http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10803220/

According to the story, officials are ready to turn the matter over to the U.N. for sanctions and other measures.

So when will we invade Iran?

They have a known nuclear weapons program and it has been on hold for about two years. According to the story, Iranian officials broke U.N. seals and went back in their facilities to start producing enriched uranium... for weapons or power generation. Either way, now it appears that the ball will be in the U.N.'s court.

Thoughts on the matter?

Personally I think they will be producing weapons and will start lobbing them at <insert name of middle eastern country here> as soon as they get enough. Or at least use them as a threat.

Either way... expect interesting news to be coming.

Been following this story myself for awhile, since Iran hostage crisis to be honest, and am worried. I know Israel is capable of taking it upon themselves to keep the Iranian sites rubble and have shown they will do so.

Fandros

Why does everyone think that as soon as a country gets nuclear weapons they are going to be shooting them off? If even one nuclear bomb is blown off from some rogue country, that will be the last thing that country ever does because it will be blown to bits. Countrys get nuclear bombs to flex its muscles, the threat comes when some unstable country has those weapons but doesnt have the means to protect them from others who may steal them or worse yet..a country who would sell them.

Ibudin - I am against weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological, chemical, etc. Nuclear power can and is harnassed for peaceful purposes that benefit society as a whole. However, when we look at certain nations (and their leadership), we also look at their history.

It was not too long ago that Iran was at war... or maybe still is.. who knows... anyway... they were in a shooting war with Iraq and have not been on the best of terms with some of their other neighbors as well.

If Iran had posessed nuclear weapons back then, it is most likely that they would have used them. (my opinion of course)

As far as making nuclear weapons to sell? I don't see that as a viable circumstance mainly because they are too far behind the technological power curve compared to the competition... Russia, France, Korea... to name a few. The countries with nuclear weapons who sell to other countries do so for a variety of reasons.

Why would I want to buy an Iranian nuke when the French will sell one with all the whistles and bells.. and put it in a sexy looking metal case small enough to carry in the trunk of my car?

Threat - flexing muscle - Sure, I believe that Iran is looking for some muscle to flex, but in this day and age, why have nuclear weapons anyway? A weapon you have can be a terrible threat... if you are willing to use it. Or a weapon can be a threat to all your neighbors who are more than willing to come kick your butt and take it away from you.

Just some thoughts...

Thank you for your opinions and views.

I'm less worried abour Iran pushing the button and launching missiles than I am about them giving a suitcase and a ticket to Tel Aviv to the local Nutjobs For Allah representative, of which Iran has more than a few.

When you have people that consider strapping C4 to themselves and killing as many people as possible to be a ticket to heaven... what do you think they will do if they can kill millions instead of tens? It only takes one, yeah we might retaliate and make it a glass parking lot, but more than likely if a country like Iran were to set off a nuke we would respond by more conventional means.

Just noticed my last post may not be clear. I meant "nuclear equipped suitcase," rather than the standard C4 belt.

Eh, kinda shame that the US didn't find massive piles of WMDs in Iraq, now it would be ever harder to convince anyone that Iran has them.

Not to underplay the risk to Israel, but "nuclear suitcases" are science fiction, and the smallest nuclear device ever made was still something like 60kg and excessively large. It was man-portable in a far looser sense than is normally used about military hardware (you could backpack it around, but not at any speed), and in no way easily concealable.

The US and USSR both developed such units in the 60s and 70s and have decommissioned them all as far as is publically known.

If Iran decided to go after Israel, they would most likely end up having to use cruise missiles.

Hmmm I think the term suitcase bomb is more applicable to a "dirty" bomb than it is an actual fissionable device.

Radioactive material spewn about by conventional explosives is the big worry atm. Not an actual nuke per se but still very damaging.

Fandros

Trust me, with some of the things I've seen even at my low level on the totem pole, finding one of those assholes crafty enough to hide a nuclear bomb in a car is not beyond the realm of possibility.

And with nukes, you just have to be close.

and not even very close.

The problem with a "car mounted nuke" is they somehow would need to get it INTO Israel somewhat close to a population center.

Not sure how that would happen really, I been to Israel twice, those people are really pro in checking everything and everyone that cross their borders.
Not just the borders, there are several layers of security, the whole country is like an onion, layers of security over layers of security.

I bet it would be impossible to get anything remotely like that in from the direction of east (a million check points between the Jordan border and the "green line"). Almost the same deal from south.

They could try to smuggle it in broken down to parts the same way they smuggle weapons in (ie digged tunnels) but again that would take a scientist to put it together again (where do you find a bird for that? how do you get a visa for someone who has such a specific expertise? I bet the Mossad has a list of all Iranian scientist related to this field).

Anyhow, if I was a nuclear terrorist I would probably put it on a cargo ship and sail into the Haifa port and blow it up there. Plenty of dead people but still far away from the West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem to limit the Palestinian collateral damage. But again, that all depends how far the coast is from the international waters and how effective the coast guard is in searching vessels (I have no information on that).

PS: I meant this post in a theoretical way, I'm pro-Israel so I hope this won't ever happen.

there are several layers of security, the whole country is like an onion

So they are like an Ogre?

As was mentioned in a post already, the "dirty bomb" is the more logical threat. Radiocative material around a conventional bomb, C4 perhaps... and you have a nasty clean up job, radiation sickness, contaminated ground, water and dead people. On the other hand, Iran could put radioactive material in a conventional missle warhead and start lobbing them in all directions.

It doesn't matter who it's pointed at, how it's delivered, or who dies... dead is still dead... and glowing in the dark is not any better. The fact is, Iran supports and is assisting terrorists, and it's only a matter of time before the terrorists come into possession of some type of fissionable material.

On the same note... it does not really need to be "fissionable", it could be the waste product from an enrichment reactor.

Submarines were science fiction once, too. Frankly the whole thought of anyone having, or even wanting to make, weapons of that potential gives me the heebie jeebies. However, its more than likely that many, many people who dislike the US will learn to make and use these devices. I'd like to take a page out of Reagan's book and figure out a way to defend ourselves from the inevitable than slowing down the flood.

The problem most of you aren't seeing with man-portable nukes is that sufficient shielding to prevent it from irradiating the carrier to death is non-trivial, and isn't getting much if any benefit from miniaturization or metallurgy advances. A dirty bomb with sufficient radioactivity to be a threat would likely kill anyone carrying it within hours .. it's not really like a submarine at all.

What's worse (and serves as proof that most people are simply incompetent to evaluate threats) is that equally toxic material is far easier to come by. Any coal burning plant (which terrorist-sympathetic nations already have had for decades) produces literally tons more shit that kills people in horrible ways on a daily basis than a reactor does in years. You can make horribly "dirty" weapons with more common radioactive isotopes that form during coal burning and other toxic chemicals any industrial society produces in staggering amounts, like mercury. I don't want a nutjob with a towel on his head blowing up a plutonium stash any more than the next guy, but I have to question that such petty weapons are truly Iran's goal here because they simply could have done it much more cheaply via non-nuclear means.

The problem most of you aren't seeing with man-portable nukes is that sufficient shielding to prevent it from irradiating the carrier to death is non-trivial, and isn't getting much if any benefit from miniaturization or metallurgy advances. A dirty bomb with sufficient radioactivity to be a threat would likely kill anyone carrying it within hours .. it's not really like a submarine at all.
Unlike, say, flying an airplane into a building; which is completely safe and harmless to the attacker. I'm not sure if passing next year's physical is high on the priority list for people that deranged.

Flying an airplane isn't fatal to the attacker until the point of impact. If you have to get a lethally radioactive device across the Israeli border from Syria or Egypt, there is an excellent chance you will die in a pool of your own bloody vomit before making it anywhere near Tel-Aviv.

That's the fundamental problem with area denial weapons based on radioactivity. Any victim can avoid the threat by simply leaving the affected area, whereas the attacker has to be in contact with the device for extended periods of time.

If one takes a moment to look at a map, and note the proximity of China and Russia to Iran, the argument can be made that:

1. Iran is being used as an unwitting patsy to start a conflict with Israel and/or the U.S., or,

2. China or Russia (my money is on China) will stop Iran from going to far with it's inflammatory diatribes and it's nuclear research before there is any chance of China suffering from the fallout (literal and figurative).


If Iran does continue to provoke Israel tho, it can be expected that Israel will act in a proactive manner to protect itself, which will force the world powers to declare their allegiances and align themselves with one side or the other, thereby beginning the next cold war.

However Malse, if we were able to figure out how to deliver a nuclear bomb a lil over 60 years ago ... whats preventing these "less advanced" states from figuring it out in the next 1, 5, 10 years? Obviously stopping someone from making them isn't working ... defense instead seems to be one of the few options.

I mean, we are talking about 1940s technology. They didn't even have 3D graphics on their computer games back then!

Flying an airplane isn't fatal to the attacker until the point of impact. If you have to get a lethally radioactive device across the Israeli border from Syria or Egypt, there is an excellent chance you will die in a pool of your own bloody vomit before making it anywhere near Tel-Aviv.

That's the fundamental problem with area denial weapons based on radioactivity. Any victim can avoid the threat by simply leaving the affected area, whereas the attacker has to be in contact with the device for extended periods of time.
What, they never have refrigerators delivered? It wouldn't need to be able to fit in a suitcase and be unshielded.

Iran is spending a lot of effort to increase the range of it's missiles and even to putting their own satellite into space.

Sticking a nuke on one is the obvious ploy they will use. For the moment, reliably intercepting a missile is very difficult if not impossible. Rumor has it they are also looking at techniques for launching their missiles from freighters at sea, theoretically extending their range to the US.

A single relatively crude nuclear device detonated in space over the US would remove us as a serious world power for the short term. Just something to think about.

A single relatively crude nuclear device detonated in space over the US would remove us as a serious world power for the short term

Yep, a crippling EM pulse is the real goal they are after , not a land based detonation for destructions sake.

The use of a nuclear weapon is still a suicide pact.
There is nothing worth for Iran to risk something like that. What do they gain? Pretty much they assure their own destruction.
A nuclear weapon is a defensive weapon. A country aquires it in order to have protection from other nations and freedom of action in its region. It is only the offensive weapon of a madman.
Should we never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons? Yes, definitly, even if it requires force. But any logical analysis will rule out Iran seeking a nuclear weapon in order to lend it out to terrorists or strike Israel.
However take a look at a map. Iran is now almost completly surrounded by its enemies. It is seeking security, any attempt to get them off the nuclear path without the use of force must include some way to give them a sense of security.
Unfortunatly, I do not see this option as possible at this time.
Its basically a slow motion mexican stand off.

Watching some of the analysts from state and defense today commenting on this situation, and they were referencing the specific religious faction which the leader of Iran and his followers adhere to, which calls for Armageddon which will then usher in a new age, to put it in a much over-simplified manner.

If this is the religious goal, to induce Armageddon to eliminate the heathens and pave the way for a new Islamic Age, or whatever, then I think I might be nearing the point of agreement with those who are starting to call for a full blown war against Islam, as that seems to be the only way to counter these fanatics and their ridiculous belief that they could win a nuclear conflict. Because they have their nuclear facilities spread out and well camouflaged, the only other option is to give sufficient warning to evacuate the populations, and then send in an allied air strike to completely carpet bomb the countries varied possible sites for nuclear programs, and military installations.

Because the threat is to so many, getting an allied force including all of the world's super powers should not be as difficult as selling the Iraq invasion.
It will be unfortunate to be creating such a large refugee population, but in comparison to the casualties of a nuclear exchange, it is acceptable.

I'm just scared of those countries who HAVE used nukes before, and wage war like it's going out of fashion.
There's only one country on that list.

Hey, has anyone seen my list? It's a piece of paper with "U.S." on it.
Anyone?
Meh. Knew I shouldn't have put it down...

A brit, accusing us of being imperialistic? :P Thats some irony there.

Nah El, don't waste your breath. He's one bloke that won't recognize your point.


Fandros

Halo is a sad excuse of a Britian if you ask me, I am sure hes controlling his Muslim population/problems with in his own country(ha ha). Oh ya what scares me is those buggers who use fire bombs (I know we did too)...had they actually had the means to make a nuke they probably would of used them as well :p

I'm just scared of those countries who HAVE used nukes before, and wage war like it's going out of fashion.

You should be scared of every country that has nukes, including your own. Any one of them has the potential to screw the pooch someday. As far as only the US having used nukes being pertinent, do you really think that your country (home of "Bomber Harris") would not have dropped one on Hitler had the UK developed it in WWII instead of the US? Do you think Stalin would have flinched from dropping one? Really?

As far as waging war like it's going out of fashion, the UK has been in every open conflict the US has been involved in for the last twenty five years except the really small ones like Grenada and Panama. Of course you had the much bloodier Falklands/Malvinas to make up for it, so I guess we are pretty even in the war mongering department.

Yeah, I get it that Dubya makes you nervous. Sometimes he makes me nervous too (for different reasons), but that doesn't mean I am going to ignore all the *other* people that could blow the whole thing up. People like the current Iranian president and the mullahs running Iran, the leader of North Korea, various fanatics in Pakistan and even the Chinese leadership when they start talking about attacking Taiwan. Any one of them could do something unfortunate in its effect on all of us. Plenty of worry to go around, believe me.

Good news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060116/ap_on_re_mi_ea/europe_iran&printer=1;_ylt=AtcLPunDYcaAZF.zu8Jr7C0UewgF;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-)at face value...

Powerful members of the U.N. Security Council agreed Monday that Iran must fully suspend its nuclear program, Britain's Foreign Office said following a meeting aimed at forging a common response to Tehran's decision to resume uranium enrichment activities.
Diplomats also announced plans to call for an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency board of directors on Feb. 2-3 to discuss what action to take against Tehran for removing some U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility in Natanz last week.

The Foreign Office said all five veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China — and Germany had shown "serious concern over Iranian moves to restart uranium enrichment activities."

They agreed on the need for Iran to "return to full suspension," according to a statement.

Maybe China will step up and move against Iran for us? I doubt it. But at least they are all verbally on our side.

Maybe China will step up and move against Iran for us? I doubt it. But at least they are all verbally on our side.

The Iran oil is part of China's strategic energy plan; they will veto economic sanctions and military action since they are only interested in stability and the continuity of the oil supply.

If the UN or Israel/US puts the hammer down on Iran then the oil supply will suffer ----> China will be unhappy

I'm willing to bet that nothing will happen. Iran will probably make a deal with Russia for the supply of nuclear fuel for their reactors (the solution Putin offered) and continue the development of weapons technology under wraps.

I'm not overly familiar with this site, but it presents (http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/15/182821/882) data showing the likely impact of Iranian oil going off the market. Key graf:
To give you the punchline up front, I'm going to argue that, with large (50%) uncertainties, a complete loss of Iranian production for an extended period might be expected to roughly double oil prices and cause massive economic impacts, while a halving of oil production due to sanctions, or retaliation to sanctions, might be expected to produce a 30-40% increase in price and significant economic impacts.

Likely scenario:

Iran will thumb their noses at the U.N. and everyone involved. They will continue to develop their nuclear capability despite the sanctions and other issues.

China and Russia will continue to purchase oil from them no matter what sanctions the U.N. puts in place.

Iran will continue to quietly pursue their nuclear capability until Israel gets enough of it or until Israel believes that Iran is close to putting a mission capable nuclear missle into production.

Ariel Sharon will probably not be able to resume leadership of Israel. This will pave the way for a more hardline leader to step in. Many Israelis were upset about Sharon's handling of the Gaza Strip and other issues with Palestine. Hardliners will not tolerate Iran having nuclear capability and will "handle" it in their way.

Israel will scramble fighters and bombers and will bomb the Iranian weapons producing factories into oblivion.

Iran will cry foul, the rest of the middle eastern countries will begin their own sabre rattling, but in the end, as long as the oil continues to flow, nothing will happen.

Just some thoughts...

Israel will scramble fighters and bombers and will bomb the Iranian weapons producing factories into oblivion.
This I fear is near impossible. Iran bragged about having 200 locations scattered about, and most are probably underground and protected. I don't think Israel has the capabilities to sustain a very long distance air campaign to be effective enough.

It may not be necessary to hit them all.... simply take out their enrichment capability. Destroy the reactors that actually create the enriched material and you have no way to make a fissionable mass. I think that other nations would intervene simply to keep Israel from escalating the issue.

No matter what happens, it's going to make for some interesting reading/television coverage. I think we can expect Israel to take some sort of action very soon. They have a history of stepping up and "taking care of business" while other countries stand around and wring their hands and try to figure out the most politically correct way of handling things.

The Iran oil is part of China's strategic energy plan; they will veto economic sanctions and military action since they are only interested in stability and the continuity of the oil supply.

If the UN or Israel/US puts the hammer down on Iran then the oil supply will suffer ----> China will be unhappy

I'm willing to bet that nothing will happen. Iran will probably make a deal with Russia for the supply of nuclear fuel for their reactors (the solution Putin offered) and continue the development of weapons technology under wraps.

Thats pretty much how I see it playing out as well.