threat BECAUSE of access to nukes. Pretending that western media isn't billing it as such, is a lie.
 

Bo-Locks

Member
So why did the US sign the nuclear deal with India which includes weapon technology?

India developed it's own nuclear weapons independently and never signed the NPT. The deal signed between the US and India a few years ago was for civilian nuclear equipment and did not contravene the NPT since:

a) India is not a signatory of the NPT.
b) India already had it's own nuclear program.
c) India has a proven track record of non-proliferation.

This is very different from Pakistan selling information to NK, for example, which at the time was a signatory of the NPT.

And FTR, I agree, Iran should have just withdrawn from the NPT.
 

besada

Banned
This is very different from Pakistan selling information to NK, for example, which at the time was a signatory of the NPT.

Or Libya, which got caught with Pakistani nuclear technology, in violation of the NPT, and got away with it by ending its program and bending over for inspectors.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom