-
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.
Iran Update: Failed IEAE inspection, Preemptive Strikes and SL declaring no nukes
- Thread starter el retorno
- Start date
- Status
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Anyone have the link to the other Iran thread where someone posted an interesting article about a former IAEA inspector saying documents were falsified on Iraq's WMDs, and that he feels he's responsible for all the deaths in Iraq for never coming forward with the issue?
Might've been a Rolling Stone's article.
Might've been a Rolling Stone's article.
well i am not questioning the fairness bit, i am questioning being suprised that iran wants nukes.
the smartest thing iran will ever do in their lifetime is building nukes. It practically guarantees their safety
Oh right forgot of course its so clear now. Iran will launch nukes to destroy Israel, along with many of the holiest Muslims sites and a whole bunch of Muslims themselves, and then in return be destroyed itself. At least it will die happy knowing it did its part for the crazy MOZLEMS agenda. Then in return Pakistan, since its also a Muslim nation, will launch its nukes in retaliation, which will cause the US to nuke Pakistan out of orbit.
ALL PART OF THE PLAN!
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Iran is Iraq 2.0. The war has already been decided. The false premise is already been made. War with Iran is inevitable.
Inflammable Slinky
Member
Hold up now, why are you painting me as an apologist for Iran? I think this is the first Iran topic I've posted in quite some time. Also Iran is an asshole autocratic regime but that's no reason to make war on them since those things have a tendency to do nothing but increase the overall level of suffering that the populace experiences (See: The recent past).
All I am arguing is that Iran has plenty of valid reasons to restrict the IAEA's access to non-nuclear sites.
Fusion Pizza
Member
I sincerely hope that they are only pursuing peaceful nuclear options, but it makes way too much for them to get nuclear weapons and become entirely too costly to invade like North Korea. If I was in their posistion it's what I would do.
Having so many nukes sitting in such a turbulent part of the world with all of these countries threatening to make pre-emptive strikes,to wipe each other off the face of the earth, cripple global markets with vital waterways being closed off, just seems like a perfect storm for someone somewhere to make a bad deciscon.
Especially since Saudi Arabia has said they would arm themselves with nuclear weapons in a matter of weeks if Iran goes the offensive route with their nuclear tech.
Source
As others have said, 1945 was bad enough, the yield on these devices is much larger now, Imagine if the fallout were to spread across oil fields that would then be rendered no go zones?
Such troubled times.
Having so many nukes sitting in such a turbulent part of the world with all of these countries threatening to make pre-emptive strikes,to wipe each other off the face of the earth, cripple global markets with vital waterways being closed off, just seems like a perfect storm for someone somewhere to make a bad deciscon.
Especially since Saudi Arabia has said they would arm themselves with nuclear weapons in a matter of weeks if Iran goes the offensive route with their nuclear tech.
Source
As others have said, 1945 was bad enough, the yield on these devices is much larger now, Imagine if the fallout were to spread across oil fields that would then be rendered no go zones?
Such troubled times.
littleworm
Member
I have doubts that Iran becoming a nuclear power, would give them guaranteed safety from invasion.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Oh really?
That "large explosive containment vessel" IAEA officials identified inside Parchin must be something else, right?
So, who would be mad enough to invade iran carrying nuclear warheads?
oh that depends what you mean by iran, if you mean the iranian people then I very much disagree, north korea is a great example of why its bad for the people for instance: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-02-10/news/30011875_1_food-crisis-food-aid-north-korea
and more then that, iran is heading down that path as well: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...es-mount-as-new-sanctions-are-made-ready.html
however, if you mean the regimes survival, then yes, I agree its a very smart move, which is why I against it, and I think everyone else that shares the western view point, should be so against it as well
Refrigerator
Member
Losing it is a slight overstatement. The way they've worked diplomatically the last few decades is by leveraging their regional nuclear hegemony to be unrepentant assholes (I believe that is the term in IR) to allies and foes. Were any other power in that region able to negate their nuclear advantage, they'd actually have to engage in soft power and not merely through threats of proxy battles with or without the US' help. Coercive or preventive diplomacy stops working when another regional power can call your bluff.
This makes me sad. I was reading Steve Jobs biography about him hiking through Afghanistan (or it might have been Iran), but the fact is that the ability to do go out and travel and experience other cultures is nigh impossible (at least I feel that way as an American). I've got nothing against Iranians, Pakistanis, Egyptians, etc. - but I feel like my safety would be put into question travelling to those areas now.
Sucks. Why can't people just get along (why can't dumb ass politicians get along)? You'd think with all the money and power that they have now that they could be happy, but they still gotta' keep fucking shit up (that goes for all governments/politicians).
imo.
At last. Someone spills it out.
i admire your honesty. If anbody's objection to iran having nukes is because it makes regime change nigh impossible then bravo to you. I completely respect that viewpoint.
It's better than 'oh my god iran is going to blow up the mddle east if it got nukes'
theignoramus
Member
Look, Iran is clearly playing games with the IAEA, but so is the US.
Furthermore, the nuclear program is not America's fundamental problem with Iran, the problem the USG has with Iran is that it's independent actor in the region supporting all kinds of causes and groups the the US and its regional allies vehemently oppose. A nuclear Iran adds to the agitation tenfold, there's no doubting that, but source of ire is the Islamic Republic and its regional agenda, which is anti-American. Iran could give the IAEA everything it wanted and maybe blunt a bit of the rhetoric coming out of the White House, but ultimately, the USG would continue to contest Iran because the number one goal is regime change.
Hari Seldon
Member
People not caring if Iran gets nukes, you do realize that wanting nukes is not to threaten the US or Israel, it is to threaten their own people if they decide to have a Persian Spring. If these nukes are ever used in anger, it is pretty much guaranteed they will be used on their own population.
launching nukes against the civilian population? This is not killzone 2 and the ayatollahs are not visari. LOL
Refrigerator
Member
Since there's no historical precedent for this, so you're probably just speaking out of your ass. There's a far cry between using chemical and nuclear weapons on your own population within your own borders.
littleworm
Member
Any country that is outside of its missile range.
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Awesome.
So what's your thoughts on the IAEA report on Parchin (and the UN censure as a result) also contained in the link? I know you are desperate to deflect attention away from said "large explosive containment vessel", but surely trolling isn't the best way to do it?
So how do you plan to invade a country with no troops on the ground?
Hari Seldon
Member
Would Gaddafi have used them on the partisans if he had them?
littleworm
Member
You think Iran would use nuclear weapons on their own people?
Refrigerator
Member
Would Ghengis Khan?! Would Hitler?!?!
We can reduce a host of policy decisions to 'well what if they could?!' hypotheticals. Doesn't even come close to make them either plausible or actionable.
Something Wicked
Member
Not nukes, but tanks and .50 cal machine guns. And the world would have to sit and watch as Tehran is butchered by the IRG.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Have to agree. The ayatollahs still have to live where they kill the civilian population.
theignoramus
Member
I dont even think the Heritage Foundation or the American Enterprise Institute have espoused such a theory. lol.
el retorno
Member
Yes, terrorist and insergents are just "causes and groups"
when i asked who was going to invade iran with nukes you said,
anyone outside it's missle range.
i ask how does that work out without having troops on the ground. Because that's what an invasion is.
Ahmadinedschad: "Hey, Iranian people - you want us gone?"
* hits nuclear nuke button
* Iran blows up and is nuclear-contaminated for a long time
Ahmadinedschad: "That definitely showed them"
(if he was alive at that point lol), seriously this is no video game and no one would be that stupid
All I see when I look at Iran is a population oppressed by a murderous band of theocrat-thugs. Nuclear weapons = power. Power for murderers and thieves = bad. It's also bad news for anyone who wants there to be change in Iran, because nuclear capability gives to them leverage in case of international pressure. It gives them free rein to oppress, to manipulate, its citizens with less fear of reprisals from other nations.
Coming from the position of a hypocritical American, who hopes that his nation will maintain their stranglehold on world politics . . . I hope Iran never gets a nuke.
Coming from the position of a hypocritical American, who hopes that his nation will maintain their stranglehold on world politics . . . I hope Iran never gets a nuke.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Are you saying that if Iran was invaded that it would use nukes within it's own borders?
littleworm
Member
The United States for one, my question is when US troops are pouring into Iran do you think that Iran would use nuclear weapons, would they kill their own people in an attempt to slowdown US advances. This is also ignoring the international ramifications of using a nuclear weapon.
how are you going to invade iran? It's missile range is quite extensive. Which country in the middle easy is going to allow it's bases to be used for an iranian invasion knowing full well that iran would be ready to nuke them out of sight?
Neko Mimi Mode
Member
Perhaps, had it not been part of a large IAEA report detailing explicit research and development toward a nuclear weapons capability by Iran.
Here's a summary on Reuters; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-nuclear-iran-iaea-idUSTRE7AG0RP20111117
Or the full document, if you're brave; http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Iran_8Nov2011.pdf
"For the first time, the IAEA report outlines, in depth, the countrys detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle"
Didn't give a shit about its people when they were fighting Iraq, I wouldn't put anything past the shitheads in charge there.
pouring from where? the matrix? lol.
To launch a full scale invasion of iran you are going to need hundreds of thousands of troops.
Hari Seldon
Member
These scientists are like 70 years behind current tech. They aren't going to have super high yield fusion bombs or anything. 1st gen bombs are small city busters. They are about the equivalent to gassing your own people in terms of casualties.
littleworm
Member
I don't see who is going to stop us we already have bases everywhere. Also the fact that in your opinion would readily use nukes on its neighbors, is reason enough to invade now. That brings me back to my point Iran is in a catch 22 would comes to developing weapons. The best way to ensure it's survival would be to be completely open with the IAEA and the west.
Yes, I'm aware of the report. The truth is though there is no smoking gun with any of the information provided. The "containment vessel" for example was originally from an 11 year old report and has only resurfaced in recent reports as your previous article mentioned. There is no evidence that Iran is anywhere close to weapons grade uranium either.
Choke on the Magic
Banned
Um. The same way we invaded Iraq?
Something Wicked
Member
It would take less than a week of airstrikes to wipe out most of Iran's missile sites/launchers.
Whose says the US would use massive ground force units? Just keep monitoring IRG movements with satellites/drones and call in airstrikes in their positions when enough intelligence is gathered. Keep the war in the air.
littleworm
Member
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked