2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
I wonder what the IAEA missed the previous years they stated Iran was developing peaceful nuclear power hmm
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."This seems manifestly false or misleading.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."
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."Pretty serious stuff.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.
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
I think RinNYC just ended any real debate on whether missle defense is worthwhile. The rest is debating the details.
Fiddling While Rome Burns
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.'.."
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; 09-19-09 at 11:17 PM.
"If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu
Last edited by MSgt; 09-21-09 at 12:04 AM.
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 12:29 AM.
Are you coming to bed?
I can't. This is important.
Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD
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
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