Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 157

Thread: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

  1. #111
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:57 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,592

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    In the link the Director General stated he believes they possess nukes. Most US sources estimate Israel has at least 40 nukes. Now there's a difference between many sources stating that israel has nukes and them saying Iran has information but does not know if they can build them. I know you can tell the difference between the two
    Never said Iran has nukes. Never asked if Iran has nukes. Only questioned your willingness to believe, without confirmation, that Israel has nukes, contrasted with your agnosticism on believing that Iran is working on nukes, when many sources -- including some of the same ones -- say they are.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #112
    Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northeast
    Last Seen
    11-03-11 @ 08:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    2,834

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Never said Iran has nukes. Never asked if Iran has nukes. Only questioned your willingness to believe, without confirmation, that Israel has nukes, contrasted with your agnosticism on believing that Iran is working on nukes, when many sources -- including some of the same ones -- say they are.
    The sources you've quoted stated they had the information did not say that they were actively working, had the capability or had the delivery systems. There's a difference between possession and not being sure if they are actively building.

    I wonder what the IAEA missed the previous years they stated Iran was developing peaceful nuclear power hmm

  3. #113
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    The sources you've quoted stated they had the information did not say that they were actively working, had the capability or had the delivery systems. There's a difference between possession and not being sure if they are actively building.

    I wonder what the IAEA missed the previous years they stated Iran was developing peaceful nuclear power hmm
    Some more details, including a further explanation of why this is such a big scoop:

    AP NewsBreak: Nuke agency says Iran can make bomb | World news | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

    The information in the document that is either new, more detailed or represents a more forthright conclusion than found in published IAEA reports includes:

    _ The IAEA's assessment that Iran worked on developing a chamber inside a ballistic missile capable of housing a warhead payload "that is quite likely to be nuclear."

    _ That Iran engaged in "probable testing" of explosives commonly used to detonate a nuclear warhead — a method known as a "full-scale hemispherical explosively driven shock system."

    _ An assessment that Iran worked on developing a system "for initiating a hemispherical high explosive charge" of the kind used to help spark a nuclear blast.

    In another key finding, an excerpt notes: "The agency ... assesses that Iran has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device (an atomic bomb) based on HEU (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel."
    ElBaradei said in 2007 there was no "concrete evidence" that Iran was engaged in atomic weapons work — a source of friction with the United States, which has sought a hard-line stance on Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

    Responding to the AP report, the agency did not deny the existence of a confidential record of its knowledge and assessment of Iran's alleged attempts to make nuclear weapons. But an agency statement said the IAEA "has no concrete proof that there is or has been a nuclear weapon program in Iran."
    This seems manifestly false or misleading.

    It cited ElBaradei as telling the agency's 35-nation governing board last week that "continuing allegations that the IAEA was withholding information on Iran are politically motivated and totally baseless."
    The AP saw two versions of the U.N. document — one running 67 pages that was described as being between six months and a year old, and the most recent one with more than 80 pages and growing because of constant updates. Both were tagged "confidential."

    A senior international official identified the document as one described by the U.S. and other IAEA member nations as a "secret annex" on Iran's nuclear program. The IAEA has called reports of a "secret annex" misinformation.
    Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment, the key to making both nuclear fuel and weapons-grade uranium. It is blocking IAEA attempts to probe allegations based on U.S., Israeli and other intelligence that it worked on a nuclear weapons program.
    Presented with excerpts from the earlier paper, the senior international official said some of the wording and conclusions were outdated because they had been updated as recently as several weeks ago by IAEA experts probing Iran for signs it was — or is — hiding work on developing nuclear arms.

    At the same time, he confirmed the accuracy of the excerpts, including Khamenei's comments, as well as the IAEA assessment that Iran already had the expertise to make a nuclear bomb and was well-positioned to develop ways of equipping missiles with atomic warheads.
    The agency said earlier this year that Iran had produced more than 1,000 kilograms — 2,200 pounds — of low-enriched, or fuel-grade, uranium. That is more than enough to produce sufficient highly enriched uranium for one weapon, should Iran choose to do so, and its enrichment capacities have expanded since then.

    The document concludes that while Iran is not yet able to equip its Shahab-3 medium-range missile with nuclear warheads, "it is likely that Iran will overcome problems," noting that "from the evidence presented to the agency, it is possible to suggest that ... Iran has conducted R&D (research and development) into producing a prototype system."
    The document also says Iran already could trigger a nuclear blast through "methods of unconventional delivery" such as in a container on a cargo ship or carried on the trailer of a truck.
    But in an indication that ElBaradei also is concerned, he departed from the cautious language characterizing his Iran reports last week.

    He told a closed meeting of the IAEA board that if the intelligence on Iran's alleged weapons program experiments is genuine, "there is a high probability that nuclear weaponization activities have taken place — but I should underline 'if' three times."
    The U.S., Israel, France and other nations critical of Iran's nuclear activities have for months said that ElBaradei was withholding a "secret annex" on Iran in the IAEA's electronic archives that they say goes far beyond the information and conclusions published by ElBaradei in his regular reports on Iran.
    Pretty serious stuff.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #114
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,184

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    I think RinNYC just ended any real debate on whether missle defense is worthwhile. The rest is debating the details.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  5. #115
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I think RinNYC just ended any real debate on whether missle defense is worthwhile. The rest is debating the details.
    Not quite. As he pointed out in his quotes, their capacity to actually launch a missile and achieve a strike as it is now is question. Reliable, sufficent yield, long range. Not three things associated with an Iranian program.

    Now, as his post also points out, it's far easier just to ship the weapon here.

    As for giving a weapon to terrorists, I've asked this question over and over and no one wants to answer it:
    Iran did not given Hezbollah anything remotely approaching its best weapons, why would Iran give a terrorist group the pinnacle of its arsenal?

    Furthermore, why won't MAD work?
    Last edited by obvious Child; 09-20-09 at 01:17 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #116
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,040

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by PogueMoran View Post
    Do we have any verifiable proof that Iran has actual nukes? Also do we have proof that their missiles are capable of reaching the eastern seaboard?
    Well, by all means lets wait until they do. How much harder do they have to try before we stop pretending that they aren't kidding?

    Besides this....how much is Europe in for?
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-21-09 at 02:04 AM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  7. #117
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    The completely incoherent rationale for the missile defense system is one of many reasons I oppose it. What European nation is in danger of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles? None. Are Polish-based interceptors going to be better able to stop a launch against Israel than Israeli-based interceptors would be? No. Is this system (assuming it even works) worth the cost? No. What exactly is the strategic reason for placing anti-Iranian interceptors in the one spot on earth most likely to piss off Russia?

    The rationale for the missile defense system doesn't make any sense...unless, of course, the target is not Iran at all (which might explain some of the shrieks about "selling out to Russia.") But if Russia is the target, that presents a whole series of other questions: Are a few interceptors going to stop all of Russia's missiles if it decides to launch an all-out war in Europe? Why would Russia do such a thing when it hasn't used its nuclear weapons in the 60 years it has had them? And why can't supporters of the shield at least be honest about their justification instead of cloaking it in anti-Iran rhetoric?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 09-21-09 at 02:29 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #118
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    It's real questionable if the target was ever Iran.

    First of all, Iran's missile is not reliable nor accurate. Not exactly the type of delivery system you'd want to use if you were a state.

    Second, the actual amount of damage that a few unreliable missiles could do pales against the conventional firepower that Israel could unleash much less us.

    Third, despite the rantings of lunatics that Iran is run by crazy people, the recent election shows that the Mullahs are anything but crazy, but cold, calculating logical rulers. Why MAD doesn't apply has not been answered by anyone here.

    Fourth, Iran will not use a missile when it has much cheaper, much more reliable and infinitely harder to stop means of delivery. The fact that we have not gotten nuked by someone shipping a nuke in a lead lined container ship is a damn good reason to believe in God.

    Fifth, Russia offered to joint share a key radar station that would have been far superior to anything we had in Eastern Europe and guess who turned them down? Really, the defense is geared against Iran and not Russia, but we don't want to share a defense system with Russia? Huh.

    Sixth, we all know that weapons programs get better as time goes on and as Congress pours untold billions into them. While it is in no shape to stop Russia (or even Iran really) at the current moment, it is a logical conclusion based on historical data to think that the system will eventually reach a point where it could potentially stop a Russian first or 2nd strike thereby making nukes actual, usable weapons for a change. Couple this with nuclear reductions and it's a distinct possibility. Same goes for the Chinese. And you'd be an absolute fool to think they don't know this.

    If we were actually into protecting America, we'd be installing extremely powerful radiation detectors all over our borders and ports and actually inspecting cargo containers. Why bother spending billions on a long range missile that may not even work when you can spend a few thousand to ship a lead lined container to America?

    That and it will reinforce anti-American alliances.
    THE STAR WARS FLOP | Foreign Affairs
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The completely incoherent rationale for the missile defense system is one of many reasons I oppose it. What European nation is in danger of Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles? None. Are Polish-based interceptors going to be better able to stop a launch against Israel than Israeli-based interceptors would be? No. Is this system (assuming it even works) worth the cost? No. What exactly is the strategic reason for placing anti-Iranian interceptors in the one spot on earth most likely to piss off Russia?

    The rationale for the missile defense system doesn't make any sense...unless, of course, the target is not Iran at all (which might explain some of the shrieks about "selling out to Russia.") But if Russia is the target, that presents a whole series of other questions: Are a few interceptors going to stop all of Russia's missiles if it decides to launch an all-out war in Europe? Why would Russia do such a thing when it hasn't used its nuclear weapons in the 60 years it has had them? And why can't supporters of the shield at least be honest about their justification instead of cloaking it in anti-Iran rhetoric?
    ask the czechs

  10. #120
    User KillerAngel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Seen
    11-28-09 @ 01:52 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    129

    Re: Obama scraps Bush-era missile defense for new plan

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Not quite. As he pointed out in his quotes, their capacity to actually launch a missile and achieve a strike as it is now is question. Reliable, sufficent yield, long range. Not three things associated with an Iranian program.

    Now, as his post also points out, it's far easier just to ship the weapon here.

    As for giving a weapon to terrorists, I've asked this question over and over and no one wants to answer it:
    Iran did not given Hezbollah anything remotely approaching its best weapons, why would Iran give a terrorist group the pinnacle of its arsenal?

    Furthermore, why won't MAD work?
    Are you referring to MAD with regards to the US and Iran? If so, it does not and cannot apply to a nation like Iran. In order for it to work, both nations would have to be reasonably certain that they would be destroyed as a result of launching nukes, and that the other nation had the ability to mount a roughly equivalent counterstrike. That is not the case here; our arsenal is far superior to theirs, and so is our ability to shoot down their missiles.

    As to your other point, you are entirely correct. It's not logical to assume that Iran would give away its best weapons, for any purpose.

    However, one should never discount the illogical, as it is still possible. Who knows...maybe they fear having their weapons siezed or destroyed, so they'd smuggle them out of the country and give them to like-minded islamic groups.
    "The union, next to our liberty most dear." John C. Calhoun
    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -Tenth Amendment, US Constitution

Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •