IAEA board adopts resolution voicing 'increasing concern' about Iran's nuclear work

[baboon]

If/when Iran gets nuke-weaponized, it will clearly escalate nuclear proliferation in the region. That can't be a good thing, period, and will greatly increase the chances that the apocalyptic visions of the fundamentalist types of two great world religions will come to fruition. The trouble is stopping Iran would probably be so messy and difficult that most likely they won't be stopped. It is clear they won't voluntarily stop without massive external pressure making them stop. Can they be stopped short of a big war (which I can tell you America has no stomach or budget for at the moment)?

I take it you mean Christianity v Islam?

[Jingthing]

If/when Iran gets nuke-weaponized, it will clearly escalate nuclear proliferation in the region. That can't be a good thing, period, and will greatly increase the chances that the apocalyptic visions of the fundamentalist types of two great world religions will come to fruition. The trouble is stopping Iran would probably be so messy and difficult that most likely they won't be stopped. It is clear they won't voluntarily stop without massive external pressure making them stop. Can they be stopped short of a big war (which I can tell you America has no stomach or budget for at the moment)?

I take it you mean Christianity v Islam?

Not exactly. I meant that fundamentalist factions of both of those major religions have apocalyptic visions and in some cases even apocalyptic desires. In Iran some of those types are holding great power. Rational people don't want nukes anywhere near powerful people like that. Many of the "end times" Christian supporters of politicians like Bush are like that as well but I think Bush himself wasn't quite as crazy as a lot of his supporters. Yes, I hope it is OK, I think religiously inspired yearning for apocalypse is a form of insanity.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Jingthing

[baboon]

I take it you mean Christianity v Islam?

Not exactly. I meant that fundamentalist factions of both of those major religions have apocalyptic visions and in some cases even apocalyptic desires. In Iran some of those types are holding great power. Rational people don't want nukes anywhere near powerful people like that. Many of the "end times" Christian supporters of politicians like Bush are like that as well but I think Bush himself wasn't quite as crazy as a lot of his supporters. Yes, I hope it is OK, I think religiously inspired yearning for apocalypse is a form of insanity.

Yes, I thought that was what you meant - I phrased my question very poorly. Seems like you and I are on the same page on this one.

[Pakboong]

If/when Iran gets nuke-weaponized, it will clearly escalate nuclear proliferation in the region. That can't be a good thing, period, and will greatly increase the chances that the apocalyptic visions of the fundamentalist types of two great world religions will come to fruition. The trouble is stopping Iran would probably be so messy and difficult that most likely they won't be stopped. It is clear they won't voluntarily stop without massive external pressure making them stop. Can they be stopped short of a big war (which I can tell you America has no stomach or budget for at the moment)?

One of your better posts JT.

Iran will be so far behind Israel and Pakistan that it will never catch up but I agree, no need for them to have nukes regardless of who else has them. If they ever get there, they will likely be WW2 type with little or no sophistication. It will be many years before they become a serious threat.

[Ulysses G.]

I doubt it is as easy as all that for any world leader to wake up with a hangover one morning and decide to use their one or two crappy, unreliable devices.

Fat Man and Little Boy seem to have done the job back in WW2. Any nuclear weapons held by Iran are a serious threat.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[JohnL]

I saw nothing on there which alters my opinion vis a vis Iran and religious fundamentalist crackpots.

Imagine Ann Coulter or Rush Limbwhatever with the bomb? Give me Kim Jong il any day. At least he just wants to be left alone....

[Pakboong]

I doubt it is as easy as all that for any world leader to wake up with a hangover one morning and decide to use their one or two crappy, unreliable devices.

Fat Man and Little Boy seem to have done the job back in WW2. Any nuclear weapons held by Iran are a serious threat.

I seriously doubt there is a better informed individual on this subject than Meir Dagan, retired Mossad chief. He insists that it would be a huge mistake to go after Iran.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/former-mossad-chief-briefed-comptroller-about-iran-strike-plans-1.399061

I do not get how Israel and world Jewry would ignore the warnings of the one guy who has seen all the intelligence available on the subject of the Iraninan problem.

I don't think he has become an anti-semite but what do I know?

[Ulysses G.]

Some said the same thing about Neville Chamberlain. Dagan is only one man and there are others who are just as informed who disagree with him. No one will know who is right until it has already happened.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Pakboong]

Some said the same thing about Neville Chamberlain. Dagan is only one man and there are others who are just as informed who disagree with him. No one will know who is right until it has already happened.

If this hand full of well informed professional intelligence operators see and use the same information, from essentially the same sources, why would they not agree? Especially with WW3 at stake. I would think that it would take a slam dunk with all in agreement to warrant such an attack.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Pakboong

[midas]

Some said the same thing about Neville Chamberlain. Dagan is only one man and there are others who are just as informed who disagree with him. No one will know who is right until it has already happened.

If this hand full of well informed professional intelligence operators see and use the same information, from essentially the same sources, why would they not agree? Especially with WW3 at stake. I would think that it would take a slam dunk with all in agreement to warrant such an attack.

Yes well Ulysses seems to find it easy to dismiss so many people who are warning against such a move. He tells us we should ignore the likes of Tony Karon who is himself an Israeli and now he seems to infer Meir Dagan’s opinion isn't so valuable either? Even when Dagan’s opinion is supported by former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and former head of Shabak (the Shin Bet internal security service) Yuval Diskin

WW3 is definitely at stake now that China has said this week they “ will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a third World War ”.

http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?tag=meir-dagan

[Steely Dan]

Some said the same thing about Neville Chamberlain. Dagan is only one man and there are others who are just as informed who disagree with him. No one will know who is right until it has already happened.

If this hand full of well informed professional intelligence operators see and use the same information, from essentially the same sources, why would they not agree? Especially with WW3 at stake. I would think that it would take a slam dunk with all in agreement to warrant such an attack.

Pakboong, Seeing as you like to explore the hypothetical have you considered what message Israel would send to Iran if they are indeed considering a preemptive strike on them, and who better to deliver such a message than Dagan?

Edited December 3, 2011 by Steely Dan

[Ulysses G.]

Some said the same thing about Neville Chamberlain. Dagan is only one man and there are others who are just as informed who disagree with him. No one will know who is right until it has already happened.

If this hand full of well informed professional intelligence operators see and use the same information, from essentially the same sources, why would they not agree?

Are you kidding? Have you ever been in the military? Leaders virtually never agree on one plan until someone pulls rank or forces consensus in some way. They all have different ideas. That is a how Rumsfeld was able to go into Iraq with so few troops even though some commanders disagreed with his strategy. It actually worked for winning the battle, but not in the long-run for securing the country afterwards.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

He tells us we should ignore the likes of Tony Karon who is himself an Israeli

I'm afraid that there are a lot of Iraelis with a lot of different ideas. Being an Israeli does not mean that one knows the best strategy to protect the country.

[flying]

The funny thing about these threads is that most posts are based in supposition or hype/fear mongering.

If one were to stick to historical facts & judge the trees by their fruits the picture would be quite clear as to who should really be feared as proven aggressors.....

Who has shown by actions not words what they are capable of doing to population based on thin claims alone....

Who can detonate nuclear/atomic devices when it suits their cause or when they claim the ends justify the means...at any cost, civilian or not.

Who can invade countries again based on thin claims yet provide no tally of proof.

Just look at the facts not the claims for a clear view of what IS not what MIGHT be.

[chuckd]

The funny thing about these threads is that most posts are based in supposition or hype/fear mongering.

If one were to stick to historical facts & judge the trees by their fruits the picture would be quite clear as to who should really be feared as proven aggressors.....

Who has shown by actions not words what they are capable of doing to population based on thin claims alone....

Who can detonate nuclear/atomic devices when it suits their cause or when they claim the ends justify the means...at any cost, civilian or not.

Who can invade countries again based on thin claims yet provide no tally of proof.

Just look at the facts not the claims for a clear view of what IS not what MIGHT be.

North Korea?

[Ulysses G.]

The funny thing about these threads is that most posts are based in supposition or hype/fear mongering.

Most of it caused by threats from Iran's nutty leaders.

http://queenofswords.wordpress.com/2007/03/08/ahmadinejads-threats-to-destroy-israel/

[Jingthing]

He tells us we should ignore the likes of Tony Karon who is himself an Israeli and now he seems to infer Meir Dagan’s opinion isn't so valuable either?

Tony Karon is Israeli? Where did you get that from? I don't know but he is from South Africa and has been working in the USA for many years. He could possibly be Israeli nationality by way of Aliyah but wondering where you got that info from.

Israel is a democracy. People from many diverse views live there and openly debate important issues.

There are indeed very credible Israelis making arguments that an attack on Iran would be a huge mistake. However, public opinion there is fairly evenly split on the topic.

Israelis know there would be a huge cost to attacking Iran but the uncertainty about it is whether Iran's program is really an existential threat to their existence. In other words, those favoring the attack are saying yes it is, and there is no choice.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Jingthing

[midas]

He tells us we should ignore the likes of Tony Karon who is himself an Israeli and now he seems to infer Meir Dagan’s opinion isn't so valuable either?

Tony Karon is Israeli? Where did you get that from? I don't know but he is from South Africa and has been working in the USA for many years. He could possibly be Israeli nationality by way of Aliyah but wondering where you got that info from.

Israel is a democracy. People from many diverse views live there and openly debate important issues.

There are indeed very credible Israelis making arguments that an attack on Iran would be a huge mistake. However, public opinion there is fairly evenly split on the topic.

it is written here Jingthing in the third line in the first paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Karon

Edited December 3, 2011 by metisdead
Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[lovetotravel]

The funny thing about these threads is that most posts are based in supposition or hype/fear mongering.

If one were to stick to historical facts & judge the trees by their fruits the picture would be quite clear as to who should really be feared as proven aggressors.....

Who has shown by actions not words what they are capable of doing to population based on thin claims alone....

Who can detonate nuclear/atomic devices when it suits their cause or when they claim the ends justify the means...at any cost, civilian or not.

Who can invade countries again based on thin claims yet provide no tally of proof.

Just look at the facts not the claims for a clear view of what IS not what MIGHT be.

I think you need to research deaths over the years by various wars and genocides. Nuclear bombs have killed very few people as opposed to the various genocides and wars, historically. Sudan being the worst, most recently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

[Scott]

This thread is not about Israel. Numerous posts deleted. Stay on topic.

[Jingthing]

it is written here Jingthing in the third line in the first paragraph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Karon

For the record, no that link does NOT state Mr. Karon is an Israeli national. So, please do get back to topic, but I hope rebutting an obvious falsehood that has been already posted is acceptable.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Jingthing

[Scott]

An off-topic, argumentative post has been deleted.

[flying]

The funny thing about these threads is that most posts are based in supposition or hype/fear mongering.

If one were to stick to historical facts & judge the trees by their fruits the picture would be quite clear as to who should really be feared as proven aggressors.....

Who has shown by actions not words what they are capable of doing to population based on thin claims alone....

Who can detonate nuclear/atomic devices when it suits their cause or when they claim the ends justify the means...at any cost, civilian or not.

Who can invade countries again based on thin claims yet provide no tally of proof.

Just look at the facts not the claims for a clear view of what IS not what MIGHT be.

I think you need to research deaths over the years by various wars and genocides. Nuclear bombs have killed very few people as opposed to the various genocides and wars, historically. Sudan being the worst, most recently:

I was speaking of places that the west invades while claiming THEY are the threat.

As for Genocide..White Phosphorous etc... Yes all very bad but in keeping on topic it is Iran's so called Nuclear threat that is being questioned....Yet none question those that have always been a threat & a force that has used such devices...period.

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed. Please stay on the topic of the OP.

[jackr]

*(Quote edited out)*

I dunno; when the other openly states you should be destroyed, you could see their stance.

Anyway, Iran needs to be stifled and have their oil pinched before they get an SS20 in the air.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Scott
off-topic quote edited out

[maidu]

Iranians involved with their N program know the facilities (and their persons) might get bombed. It's no secret. Partly for that reason, they've built as much protection as possible around the facilities, including hardened underground chambers. So, even if a 'pre-emptive' strike took place, it's doubtful it would do as much damage as planned by the aggressors.

What Iran should have done from the get-go is just plainly state the truth: "Hey, many other countries have nuclear arsenals, and we want one also."

It would have made things a lot clearer cut. But instead, they're trying to maintain the ruse that they're not making bomb-grade material, and it's hardly fooling anyone. So the masquarade has to be maintained by Iranian toughies. It's tiresome, having to maintain a big lie over many months.

[Pakboong]

Iranians involved with their N program know the facilities (and their persons) might get bombed. It's no secret. Partly for that reason, they've built as much protection as possible around the facilities, including hardened underground chambers. So, even if a 'pre-emptive' strike took place, it's doubtful it would do as much damage as planned by the aggressors.

What Iran should have done from the get-go is just plainly state the truth: "Hey, many other countries have nuclear arsenals, and we want one also."

It would have made things a lot clearer cut. But instead, they're trying to maintain the ruse that they're not making bomb-grade material, and it's hardly fooling anyone. So the masquarade has to be maintained by Iranian toughies. It's tiresome, having to maintain a big lie over many months.

At some point in the future, pretty much everybody will have them. At that point, it will be about how well you get along with your neighbors. The smarter neighbor will likely have to work much harder than the not so smart neighbor to maintain the peace. That is how it works for individuals and those principles are pretty much the same with countries.

[Ulysses G.]

they've built as much protection as possible around the facilities, including hardened underground chambers. So, even if a 'pre-emptive' strike took place, it's doubtful it would do as much damage as planned by the aggressors.

The newest bunker-busters will take them out.

If "every" country will have nukes in the future than mankind is doomed.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[lovetotravel]

If "every" country will have nukes in the future than mankind is doomed.

Doomed for sure.

[maidu]

If "every" country will have nukes in the future than mankind is doomed.

Doomed for sure.

I can think of a few species that won't be doomed, even with N armegenon. Cockroaches, poison oak and most other plants that grow from scorched earth. Certain toads, cicads, and others that can hibernate for many years. Mankind doomed? possibly, but doubtful within the next 10,000 years. Methinks more likely doomed from toxic clouds / mega-smog and possibly pathogens. Also, if C-sections proliferate as they have, then humans will increasingly become less able to birth naturally. At some point, there won't be artificial assistance, and perhaps by that point, women won't be able to pass a baby through their birth canal, which is already a tight labyrinth in the best scenarios. A study shows that human babies have to turn their large heads several different ways in order to exit the tight bony canal. In contrast, our closest animal relative, the chimps, have easy births - mainly because their skeletons didn't have to adapt to upright walking as ours did, thereby constricting a woman's groin. Sorry to stray off topic.