Should we care whether Iran has nukes?

[bigtree]

If so, how best to stop them short of military action given that Bush has screwed up the prospect of using Putin as a lever? Can anyone explain to me what the EU, who is now cozying up to China (who is in league with Pakistan in ballistic missile and nuclear material supply to Iran) has in its plans to stop Iran from developing weapons?

Is it realistic to expect that after Iran builds a nuclear plant that it won't convert the fuel to weapon grade plutonium and develop a bomb?

What do we do about these prospects? This all seems important if we are to stop Bush's push to military action against Iranian targets.

[Skink]

1. Pakistan has Nukes.

What's the problem?

[bigtree]

3. I seriously don't know where to come down on this

If we stopped the expansionistic warmongering then we would lessen the possibility that any of these Islamic states would pose a threat to us. On the other hand, if we keep going with the BS then we will be at risk of some retaliatory move by Iran or it's clients. At that point I wouldn't support any aggression by Iran against the U.S. just because our prez is a dumbshit.

I'm looking for opinions, not making any thesis here.

[Comicstripper]

2. For our own sake, no

If we care, then we have to worry. That's not pleasant.
Of course, neither is nuclear war...

[clem_c_rock]

31. Lets see 3000+ hydrogen bombs against a few nukes

That they don't already have. And this country is going to turn themselves into a radioactive crater by sending one of their caveman nukes at the US?

I'm sorry but something seems laughably ridiculous about this concept.

Maybe, they want them as a deturrent from the colonizing goals of the PNAC?? Just a theory.

[bigtree]

36. and this is how it begins, likely by design

proliferation, the spread of nukes and nuclear technology.

The neocons saw the decline of support for our own nukes and devised a way to get us back in the nuke game, from new nukes to missile defense, all of which benefits their military industry benefactors. This Bush administration stacked up with dozens of former military industry execs who are bent on reviving the industry with every tactic they can conjure, from provocation to chicken little scenarios about North Korea and China. The escalation of our nuclear program seems designed to do just that. Provoke these smaller nations into unconventional defenses and then cite them as threats to our security to justify some new production or some preemptive invasion.

As reported by the World Policy Institute, the National Institute for Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the "rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of "usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons. http://worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/execsummaryaboutface.html

Most observers do not believe that the new weapons can be developed without abandoning the non-proliferation treaty and sparking a new and frightening worldwide nuclear arms race.

Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report - National Security Council members Stephen Hadley (assistant to Condi Rice), Robert Joseph, and Stephen Cambone, a deputy undersecretary of defense for policy - are now directly involved in implementing the Bush nuclear policy.

Stephen Hadley co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear, chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries." http://www.acts2.com/thebibletruth/Nukes_Considered-IHT.htm

The Energy Department plans to assemble teams at three U.S. laboratories to begin constructing these new powerful "mini-nukes." Work on preliminary designs for the weapons known as "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators" would begin first at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. http://www.llnl.gov/
http://www.lanl.gov/

Lawrence Livermore's scientists will attempt to modify the existing B83, a hydrogen bomb designed for the B-1 bomber, while those at Los Alamos will work on the B61, which already has been modified for earth-penetrating use. http://www.nci.org/02/06f/19-11.htm

Bechtel will benefit directly from efforts to expand testing and production of nuclear weapons. Bechtel is part of a partnership with Lockheed Martin that runs the Nevada Test Site for the U.S. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/env_rpt/

Bechtel runs the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge Tennessee, which makes critical components for nuclear warheads; and it is involved in the management of the Pantex nuclear weapons plant in Amarillo, Texas. http://geocities.com/RainForest/Andes/6180/blogger.html

Bechtel's $1 billion-plus in annual contracts for "atomic energy defense activities" are likely to grow substantially under the Bush nuclear plan. In 2002 Bechtel earned $11.6 billion.

The company has built more than 40% of the United States' nuclear capacity and 50% of nuclear power plants in the developing world. That's 150 nuclear power plants.

Bechtel is also in charge of managing and cleaning up the toxic nuclear waste at the 52 reactors at the Idaho nuclear test site from our '50's nuclear program, as well as two million cubic feet of transuranic waste buried on the site, such as plutonium-covered shoes, gloves and other tools used at the nuclear lab in Rocky Flats.

The Lockheed Y-12 National Security Complex would refurbish the secondary nuclear weapons; the Savannah River Tritium Facility would supply the gas transfer systems; Sandia National Laboratory will produce the neutron generators and certify all non nuclear components; Pantex plant will serve as the central point for all assembly and disassembly operations in support of the refurbishment work.; Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore will continue to certify nuclear warhead design.
http://www.thebellcompany.com/bellconstruction.nsf/savannah
http://www.sandia.gov/
http://www.pantex.com/

The National Policy Reviews's concept of a "New Triad" emphasizes the importance of a "robust, responsive research and development, and industrial base." The "old" triad is the combination of land, sea, and air-based nuclear delivery vehicles that were developed during the Cold War to offset a nuclear attack on America.

The New Triad calls for a "modern nuclear weapons complex," including planning for a Modern Pit Facility, and new tritium production to respond to what the administration believes are "new, unexpected, or emerging threats" to U.S. national security.
http://www.mpfeis.com/
http://www.downwinders.org/dod-npr.htm

It also mandates the development of what they term a "credible, realistic plan" for a "safe, secure, and reliable" stockpile. Already, $40-50 million has been budgeted for the project.

According to the National Nuclear Security Admin.'s deputy administrator for defense programs, Everet Beckner, the designers would work to modify the weapons "to make them more powerful."

Beckner is a former Vice President of Lockheed. He served as the chief executive of Lockheed Martin's division that helped run the UK's Atomic Weapons Establishment, and is now charged with oversight of the maintenance, development, and production of U.S. nuclear warheads.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/agency/awe.htm

Beckner testified to a Senate committee that, "It is clear that if the nation continues to maintain a nuclear arsenal it will need to make new nuclear pits at some point."

Most modern nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the "primary" that begins the chain reaction resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. A pit is a critical component of a nuclear weapon and functions as a trigger to allow a modern nuclear weapon to operate properly.

The Department of Energy announced on September 23, 2002, its intent to begin an examination of several possible sites for a Modern Pit Facility to produce plutonium pits for new and refurbished nuclear weapons. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2002_register&docid=02-24076-filed

The United States is the only nuclear power without the capability to manufacture a plutonium pit. About three-fourths of the U.S. surplus plutonium is relatively pure in the form of so-called pits, which have been removed (and deactivated) from existing warheads.

The remaining fourth of the surplus was in the process pipeline, mostly as plutonium residues, when processing was suddenly discontinued. The Soviet government processed all of its material to completion, so now all of the Russian surplus is in the form of pits or its weapon-form equivalent.

The Foster Panel Report, also known as the FY2000 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, found that it could take 15 years from the point of developing a conceptual design for a pit facility until the final construction of the facility is completed.

The report stated that, "If it is determined through the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that one or more of our existing pit designs is no longer reliable, and therefore is not certifiable, our nuclear stockpile would, in effect, be unilaterally downsized below a level which could maintain a strong nuclear deterrence." http://www.cdi.org/issues/testing/sbss.html

That is the hook which supporters of an expanded nuclear program will use to justify an abrogation of the treaty ban, and begin their new-generation arms race. If they don't get their way - to fiddle with and refurbish the existing nukes - they will argue that deterrence is at risk; a preposterous notion, as our existing arsenal is more than enough to blow us all to Pluto.

That's enough for now . . .

[clem_c_rock]

38. Damn - you do your homework! Great work!

Thanks,

Also, the PNAC aganda strongly calls for the domination of space. This requires a massive increase in millitary budget.

The public would have never accepted all this w/out a PH event. Just peachy how that kinda fell into place. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

Thanks for the articles.

Clem C

[bigtree]

40. These are excerpts from my book, Power Of Mischief:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0974735205/002-0073119-5222456?v=glance&s=books

Download the book for free!
http://www.returningsoldiers.us/Power%20Of%20Mischief4.pdf

[Just Me]

39. It's not surprising that power-brokers and arms dealers flock together.

It's a goshdamned shame they are now in charge of the world's richest nation.

[bigtree]

41. The present war with Iraq is the ambition of the corporate wing

of the conservative establishment who views Iraq as a potential wedge against the domination of Mideast oil-producing nations which, in many respects, are openly hostile to American economic interests in the region. Having failed to turn the first war to their corporate advantage, the exiled power brokers brooded and plotted to revive a public campaign against Saddam Hussein which would unseat the dictator and allow the U.S. to install an authority there compliant to American business concerns.

The election of George Bush and Dick Cheney was a watershed for the military corporations. Both had been stalwart supporters of the multibillion dollar military industry; Bush in his home state and Cheney, wherever he could exploit his tenure as defense secretary during the first Iraq war, and build on his past deal-making with the coalition members.

During the 2000 campaign Cheney complained that "developments of new military technologies (had) reached all-time lows." But that would only be a concern to the industry, not to the average American. The U.S. arsenal is full of high-tech weapons that don't work or that they don't use.

This call for a new generation of weapons is intended to facilitate the agendas of Bush administration hawks who would project U.S. influence around the globe like mercenary carpetbaggers; through intimidation from the force of our weaponry; with our soldiers; and through the supplying of ‘commercial’ armies whenever a commitment of our forces is politically difficult, or prohibited by Congress.

[Padraig18]

4. I'm not thrilled at the thought of Iran joining 'the nuclear club'

There's no inherent contradiction in believing both that Bushco and the neocons are a slimy, evil and corrupt bunch and that a nuclear Iraq is not a good thing.

[clem_c_rock]

33. A nuclear Iraq!!???

Are we still argueing that that was something to worry about!!!???

Unreal. Next, you will tell me CNN is a great source of news.

[Cuban_Liberal]

43. It's pretty obviously a typo, if you read his subject line.

:eyes:

[Padraig18]

61. Thank you.

Obviously, I'm the very first DUer to ever have made a typo.

:eyes:

[two gun sid]

5. Yes, it is important.

As nuclear weapons proliferate the chances of a nuclear exchange between countries increases. It is also important to care about the weapons we and our allies have. I am not comfortable with the fact that we gave the rapture right the keys to our nuclear arsenal in the last two elections. Through most of the Cold War mutual destruction drove our policies when dealing with a nuclear capable enemy. With the rise of PNAC we have moved to a point were some feel a limited nuclear war is winnable. I am very concerned when a fundamentalist regime has the ability to destroy the world, be they christian, muslim or jew.

[manic expression]

6. If we should worry about Iran

Then we should worry about Israel, as well. Do not ask me to condemn Iran (I don't agree with them having nuclear weapons) while Pakistan and Israel are allowed to have the same weapons. Iran would not feel it needed to have nuclear abilities if not for Bush's disgusting aggressive actions.

edit: I realize you are concerned with Israel and other regimes as well, but I wasn't necessarily addressing you.

[Toronto Ron]

9. Equating Iran and Israel is ridiculous

Whatever you think of Israel, it is ludicrous to equate the threat of it having nukes to Iran's threat. For one, the destruction of Israel is Iran's official policy, while the converse is false. Second, if Iran gets nukes, so does Hezbollah in Lebanon and who knows where else, and who knows who else. Israel's nukes will obviously not be exported anywhere. You're right to mention Pakistan, though.

[pie]

12. 'whatever you think' - is that a valid argument?

I believe Likkud may be equally as intent on the destruction of
Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Iran and Israel both have good people.
Iran and Israel both have evil people. I would not put one above the other.

[two gun sid]

16. I don't know how much Israel has to worry about Iran.

No offense, but, Mossad and the Iranians work together quite a bit. So much is veiled in secrecy that a lot is unknowable. I do not think that if Iran were capable they would make Hezbollah capable also. That would be dangerous to Iran. No, any nuclear power would have to keep total control of the weapons. Hezbollah could only acquire nukes through someone like Dr. Khan or a nuclear capable country that is unstable like some former soviet states.

[manic expression]

24. Actually, it is quite valid

Israel is an aggressive nation actively oppressing Palestine and its people. They have cleansed land for their own gain. Iran has done nothing of the sort. Israel has chosen to strike any nation if it deems it will help itself or if it simply does not like the country or its people. They did this with Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon (ever hear of the Golan Heights?) and other countries. Israel's official policy is to beat up on anyone it does not like. To say that Hezbollah will take Iran's nuclear weapons (if developed) is your inference. It would be idiotic to think that terrorists would make a nuclear strike against Israel, as to do so would result in defeat of their cause and further crimes against Palestine. I do not think Israel will "export" their weapons elsewhere, but the fact that they have them and Iran and other countries "cannot" (I think all countries should have none) is truly wrong.

[H2O Man]

44. One area you are

clearly wrong has to do with Israel & weapons technology. They have sold technology to China. I think that the other area that I would disagree with you is in thinking that Iranians are more likely to use WMDs than other countries. While there is some truth to that, the sad reality is that there are individuals in every country who are anxious to have WMDs, and to use them. I think of LeMay in Vietnam. Perhaps a more accurate statement would be that Israel has a more reliable set of checks and balances that reduces the likelihood of the use or sale of WMD than Iran.

[two gun sid]

11. You know, Neils Bohr made the argument that the US....

should share it's nuclear capabilities with the world. I think his reasoning was: if everyone was capable of destroying each other then all parties would be forced to abandon war and negotiate their differences. He foresaw a more open and secure world because of this. I think the book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes(?) discussed this. Bohr even presented his argument to Roosevelt and Churchill. They thought he was a wacko.

[manic expression]

29. And.....? I never made that statement

I actually said that ALL of those countries should not have nuclear weapons. I fear you misunderstood me.

I disagree with Bohr, no country should have any nuclear weapons.

[two gun sid]

35. I hope you didn't misunderstand me.

I did not think you felt all countries should have nuclear weapons. My post did not say you said all countries should have nuclear weapons. My post said that Bohr felt that way. I was simply pointing that out and agreeing with you to some degree on worrying whether Iran had nuclear weapons. I was presenting an idea for discussion. Please feel free to place me on your ignore list. It won't bother me one fuckin' bit.

[manic expression]

37. No offense intended, and I wasn't offended by you

I thought you were addressing my ideas, so I got a little zealous. That's my fault.

I do agree with you on that topic. If every (or most) countries acquire nuclear capabilities, it would be a powder keg in a burning room. The US included, no country should have the right to have nuclear weapons.

Again, I wasn't pissed at you and I wasn't attacking you.

[spooked911]

68. I like that idea and it is why mutual assured destruction has worked

for the past sixty years or so.

[judy]

7. What your post makes me think, 2-gun,

is that the US must disarm before the various smoking guns turn into mushroom clouds!
The US is now a fundamentalist regime which has the ability to destroy the world. Its nukes are far more a threat to the planet than Iran's nukes could ever be.

The policies in vogue these days are all about hate and revenge. If this wasn't the case, nukes would tend to disappear in a series of treaties that would eradicate them one by one. But now, thanks to Smirkolini and the gang, any country with nu-ku-lar weapons is a threat to the planet as a whole, be they Iran, Israel, or France, and the US is the catalyst to bring it about.

It is our job as US citizens, to disown the barbaric policies of our government and declare the sovereignty of all sovereign nations, to fight for disarmament here first of all, and to stop supporting the threatening of nations who build nukes because they feel threatened.

Maybe I am not quite clear here, but I think all this talk about Iran and nukes is a whole bunch of BS just like it was with Iraq. And remember that thanks to Iran Contra affair, again it is the US that started it all. I feel that the US should start worrying about itself before it worries about anyone else.

[bigtree]

13. That's the crux alright

Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said a few years back that U.S. developing new nuclear weapons could hamper efforts to reach agreement with other countries who might want to expand their nuclear programs; like Iran and Pakistan, for example.

But with the push for new nukes in our own arsenal right at the tip of the table, I think we are just asking for these other countries to resort to these types of defenses. So much for the moral high ground.

[Just Me]

19. I'll never forget the day the DoD got approval to develop new nukes.

I cried. The U.S. was starting another arms race. It was simply unbelievable to me.

Common freakin' sense dictates that when the supposed "beacon of democracy" announces ever greater accumulation of WMDs,...the rest of the world is going to respond by doing whatever it takes to defend themselves.

[bigtree]

26. It's technical but,

We are right on the edge of approving production of these new weapons. Right now they have succeeded in approving 'research' on the casings that would be used for such weapons. The Energy dept. is being used as a stalking horse, laying the groundwork for such production, as in the recent failed Energy bills. Already almost $9 million dollars have been approved in the Defense budget for the groundwork for the production.

With this Bush regime, you can forget any moderation in this regard. It seems that the industry has engineered this provocation to allow them to justify the next generation of nuclear weapons production as well as the nebulous missile defense boondoggle.

[Just Me]

28. Yes. I do recall reading about re-investing in a form of fusion,...

,...that had been proven extremely wasteful (in terms of cost) and shown to create a LOT more of that yucky material which is used to produce nukes.

I no longer recall the details,...just the impact: billions upon billions of taxpayer investment in a project already declared crap and the creation of the waste necessary to make more nuclear weapons.

It was simply another disgusting example of why Cheney's energy policy is being hidden from public view.

It makes me sick just how greedy, calculative and destructive this administration and its profiteers have proven themselves to be. :puke:

[two gun sid]

23. I believe that the genie is out if the bottle.

There is no way to get him back inside of it. No treaties, no disarmament, no amount of protests. For me I can only see one way to prevent nuclear proliferation: No secrets. No borders. One family of man.

I am no tinfoil hatter trilateral commission one world order conspiracy nut.

[clem_c_rock]

32. Completely agree. The agenda of the PNAC is

to focus US propaganda on all the countries on their invade list. Notice how everyone of these targets are now or will be touted as a major threat to the US because of their less than 10 nukes they "will" have in the next coming years and that they all train or support terrorist.

It's all bullshit.

[Pepperbelly]

34. LOL -- Smirkolini... nt

[Frederik]

8. Care, but not panic

It makes a lot of sense for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, as long as Israel and Pakistan have them. In an ideal world, none of those three countries would be equipped with more than AK-47s... but then neither would any other country, for that matter. And considering the fate of non-nuclear Iraq and Afghanistan, I would definetly look into the nuclear option if I were in charge in Tehran. Deterrence works. Kissinger's old thesis of balance of power might apply here - if they're all stacked to the teeth with all kinds of horrible weapons then noone dares pick on his neighbour. I seriously doubt Iran is getting nukes in order to launch a 'preemptive' attack on Israel, as some people fear. It's probably more about deterrence and maintaining their status as a regional power.

EU doesn't have much leverage with Iran short of economic sanctions, which they would rather avoid because of all their lucrative oil deals. Besides, China would buy all that oil and gas anyway. The best card the EU-3 have on their hands is the carrot of trade agreements. It's a road worth pursuing, but the US would have to lift the sanctions to join that road. A nuclear Iran would be a major embarrassment for Bush, but so is North Korea and nobody proposes to bomb or invade them. It's a sticky situation for the Bush adm., which has painted itself into a corner with all this Axis of Evil and mushroom clouds and War on Tyranny bravado.

[bigtree]

18. whew

What about proliferation with Iran's clients? Are they, or are they not sponsoring terrorism? What about the transfer of this technology to those who would do us or our allies harm? What happens if a more aggressive regime takes hold in Iran?

I believe that this just makes it more urgent that we deal honestly with these 'states', a prospect that seems remote given Bush's arrogance and ambition. It's sad that we can't put our hopes on diplomacy anymore. I believe folks like Albright could have at least had some kind of constructive dialouge underway by now, and then there is the whole neighborhood invasion thing with Iraq. Serious blundering if you were to prioritize the threats beforehand. I do think the EU, which has cozied up to China in economic as well as security issues (Global positioning technology) could have some type of influence. Econpmic sanctions, or the withholding of some of the cooperative efforts that they have been engaged in so far with China may provide some leverage, I think.

But, of course, it is the aggression by this Bush cabal that poses the real threat to stability. Pakistan and Iran have no beef with each other. And the 'threat' to Israel is just a canard for Bush's military meddling that was introduced by his neocon friends. Bush needs to be urged to withdraw and back off of that region. Something that seems remote and unlikely.

[Frederik]

25. Yup

I think you nailed it - America's presence is the main source of instability in the ME. But to retreat would be to give up the whole project for a New American Century, something that would be very painful for some people... Perhaps a humiliating defeat against Iran and Syria is what it would take for the hard-core neo-cons to give up this imperial fantasy. A depressing thought.

If there are terrorists out there who are serious about using nuclear weapons, they're going to find all they need on the international black market as it is. I don't think a nuclear Iran will increase that threat significantly.

[Just Me]

10. I am for non-proliferation, period.

I believe we should start with those who are not only already heavily armed with nuclear weapons but also investing vast sums of money in the creation of additional nukes.

Know what I mean? :bounce:

[Warren Stupidity]

14. we have turned a blind eye toward Israel and are building

new tactical nukes and advancing military theories on their application specifically against non nuclear powers such as Iran. Should we care if Iran has nukes? Given our actions and policies, is it any of our business?

Until we disarm and unilaterally disavow any and all use of not only nukes, but of military force in pursuit of our policies, we have nothing to say at all about how other nations choose to defend themselves.

I hate the Iranian regime, but they have a right to defend themselves just as we do.

[bigtree]

20. Of course, I would not be so sanguine about retaliatory actions by Iran

against our efforts there that would in any way threaten our country or our allies, including Israel. That's the dig. Who would stand by and let anyone threaten America? The strategy of the neocons seems to be to make that threat to the U.S. or our regional partners a reality so that we can respond with military force to effect whatever change they have an ambition for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Yes. But, we should be talking about universal nuclear disarmament.

No nation should have nuclear arms. They serve no purpose other than to keep other nuclear nations at bay, or to intimidate non-nuclear nations.
Which, of course, results in a Catch-22. To save themselves from intimidation, i.e. Iran/USA/Israel or India/Pakistan or North Korea/USA, etc., the non-nuke nations seek nukes.

Madness reigns.

[bigtree]

21. That's the box that the neocons have us in right now.

The push for new nukes here in the U.S. seems designed to provoke. Disarnament is just an abstraction in the face of our own country's push for new 'usable' nukes.

[Frederik]

27. Haven't you heard?

We need them to stop the comets and asteroids :+

What would you have the military-industrial complex doing? Something useful?

[bigtree]

30. These industry folks are unbelievably dangerous

"It would be better if we simply handed the money to the defense industry and let them invest it themselves"

"A profitable defense industry keeps America strong."

~Richard Perle

[Catamount]

17. Nobody should have Nuclear Weapons!

I'm so sick of the "My Bomb s Bigger than Yours" philosophy!
It just doesn't work!
This is all the wrong way around!

[bigtree]

22. Agreed

peace-

[shadowknows69]

42. Until we go back in time

and not nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don't have the right to tell any country what technology to develop. Particularly cultures thousands of years older than our own. I guess they weren't supposed to have an industrial revolution like we did.

[Cuban_Liberal]

45. It scares the crap out of me, frankly.

Just what I want--- a bunch of mullahs with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. Oh joy, oh joy!

:scared:

[shadowknows69]

55. how are the mullahs any more dangerous than us these days n/t

[Padraig18]

62. That really isn't the point.

What's more dangerous, one or two lunatics armed with nukes (e.g.)?

[area51]

46. "Should we care whether Iran has nukes?"

No. We have nukes; should some other country bomb us back to the stone age b/c of it? </rhetorical>

[Disturbed]

49. One reason that the Bush Junta are screaming about Iran.

The Junta wants to nueter Iran as it has Iraq. If Iran has nukes it the U.S. cannot attack Iran. China and Russia can block the U.S. economicaly.The balance of power is shifting. The EU, China, Russia, Latin and South America forming a block?

[bigtree]

52. This is true

and not widely known. The most threatening to U.S. hegemony is the cooperation and investment by China into the EU version of our global positioning satellite system (GPS) followed by the economic agreements.

[Ms. Clio]

47. Should the world care whether the U.S. has nukes--thousands of them?

Especially with the Chimperor's bloodstained finger on the button?

Nuclear Terror at Home
by Noam Chomsky

There’s a document called The Essentials of Post Cold War Deterrence that was released during the Clinton years by the Strategic Command, which is in charge of nuclear weapons. It’s one of the most horrifying documents I’ve ever read. People haven’t paid attention to it.

The Strategic Command report asks how we should reconstruct our nuclear and other forces for the post-Cold War period. And the conclusions are that we have to rely primarily on nuclear weapons because unlike other weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, the effects of nuclear weapons are immediate, devastating, overwhelming—not only destructive but terrifying. So they have to be the core of what’s called deterrence.

Everything means the opposite of what it says. Deterrence means our offensive stance should primarily be based on nuclear weapons because they’re so destructive and terrifying. And furthermore just the possession of massive nuclear forces casts a shadow over any international conflict, like people are frightened of us because we have this overwhelming force.

We have to have a national persona of irrationality with forces out of control, so we really terrify everybody, and then we can get what we want. And furthermore they’re right to be terrified because we’re going to have these nuclear weapons right in front of us, which will blow them all up—in fact, blow us all up if they get out of control.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0226-26.htm

[bigtree]

53. yes

of course . . . and the world is reacting with defenses of their own. This is calculated by the industry warriors in and out of the administration, caused by their planned aggression and escalation of our own nuclear program.

[jpak]

48. Iran won't use the spent fuel to produce plutonium (and a bomb).

They have agreed to return their spent fuel to Russia. The power plant is also under IAEA supervision.

It's their capability to enrich uranium and their ballistic missile program that's the real concern - not the nuclear power plants.

Of course they could always rescind that agreement and pull out of the NPT ( just like ChimpCo pulled out of the ABM Treaty).

Kind of ironic - ChimpCo supports the construction of new nuclear power plants here at home but has its panties in a bunch about "peaceful" nuclear programs elsewhere...

[Cuban_Liberal]

50. This assumes they haven't already done it, of course.

Correct?

[jpak]

51. They obviously haven't done it with the Russian fuel

:)

There is little evidence that they have a reprocessing program.

and, they would have to be really good at hiding Kr-85 emissions from reprocessing facilities to get away with a clandestine program.

http://www.firstwatchint.org/iranre.html

[bigtree]

54. like NK wasn't suposed to use their spent fuel

all it would take is a change in regimes or as you say a pullout from any inspection, monitoring regiment.

And it's not like we need anyone sending Russia any more spent fuel.

[Taxloss]

56. It's not a big concern, it's a sensible, long-termist country.

North Korea, now that's a worry.

[Toucano]

57. We should oppose proliferation PERIOD.

What do we do about it?

First, we admit that there is no "axis-of-evil". They're in pursuit of nuclear weapons because they're being threatened. The U.S. has to stop rattling a saber every other day.

Second, we halt our own pursuit of new nuclear weapons.

Third, we sit down and find out what they need. Is there another technology we could share with them that would improve their security and quality of life? How about a seat on the UN security council?

If we had leadership that wasn't delusional, we'd be able to prevent another nation going nuclear.

[Telly Savalas]

58. Mutual Assured Destruction worked pretty well in the Cold War.

[bigtree]

59. Suicide bombing wasn't all the rage then

Too many of these folks in that region are willing to sacrifice everything to hit us or our interests, believing I guess, that salvation and reward is in the hereafter. Also, M.A.D. has been unraveled by the pursuit of these new generation, 'useable' nukes. The neonuts actually believe that we can use these nukes in limited war.

Gen. Lee Butler, of the Strategic Air Command, along with former Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, and Col. Michael Wheeler, made a report in 1991 which recommended the targeting of our nuclear weaponry at "every reasonable adversary around the globe."

The report warned of nuclear weapons states which are likely to emerge." They were aided in their pursuit by, John Deutch, President Clinton's choice for Defense Secretary; Fred Iklé, former Deputy Defense Secretary, associated with Jonathan Pollard; future CIA Director R. James Woolsey; and Condoleezza Rice, who was on the National Security Council Staff, 1989-1991.

The new nuke report recommended that U.S. nuclear weapons be re-targeted, where U.S. forces faced conventional "impending annihilation ... at remote places around the globe," according to William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris, in their criticism of the report in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ("Tiny Nukes").

At the same time, two Los Alamos (Lockheed) nuclear weapons scientists, Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard, published an article in 1991 in the Strategic Review, titled "Countering the Threat of the Well-Armed Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Smaller Nuclear Weapons." They argued that, "The existing U.S. nuclear arsenal had no deterrent effect on Saddam and is unlikely to deter a future tyrant."

They advocated for "the development of new nuclear weapons of very low yields, with destructive power proportional to the risks we will face in the new world environment," and they specifically called for the development and deployment of "micro-nukes" (with explosive yield of 10 tons), "mini-nukes" (100 tons), and "tiny-nukes" (1 kiloton).

Their justification for the smaller nuclear weapons was their contention that no President would authorize the use of the nuclear weapons in our present arsenal against Third World nations. "It is precisely this doubt that leads us to argue for the development of sub-kiloton weapons," they wrote.

In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United States of America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the administration stated that, "as the United States reduces the numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is also transforming the means to build them." http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/news/0425art6.htm

Over the past decade, the United States has dramatically changed the role and mission of its nuclear-weapon complex from weapon research, development, testing, and production to weapon dismantlement, conversion for commercial use, and stockpile stewardship.

That was his father's nuclear program. George II wants bombs.

"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations," according to a classified Pentagon report obtained by the Los Angeles Times. http://www.clw.org/control/nukereview02press2.html

The 'secret' report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, says the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya.

It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack with nuclear biological or chemical weapons, or in the event of ‘surprising military developments.'

The report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is being used by the U.S. Strategic Command in the preparation of a nuclear war plan.

President Bush recently signed into law a Defense bill for 2004 which includes $9 billion in funding for research on the next generation of nuclear weaponry. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/11/20031124-2.html

"It's an important signal we're sending," President Bush remarked at the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, "because, you see, the war on terror is different than any war America has ever fought."

"Our enemies seek to inflict mass casualties, without fielding mass armies," he cautioned. "They hide in the shadows, and they're often hard to strike. The terrorists are cunning and ruthless and dangerous, as the world saw on September the 11th, 2001. Yet these killers are now facing the United States of America, and a great coalition of responsible nations, and this threat to civilization will be defeated." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_37/b3849012.htm

This is a posture usually reserved for nation-states who initiate or sponsor terrorists. The devastating neighboring effect of a potential nuclear engagement would contaminate innocent millions with the resulting radioactive fallout, and would not deter individuals with no known base of operations.

Yet, this administration, for the first time in our nation’s history, contemplates using nuclear weapons on countries which themselves have no nuclear capability, or pose no nuclear threat.

[noonwitch]

60. We should care, for a lot of reasons

1. Our troops are next door, on two sides. Whatever your opinion of the war is, I think most of us don't want to see our soldiers killed and injured the way things are going now. If Iran did have nukes, even small weapons or dirty bombs, they could take out more of them. That's a concern.
2. Israel, for better or for worse, is our ally and they would be a target, since most radical muslims want to drive them into the sea. It doesn't get much more radical in islam than Iran's ruling government, now that the taliban is gone. A nuclear attack on a small country like Israel would be devastating to both the israelis and the palestineans.
3. Iran is not exactly stable. There are many there who are opposed to the rule of the clerics, and nukes in a nation on the verge of civil war would also be really bad.

I'm not saying we should go to war with Iran over this (we shouldn't), but diplomatic steps are needed to resolve the issue.

[bigtree]

63. It looks like Bush is initiating some sort of diplomatic push w/ the EU

Bush Weighs Offers To Iran
U.S. Might Join Effort to Halt Nuclear Program

By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 28, 2005; Page A01

The Bush administration is close to a decision to join Europe in offering incentives to Iran -- possibly including eventual membership in the World Trade Organization -- in exchange for Tehran's formal agreement to surrender any plans to develop a nuclear weapon, according to senior U.S. officials.

The day after returning from Europe, President Bush met Friday afternoon with the principal members of his foreign policy team to discuss requests made by German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac in particular. More discussions are expected this week, but the White House wants to move quickly to finalize a list of incentives to offer Tehran as part of European talks with Iran, officials said.

The new willingness to engage, even if indirectly, marks a significant change from a position that Iran deserved no rewards for actions it is legally bound to take under terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But Bush's talks last week convinced him that a united front -- in offering carrots now and a stick later if Iran does not comply -- would be more effective, U.S. and European officials say.

"The reason we're comfortable considering this tactically is because strategically, when the president was in Europe, he found them solid on the big issue: that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. Having found them firm on the strategic issue, he's more willing to consider the tactical aspects with the Europeans -- including how do we work with them and what can the Europeans offer that we would be part of it," said a senior State Department official speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive diplomacy.

more (reg. required):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58417-2005Feb27.html?sub=AR

[MadHound]

66. A few other points to consider

1. Then let us get our troops out of there! It is an illegal, immoral occupation that we're pursuing, and our troops wouldn't be in danger from nuclear weapons if they weren't there. In fact the damage that they're suffering from nuclear weapons is coming from US nuclear weapons, bombs and missles tipped with DU, that is spreading out into a fine powder, which they subsequently inhale and ingest, coming down with Gulf War Syndrome.

2. Israel is the cause of a numbers of problems in the Middle East, and quite frankly while they have their own arsenal of nukes, I find no fault with an Arab state that feels that they need to have their own stockpile.

3. Iran has been a stable nation for the past twenty six years. Yes, there are factions in Iran that are wishing to end clerical rule, just as there are factions in the US that are wishing to impose clerical rule. But from the indications so far, this transition in leadership will progress quietly and non-violently. I would say that Russia's nuke pose more of a potential hazard, since they are in widespread, diverse hands that are desperate for cash.

I agree that diplomatic measures are needed to get rid of all nuclear weapons. And that includes not only Iran and North Korea, but Israel and the US as well.

[Bridget Burke]

64. Generally, I agree with nonproliferation.

It bothers me that anybody has nukes.

But this is a dreadful excuse for a war.

[American Tragedy]

65. I tend to think that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. So yes.

But, as you've noted, Bush has fucked up on a global scale.

I've always felt that the possibility of preventing a continuation of WWI was effectively eliminated when Wilson's plan of reconstruction was rejected in favor of punitive reparations against Germany. There seem to be specific points in human history when sensible non-violent means are cast aside, setting the stage for inevitable future conflict.

I don't mean to sound melodramatic, comparing Iranian nuclear ambitions to the world in between the two great wars. The current situation certainly seems far less dire, but similarly I wonder if we've crossed into the point of no return.

[bigtree]

67. That seems to have been the neonut's plan

like Will Pitt's latest essay posted about empire and perpetual war to serve the military industry.