To let Iran go nuclear would be mistake: Cheney

[Bravus]

Lots to respond to.

Ed: I'm the one who's in the reality of 50 years ago? You're the one who's responding with quotes from 1941. Make up your mind: do we argue for the necessity of this war using the current situation, or do we keep invoking Chamberlain every time someone opposes a war? Or Lindbergh? In the current situation, I am stating, in relation to this particular war, that there are no good grounds. Iran says it is developing nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, and *the science backs that up*. We have the word of Cheney, but he either lied or was badly mistaken just a couple of years ago and got us into a massive and disastrous war... and I haven't seen the Road to Damascus experience that makes him right this time when he was wrong then and has been wrong so often since.

(And Ahmedinejad's 'wipe Israel off the map' is just an example of leader's rhetoric that is insulting and scary abroad but plays well at home. You know, like 'Axis of Evil'.)

Shane: I think there are a huge number of problems in the Middle East, and current solutions *on all sides* are not working. But the war in Iraq is probably the 'leastworkingest' piece of that whole puzzle... and a war in Iran would be much, much worse just due to scale. Bevin has done a good job of outlining the problem of using main force to solve every problem.

[Dr. Shane]

However the US does not use military force to solve every problem. One might make note of a little communist island off the coast of Florida that the US could have successfully removed its dictator years ago. The list of situations the US has handled without military force is almost endless and those where it has used military force are less than a score.

[bevin]

Quote:

One might make note of a little communist island off the coast of Florida that the US could have successfully removed its dictator years ago.

The Russians had nuclear weapons in Cuba

The USA thought they weren't there yet, and started the Cuban Missile Crisis

The two sides negotiated. The Russians agreed to withdraw the weapons, the USA withdrew its missiles from Turkey AND AGREED NOT TO INVADE CUBA

That is why the USA has not applied military force to Cuba - it would show that we can not be relied on to meet such agreements

/Bevin

ps: It was a good thing the USA did not try to invade Cuba - the Russian defenders would have used the nukes

[Bravus]

Two more quick ones:

(1) If indeed Iran and the USA are still at war from the 1979 hostage-taking, isn't it a little odd that the Reagan administration was selling weapons to Iran in the 80s? Kind of odd to sell weapons to your enemy in an on-going war...

(the reason I like international law is because it protects us all - even the US - just like domestic law protects us all)

(2) And the doctrine of preemption is a dangerous one. Imagine it applied in law enforcement: being arrested, not because of what you've done, but because of what you might do. (Oh wait, they already did that and stockpiled the results in Gunatanamo for 5 years.)

I used this analogy in the buildup to the Iraq war, and it seems apposite again. A police officer comes up to me and says "You have a package of heroin in your pocket, pull it out immediately". I say "No, I don't have any heroin". He says "I know you do, and if you don't produce it immediately I'm going to arrest you for obstructing justice". I can't produce the heroin I don't have, so I get preemptively arrested. Saddam couldn't produce the WMDs he didn't have. Iran can't stop the nuclear weapons program it doesn't have. (To take the analogy a step further, the cop seems to be ordering Iran to stop taking Tylenol for its headache and getting upset when it won't.)

And one more: Ed, is the grounds for an attack on Iran the nuclear program or its support for terrorism? Or both? You seem to keep shifting around.

[John317]

Let's see.

Letting the USSR go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting France go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting China go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting India go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting Pakistand go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting South Africa go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting Israel go nuclear was a mistake.

Letting North Korea go nuclear was a mistake.

so now letting Iran go nuclear is a mistake.

Cheney is demonstrably an idiot.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. A/Bevin

Not exactly true, and I don't think Iran will be permitted make such a weapon or at least have one for long. I would be willing to bet that either the US or Israel will destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, or at least as much of them as possible. I expect it to happen in the next year or so. I will be suprised if one of them doesn't do it because I don't think Israel can afford to allow Iran to have a Nuclear weapon. I think the US will do it in order to keep Israel from being blamed because an Israeli strike is more likely if not certain to cause a war, whereas the US is better able to do it without causing a war as a result of such an attack.

[bevin]

That may well be - but it won't stop the spread.

It will encourage it.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It was a good thing the USA did not try to invade Cuba - the Russian defenders would have used the nukes

This type of conjecture really hurts the credibility of those that make it.

The USSR fell more than 15 years ago. Nothing has been stopping the US from forcing regime change in Cuba. We already have a large military presence there. We could do it if we wanted to. No one would stop us and the Cuban people would be better off.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Saddam couldn't produce the WMDs he didn't have.

No, but he could have produced the WMDs he did have and he could have done it 12 years before the US invaded.

[John317]

That may well be - but it won't stop the spread.

It will encourage it.

/Bevin

For sure it won't make the world a better place, especially the the Middle East. I want to go visit Israel and Egypt-- better go now while it's still relatively peaceful.

On a different topic, have you heard of, or read, a book by one Hugh Ross, the author of The Creator and the Cosmos? I'm reading it now. It's about the Big Bang and how he believes he sees proof in it that God the Creator exists.

[lazarus]

Letting Iran go nuclear will, I believe, help to bring peace to the middle east. This will surely moderate the activities of Israel.

The real fear of Israel is not that they will be precipetiously attacked but that they will have to be more careful in the execution of they policies in the region.

I don't believe that Iran's real power brokers are willing to sacrifice their nation in a nuclear exchange with Isreal.

Russia and China knows that Iran going nuclear will ultimately be good for their influence in the region because it will complicate things for the US and Israel

Don't believe the hype!

Cheney has been flat wrong in so many ways. It has already been outlined in previous posts. He is not credible. He is dillusional.

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070225/ap_on_sc/iran_rocket_launch;_ylt=AqF3fREE_kGZtIwt8unFgtjMWM0F

Quote:

Iran said Sunday it successfully tested a rocket that went into space, apparently part of its drive to launch five satellites into orbit by 2010.

[Neil D]

Us open to Military attacks

Quote:

SYDNEY -- US Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday warned that "all options" are on the table if Iran continues to defy UN-led efforts to end Tehran's nuclear ambitions, leaving the door open to military action.

Quote:

Cheney, in a series of blunt and sometimes biting statements during a visit to Asia and Australia, defended the Iraq war, attacked administration critics at home, and warned that the United States would confront potential adversaries abroad.

His visit was meant to thank Australia and Japan for their support in Iraq. But a series of public appearances and media interviews, Cheney's tone was typically feisty.

Quote:

A furious Pelosi complained to the White House that Cheney was impugning the patriotism of critics of the war. Cheney refused to back down: "I said it and I meant it," he told ABC News. "I didn't question her patriotism, I questioned her judgment."

Quote:

During Cheney's visit to Australia -- one of the United States' staunchest allies in Iraq -- he said history would ultimately judge the war a success, pointing to the end of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship and Iraq's democratic elections. The United States, he said, has put Iraq "well on the road to establishing a viable democracy."

These are just a few of the highlights from this article...Isn't that nice?

[Bravus]

I'd like to correct the last snippet there. 'Australia' is not one of the US's staunchest allies on Iraq. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, is, but about 80% of us disagree passionately with him on that point.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

I don't believe that Iran's real power brokers are willing to sacrifice their nation in a nuclear exchange with Israel.

If Iran uses rogue terrorists, a nuclear attack on Israel would not be traceable to them. They could blow up Tel Aviv and completely deny they had anything to do with it. The same people that now favor letting Iran have nuclear weapons would then support Iran's claim they had nothing to do with the destruction of Israel.

If there is a way to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it should be considered. If Iran were to come to the diplomatic table and join the war on terror, that would change things considerably. As long as they want to support terrorists, their word cannot be trusted.

[Bravus]

Please note, everyone, that there are two separate threads of argument being played out here. I'm saying that Iran are not trying for nuclear weapons, and are very unlikely to get them (see below). Lazarus and bevin, on the other hand, are arguing that it's inevitable that they'll end up with them. Different views that both end up opposing a war.

[Bravus]

I've said this before but it seems to bear repeating. Uranium as it comes out of the ground is 99.3% U-238 and 0.7% U-235 (two different isotopes - same number of protons, different number of neutrons). But it's the U-235 that will undergo nuclear fission to produce energy.

It's very, very hard to separate the two isotopes. Because they have the same number of protons they also have the same number of electrons, in the same configuration, which means they are chemically identical. There is no chemical way of separating them. There is a physical way, using powerful centrifuges, based on the very slight (less than 1%) difference in mass between the atoms of the two isotopes. And the more pure you want the U-235, the harder it gets.

For a nuclear reactor for generating electricity, you need to increase the proportion of U-235 from 0.7% to about 3-5% or so. At this stage Iran has not even achieved this level of processing.

To make a weapon, though, the uranium has to be enriched to something like 85% U-235. That is incredibly far beyond the reach of anything the Iranian program can do at this point, and will be for years. It's not just a matter of keeping on doing the same processes, it requires a whole different level of technology to do this.

Now, none of this says Iran can't buy enriched uranium from someone else: but bombing their peaceful nuclear program's plants will not prevent that anyway.

People - starting with Cheney - are saying 'it's worthwhile and important to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons'. I completely agree. But it's a fake and manufactured threat - they're not trying to. So taking it for granted that they are, and that then it's only an argument about the means for stopping them, is arguing from a false (and dangerous) premise.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

But it's a fake and manufactured threat - they're not trying to.

I would like to believe that but it is not just Dick Chenney and other Republicans that believe Iran's program is not for peaceful reasons. The UN and European powers are also concerned. So if there is no evidence that Iran is developing weapons grade uranium, why are so many people concerned?

[Neil D]

Quote:

So if there is no evidence that Iran is developing weapons grade uranium, why are so many people concerned

Because they are not listening....just like others on this board....

Quote:

To make a weapon, though, the uranium has to be enriched to something like 85% U-235. That is incredibly far beyond the reach of anything the Iranian program can do at this point, and will be for years. It's not just a matter of keeping on doing the same processes, it requires a whole different level of technology to do this.

Be educated...listen...and keep asking those questions, Shane...

[Dr. Shane]

I think it foolish to write of the UN as not listening. I don't want to be foolish, as much as I don't like the UN.

BTW: if Bravus is right, that means what we are do is working. Which is why we don't have to do anything more (i.e. missile strike, sanctions).

[bevin]

There are two kinds of "atom" bombs - uranium and plutonium

The uranium is just brute force - using the mass difference of the atoms to separate them. In WW-II the American's used a series of techniques to do the refinement, ending in the centrifuges. The earlier stages just feed more enriched feed-stock into the centrifuges. It was expensive, had some manufacturing risk, but the device was so simple it was never tested until dropped on Japan.

The plutonium based ones can be done with clever chemistry, but are technically harder. This device is what was tested at Los Alamos. Once you know how to do it, this was the cheaper way to go in the 1940's - 1950's.

I don't know what the current cost-benefit tradeoff is. The amount of knowledge and compute power available today makes either approach look very feasable - to the point that it is impossible to stop a country from doing it without using force.

As Israel and North Korea have both demonstrated, it can be done very secretively. I would be surprised if it couldn't be done completely undetectably.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

I thought South Africa developed nuclear weapons capability completely undetected and only made it known after apartheid was done away. Although I am not sure about that.

[bevin]

http://cns.miis.edu/research/safrica/chron.htm

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Quote:

BTW: if Bravus is right, that means what we are do is working. Which is why we don't have to do anything more (i.e. missile strike, sanctions).

Sure it is, Shane...If you want to kill a fly, there are several ways of doing it...But to kill it by using a 2X4 seems rather inefficient...I prefer quick ways like a flyswatter...and a bug spray can also work...or a fly trap...

Diplomacy can also work wonders as well...and it doesn't kill as many people as sending in armed forces....plus it doees wonders for a country's PR...makes them look reasonable...willing to deal...

[bevin]

plus it doesn't cause fear and consternation in other countries that are scared that they might be the next random target of this inept administration - hence doesn't encourage every country out there to quietly develop nuclear deterrence

http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

Quote:

One of the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century was that "people like us" could not commit atrocities against civilians.

German and Japanese citizens believed it, but their militaries slaughtered millions of people.

British and French citizens believed it, but their militaries fought brutal colonial wars in Africa and Asia.

Russian citizens believed it, but their armies murdered civilians in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and elsewhere.

Israeli citizens believed it, but their army mowed down Palestinians and Lebanese.

Arabs believed it, but suicide bombers and hijackers targeted U.S. and Israeli civilians.

U.S. citizens believed it, but their military killed hundreds of thousands in Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

The point is that if Bravus is right, there is no need for anything, inlcuding diplomacy because there is no problem. That is, the status quo is working.