Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 58

Thread: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites


    Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites


    TEHRAN, Iran The Iranian government approved a plan Sunday to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities, a dramatic expansion in defiance of U.N. demands it halt the program.


    The decision comes only two days after the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency censured Iran, demanding it immediately stop building a newly revealed enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom and freeze all uranium enrichment activities.


    A Cabinet meeting headed by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to begin building five uranium enrichment sites that have already been studied and propose five other locations for future construction within two months.


    In Vienna, spokeswoman Gillian Tudor said the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency would have no comment. But the announcement is likely to stoke already high tensions between Iran and the West over its controversial nuclear activities.

    Full Article: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites - Yahoo! News


    Apparently, Iran's military and nuclear facilities need to be completely obliterated.

    Iran is begging for destruction. Clearly, these assbags have passed on accepting a diplomatic solution. Now it is time to neuter Iran's nuclear/military capabilities BEFORE the problem of Islamic terrorist with nuclear weapons comes to pass.

    Iran has said to the world "We're a bunch of Islamic morons who needs to be irradicated"

  2. #2
    Sage

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

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    just look at the different face iran brashly wears now that they perceive a weakling and coward in the oval office

    ahmedinejad would never dare to behave this way in front of the world if we had a man on the job

    he's actually ESCALATING and accelerating his nuke program

    unbelievable

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    05-20-10 @ 11:02 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    314

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    Quote Originally Posted by The Prof View Post
    just look at the different face iran brashly wears now that they perceive a weakling and coward in the oval office

    ahmedinejad would never dare to behave this way in front of the world if we had a man on the job

    he's actually ESCALATING and accelerating his nuke program

    unbelievable
    +1000

    Agreed, I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this article, I am just stunned.

    We need to begin initiating demonstrations on Washington DC and around the country to begin forcing our unresponsive, irresponsible elected officials to take military action.

    It is as if Iran is just saying a big "FU" to weakling Obama, spitting in his face - is he man enough to do something about this diseased, filthy regime of thugs and murderers?

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    What happened to Obama talking to Iran and making everything all better?

  5. #5
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    01-03-10 @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    88

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    Remember also that two days ago Iran announced that it was 'considering' withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does that then the UN will not have any jurisdiction over Iran's nuclear program and will have to remove any and all actions against Iran that are currently in place because of their nuclear program. Whether the UN will be able to introduce new sanctions after Iran withdraws is something the legal eagles will have to discuss and figure out.

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Whitewater, CO
    Last Seen
    04-05-16 @ 06:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    Remember also that two days ago Iran announced that it was 'considering' withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does that then the UN will not have any jurisdiction over Iran's nuclear program and will have to remove any and all actions against Iran that are currently in place because of their nuclear program. Whether the UN will be able to introduce new sanctions after Iran withdraws is something the legal eagles will have to discuss and figure out.
    If Iran withdraws from the treaty, which they are badly in violion of, military action will have to be taken to prevent Aminajackoff's government from building nuclear weeapons.

  7. #7
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    Quote Originally Posted by Vader View Post
    If Iran withdraws from the treaty, which they are badly in violion of, military action will have to be taken to prevent Aminajackoff's government from building nuclear weeapons.
    Good luck with that one

  8. #8
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    01-03-10 @ 06:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    88

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    And both replies show the trouble with Iran's path. Yes, if Iran withdraws from the treaty they will require military intervention to force them to stop their nuclear program. If that happens, you will find it extremely difficult to build a consesus for military action within this country or the international community until such time as it is demonstrated without a doubt that Iran's nuclear program is meant for harming others - read this as when Iran explodes its first nuke in a country other than Iran.

    So Iran opts out of the treaty, all of the UN sanctions are then dissolved so the international effort at controlling the situation is voided. Iran can then open up trade to get what they need from other countries. While some countries may still refuse to deal with them, there will be one country or another that will. And that is all they really need is a single source.

    With proper connections in China or Russia (most probable is China), Iran could have a nuclear capability within two years or less. With 10 additional enrichment sites, they could have the material for 10 or so bombs within that period. Then comes the difficulty of delivering them. Their ballistic missiles are above average in range, below average in accuracy, but that is what nukes are good for - you don't need pinpoint accuracy with a nuke. But ballistic missile defense in the region is probably the best in the world with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and US forces in the region. So ballistic missile delivery systems are fairly high risk for the few warheads. So you need some 'volunteers' to deliver the bombs in person - something that is not that difficult to obtain in the region.

    In all, it seems a no-brainer for Iran to do so. There really are not anyone out there to stop them (with the exceptions of Israel, but they are already set up to illustrate Iran's need to be able to defend themselves).

  9. #9
    Professor
    CrusaderRabbit08's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    05-13-10 @ 02:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,022

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    Quote Originally Posted by carlkay58 View Post
    In all, it seems a no-brainer for Iran to do so. There really are not anyone out there to stop them (with the exceptions of Israel, but they are already set up to illustrate Iran's need to be able to defend themselves).
    It's insurance for them. As long as they have nukes, we won't invade; and that's a positive for us. Just think of all the lives and money we'll save.

  10. #10
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    11-28-17 @ 04:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,690

    Re: Iran approves building 10 enrichment sites

    Despite Iran's provocative gesture--and it should be noted that approved plans are not synonymous with implementation of those plans--diplomacy remains the most attractive approach for addressing Iran's nuclear challenge. A sanctions regime that precludes Iran from selling oil on the world market (and the U.S. would probably need to subsidize the impact of such a regime on such countries as China) probably offers the best chance for bringing about a diplomatic resolution. The U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan has already led Iranian leaders to calculate that the U.S. does not have a credible military option (whether or not that is actually true).

    A second approach that requires further and increasingly urgent study is whether the development of a containment regime in the event of Iran's pursuing or developing a nuclear weapons capability is feasible. Post-Iraq war analysis found that containment actually did a good job in precluding Iraq's restarting its WMD programs. Such a strategy would need to put Israel and moderate Sunni states under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Otherwise, one could witness an outbreak of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. A vital issue would concern the degree of Iran's rationality e.g., would its leaders pursue a rational policy in which they would refrain from proliferating nuclear weapons or launching a first-strike against Israel? Unpalatable and flawed as it might seem, containment might be the best alternative should diplomacy fail.

    The military option is probably the most difficult and least attractive one. If a military option becomes necessary--and it could, given the historic experience of revolutionary states/leaders--it would entail substantial risk and sacrifice. At a minimum, such an option would require:

    1. Making available perhaps 500,000 or more combat troops. Air strikes alone won't achieve the desired end of terminating Iran's nuclear program. To produce that manpower would probably require a draft or enormous service bonuses at a multiple of existing ones to would-be recruits. It would also require a period of aggressive training. Allocating manpower and resources on the discredited "Franks-Rumsfeld" assumption that technology renders the need for massive manpower e.g., a critical component of the Powell Doctrine, obsolete would have a high likelihood of producing failure.

    2. Sending special forces units underground in what would amount to "suicide missions" to destroy the existing facilities that are beyond the reach of bunker buster bombs with full knowledge that most or all of those units would be wiped out by the Iranians. The President would truly need to place the national interest ahead of all other considerations in making such a heart-rending and almost certainly unpopular choice.

    3. Preparing a national energy plan to deal with a loss of Persian Gulf oil, and potentially for a prolonged period of time. In the past Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz and/or target the region's oil infrastructure with its growing arsenal of ballistic missiles. Already, Iran is strengthening its naval presence in the Strait of Hormuz.

    The national energy plan would need to allow for a sharing of U.S. oil and/or partial underwriting of the costs of acquiring oil for U.S. allies in Europe/East Asia, China, and developing nations. Otherwise, were Iran to take measures that create a global economic depression, the U.S. would suffer substantial damage to its geopolitical ties and overseas interests. Toward the end of the Arab oil embargo, numerous states were exploring the possibility of cutting special deals to appease the Arabs. Outstanding diplomatic leadership by Henry Kissinger helped avoid that dangerous policy of resource nationalism. Whether or not there are diplomats of a Kissingerian stature today ready to provide the necessary leadership is an open question.

    If the U.S. cannot develop a crash 10-year plan to move away from dependence on oil, its ability to immediately deal with a dramatic reduction in available oil, is questionable. But that's a challenge that would need to be overcome and the 1973 Arab oil embargo would probably be small-scale/short-lived in comparison to what would unfold were Iran to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and/or destroy the region's oil infrastructure.

    4. Readiness to absorb terrorist attacks by Hezbollah and other Iranian terrorist proxies against overseas U.S. interests, as well as on U.S. soil, possibly with unconventional weapons. The U.S. response in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and in the face of the H1N1 flu pandemic suggests that the nation is not adequately prepared for large-scale terrorist attacks in which unconventional weapons are deployed.

    5. Developing the kind of strategic military plan that the U.S. was unable to prepare prior to the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The plan would need to consider Iran's history, identify and leverage potential domestic allies, provide a credible mechanism for post-conflict stability, offer a suitable replacement for Iran's current political structure (as the tasks involved would almost certainly require replacing Iran's current revolutionary structure, as the current regime would be bent on revenge), assume the potential rise of widespread Iranian popular opposition, and consider and plan for an enormous range of contingencies. Robust contingency planning would be vital.

    To be blunt, the Iraq and Afghanistan experiences demonstrated that the U.S. does not currently possess the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously. Among other things, Iran might well try to obtain some degree of support from North Korea e.g., weapons shipments, which would further constrain U.S.-led efforts. Iran could probably count on Venezuela's cutting off sales of its oil, at least for some period of time. Through August 2009, Venezuela was the second largest foreign supplier of crude oil to the U.S. this year.

    That the U.S. repeatedly fell behind the proverbial curve of developments in both Iraq and Afghanistan and failed to anticipate some highly likely events (e.g., the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan) raises serious questions about its current military planning ability. To get around those issues, the architects of successful plans (i.e., Generals Powell and Schwarzkopf, etc.) and those who foresaw the kind of scenarios that played out in Iraq or Afghanistan (i.e., Generals Shinseki and Zinni) would probably need to be drawn upon/even take the lead in the planning process. Needless to say, there would be "push back" from current military leaders. However, the margin of error would be too great and the consequences of such error too catastrophic for possible "re-do's" as one witnessed and is witnessing in Iraq and Afghanistan. A strategy that rests largely on ad hoc responses or leaves developments to chance will be a recipe for disaster in a major war. Therefore, those with proved records of success in military planning would need to play a key role regardless of the personal sensitivies of present military leaders.

    6. The war would need to be adequately financed. Potentially significant tax hikes and non-military spending reductions would be required. The U.S. cannot carry out a major war strictly on borrowed funds in the post-recession environment, much less if the world's economies suffer a substantial shock that dries up the availability of such funds.

    7. The U.S. would need the support of the European Union and the world's other great powers, particularly China and Russia. To obtain that support tradeoffs would likely be needed. The U.S. would also need to have the support of moderate Middle Eastern states and be prepared to help those states overcome domestic strife were radical elements to try to exploit the situation.

    Of course, the third and fourth scenarios might be deterred were the U.S. to threaten that they would result in the "gravest consequences" (diplomatic language for a response that could include a nuclear response) were Iran to take such measures. Iran's ability to be deterred would depend on the credibility of the threat (e.g., whether Iran believes the U.S. would carry it out) and revolutionary zeal of its senior political and military leaders (revolutionary aspirations can trump pragmatic concerns). Of course, were Iran to follow through on the third and fourth scenarios and were the U.S. unwilling or unable to follow through on its warning that such circumstances would result in the "gravest consequences," the credibility of U.S. deterrence would be shattered with long-lasting implications. Once a great power's credibility disintegrates, its ability to safeguard its interests, sustain its relationships, and deter risks deteriorates with it.
    Last edited by donsutherland1; 11-30-09 at 12:17 PM.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... 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
  •