http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12512391/

So yeah, now that Europe is in range, maybe we'll do something about it. Though the irony of us going into Iraq on the whispers of rumors about them having this even remotely like this, and then we stand around with our thumbs in our ass when we have almost concrete proof Iran is trying for WMDs....

The missiles don't mean a great deal. If Iran's leadership popped a brain cell and launched an attack, the reprisal would destroy the country. If the US attacks and Iran, in turn, attacks Europe, the reprisal would destroy the country. If diplomatic efforts over the next 5-10 years fail and Iran gets nukes, the damage potential of the above scenarios increases considerably, but at present there is still room for diplomatic wrangling (at least for those countries that will attempt to do so).

Hmm...we haven't talked about North Korea in awhile. Has the administration done anything with regard to them this year?

Well I for one, would actually prefer a diplomatic solution. However, from what I've seen from the Iranian president, thats not too likely to happen.

Who has North Korea attacked lately? Or better yet is their leader asking for the total elimation of a group of people..such as Israel?

He's really pushing quite the nationalistic agenda, but his power is limited. I'm not sure how willing the clerical establishment is to follow him down the ill-conceived road he's paving for his country. On the plus side, his ravings might just give the smoldering reform movement that much more impetus (though I wager reform considerations are long term at best).

I read (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060417/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearpolitics_060417220410) last week that a senior Iranian official was in DC very unofficially. I haven't read anything since but wonder at the diplomatic subterfuge that seems to be on display here. A senior Iranian diplomat is in Washington but not to talk to anyone of import. He doesn't have a visa, but that's okay because there are other ways to enter the US -- pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

But hell, if someone at the State Dept is talking to him, and it'll defuse the situation, that's something.

Who has North Korea attacked lately? Or better yet is their leader asking for the total elimation of a group of people..such as Israel?

No they just seem to be starving thier own people to death.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4677786

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4072280.stm

Looks like Kim isn't hurting for food:

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/06/26/kim_jong_ils_fanatic.html

Who has North Korea attacked lately? Or better yet is their leader asking for the total elimation of a group of people..such as Israel?
No, just the usual babble. There was concern over the idea of Iran getting nukes long prior to Ahmedabijad's <sp> Holocaust-denying stomp-Israel ravings. We can -- at least I hope we can -- focus on more than one looney leader at a time.

The missiles don't mean a great deal. If Iran's leadership popped a brain cell and launched an attack, the reprisal would destroy the country. If the US attacks and Iran, in turn, attacks Europe, the reprisal would destroy the country. If diplomatic efforts over the next 5-10 years fail and Iran gets nukes, the damage potential of the above scenarios increases considerably, but at present there is still room for diplomatic wrangling (at least for those countries that will attempt to do so).

Hmm...we haven't talked about North Korea in awhile. Has the administration done anything with regard to them this year?

Thor, interesting slant you put on this one and one not thought through as well as you usually do.

So, Iran would be totally destroyed if it ever launched an attack on Europe.

That's little consolation for the potential millions of dead folks in Europe and an even further disrupted environment.

Also, most intelligence points to the suggestion that Iran already possesses the materials needed and that this is all a shell game to hide their true position.

One scenerio has them purchasing even more materials from North Korea ( which we know they already are established trading partners) and possibly having all they need to make good on their threats.

This is a real world serious threat, and one the EU is taking very serious.

As for what's being done with North Korea. For the last few months there have been serious discussions with that hemispheres power brokers ( China/Japan/Koreas) and yes even the US. Everyone has been at the table and talks have been proceeding. Top that off with them not threatening almost daily to nuke a neighor and you have a totally different situation.

Don't get me wrong, I think North Korea is a major threat to global security. However I think it's because they are willing to be a supplier and therefore an indirect threat. Unlike Iran which is a direct threat to us and ours...

Fandros

So, Iran would be totally destroyed if it ever launched an attack on Europe.

That's little consolation for the potential millions of dead folks in Europe and an even further disrupted environment.
This is why I distinguished between the present and the future. At present, even if Iran launched its entire arsenal I doubt the death toll would be anywhere near the millions mark. That's not to say it wouldn't suck^2, but compared to what would happen to Iran it's just not an option. Obviously, we want to avoid a nuclear Iran if possible, but we might get stuck in a deterrent situation in the long run. The nuclear cat is out of the bag.

I haven't seen any reason to suppose that Iran is closer than the common estimate of 5-10 years from having enough properly enriched uranium to create a nuclear missile. Iran's recent enrichment claims (3.5%) fall well short of the 80% enrichment I've heard is required. I've also heard that religious leaders -- including Supreme Jurisprudent Ali Khamenei -- don't want nukes, saying they're immoral. That could be smoke & mirrors; there's no way to say really.

Anyway, I don't buy into Rumsfeld's arrogant and condescending treatment of the intelligence on this topic. At the very least, we have some years in which to proceed diplomatically. It's not this administration's strong suit, but as I noted above, there might be something positive happening behind the scenes. How that would interface with the current sabre rattling (a rehash of 4 years ago) I don't know.

/nods going back and rereading your post I can see how I misread your thoughts.

However, how would you proceed if indeed Iran had the materials ( purchased or otherwise) on hand?

Fandros

Hey, no fair asking hard questions.

First, I'd rue our not engaging in diplomatic overtures with Iran previously. This is what we should be doing now.

But if Iran held a nuclear test today, I'd attempt to kick the UN Security Council into gear to get Iran to power down. Knowing that's going to fail (China, Russia...bleh), I'd already be talking to NATO (or have already talked to NATO about this contingency). I suppose the big question is whether I'd favor a pre-emptive strike, and I would not (at least, not without consult with the threatened party -- Europe).

That's my "thought about this for a couple of minutes" answer, anyway. If it makes you feel glad I'm not in charge, well, I'm glad, too. =)

Eh, my own response wouldn't be far off your own. I'm not quite the war monger you may picture me to be. ;P

Tho I'd likely factor in "Black ops" as a very real option.

Giving free reign to my more sinister side would have such an option arranging an "accidental" nuclear incident on Iran's home soil involving one of their enrichment facilities...

Fandros

Would definitely entertain some manner of special forces operation, preferably something subtle that wouldn't immediately suggest our participation (or suggest that they should blame us anyway). Some of the latest chatter (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/27/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html).

I've wondered about this as well. For now, I'm in favor of diplomacy - maybe even some old fashioned Congress of Vienna-ish cut-throat diplomacy. If push comes to shove, I would hope that we could disarm them before they launch a nuclear attack. Even if the missile gets knocked out of the air and there's not a single casualty, the fear such an attack would inspire would be devastating; it'd probably result in another arms race.

Iran wants the weapons for the same reason everyone else does now, as deterrence to the United States. North Korea has also been making significant diplomatic strides in the last decade or so, just not with us -- in fact we seem to go out of our way to sabotage their attempts at reconciliation with South Korea (which is about the most anti-American democracy in the world now as a result).

In as much as Iran has an Anti-Isreali agenda, I think they mostly play it up for their populist support, in much the same way we get the war on terrorism. It's all talk with very little real intended action. I would be more worried about an alarmist response from Israel itself.

I also have to sort of laugh about the non-proliferation treaty comments -- we rewarded India for breaking it. Other countries got the message.

Tho I'd likely factor in "Black ops" as a very real option.


My apologies to the more sensitive, but I have no reservations whatsoever about a .50 caliber round intersecting with the Iranian idiot's forehead.

He has voiced his lunacy, and I therefore will voice mine.

Wow. I'm in agreement with the Black ops Idea....
Makes you wonder what's wrong with it, eh?

Would definitely entertain some manner of special forces operation, preferably something subtle that wouldn't immediately suggest our participation (or suggest that they should blame us anyway). Some of the latest chatter (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/27/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html).

My emphasis could be the "wrong" side of it Sixee. ;)

My apologies to the more sensitive, but I have no reservations whatsoever about a .50 caliber round intersecting with the Iranian idiot's forehead.

He has voiced his lunacy, and I therefore will voice mine.

I too prefer this route and I think the media should televise it! :D

Not quite the subtlety I had in mind. :p

Not that I'd shed any tears, but I'd rather poison the couscous than lob his brains across the room. Sure, it's not as photogenic as a Napoleon Blownaparte scenario, but it keeps the uproar to a minimum.

I'm more of a mindset to make it a clean accident that clearly points to them being unready to handle the dangers of radioactive material.

Hell, heavy iron fisted hand of Allah even!!!

Fandros

The Marine in me says "Fuck it" nuke the whole goddamned country, turn it into the worlds largest hunk of obsidian. Kind of a "Kill 'em all let God sort it out" scenario!


Back in the day I had a t-shirt that said 1st Bn 8th Marines Beirut Lebanon "We help Moslems meet Allah" Prolly wouldn't fly in todays world now :(

I don't really worry about Iran launch a nuke...Thor's right, the reprisal would be devasting. I'm more worried that their development goes even more underground and that they feed a newly made nuke to a terrorist group that can't be direct tied to Iran or their government.

Now granted, that may be more difficult to accomplish than it sounds...but that's my main worry with Iran. Assmandinejad's rhetoric only helps the US build support for sanctions and other punitive actions.

Well in that senario they best supply the terroists with a shit load because all fingers will be pointing at them regardless if its launched or set off from Iran. They will be wiped out either way.

Well in that senario they best supply the terroists with a shit load because all fingers will be pointing at them regardless if its launched or set off from Iran.

But how would you know it wasn't an old (or current) Russian nuke, or supplied by Pakistan,NK, or hell even China? Is it possible to identify the origin of a nuke after it's been detonated? I've heard that you can with relatively good accuracy, but is that true?

Aye it's very possible to identify where the materials used where mined, enriched and in most cases built.

Radioactive half life being the very dependable thing that it is along with CSI Miami and we're in for the win!!

Okay that last bit was just for laughs but I've read that the ore and the enrichement process are very unique per batch.

Fandros

Yeah, depending on where the uranium was enriched it leaves certain traces in it. For being Hollywood, the bit in Sum of All Fears where they track down the origin of the nuke is fairly accurate.

I think *if* diplomatic methods dont work, we should pull another Kosovo, and bomb them until they lack the ability to wage war any more.

Oh and fuck just shooting that asshole in the head, we need to kidnap him, and video tape a bunch of guys wearing masks cutting his head off with a knife while screaming "God is great!" Cause that would be acceptable to the Islamic community in the middle east, but if we shoot him, or make a cartoon they'll work themselves into a frenzied rage.

Aye it's very possible to identify where the materials used where mined, enriched and in most cases built. Which is why folks in the business aren't that worried about Iranian nukes. Their uranium deposits have a lot of molybdenum, and without a lot more technology, the Iranians don't have the skill to refine it weaponwards.

Attacking Iran would cause extreme financial hardships for people in the US, and probably the rest of the world. The last time Iranian oil went offline in 1979, the world price of oil doubled. Back then, Saudi Arabia was able to take up the drop in production, but today, they could only pick up about 1/4 of the loss. So $200/barrel oil would be a very optimistic prediction. Pessimistic preditions would put the price closer to $400/barrel.

Of course, that presumes the Iranians won't fight back. A presumption that would be insanely stupid to make by anyone even remotely familiar with their history. A much more plausable scenario would have the Iranians interdicting the Straits of Hormuz with anti-shipping missiles, speedboats armed with RPGs (a rudderless supertanker will run aground faster than they can come to a stop) and mines. And what the heck, virtually the whole passage of the Straits of Hormuz is within artillery range of several hundred miles of mountainous coastline. The Iranians have been purchasing missiles (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4932814.stm) designed to intercept cruise missiles, smart bombs and low flying aircraft.

Interdicting the oil traffic in the Straits of Hormuz would run oil prices on the other side of $1000/barrel. At that price, everyday things in the US would become economically unviable. Gasolene would be running $30-$50/gallon. Would you be able to afford to go to work? How many businesses in the US can handle telecommuting? If no one is driving, what happens to businesses dependant upon driving? Gas stations, repair shops, drive through restaurants? When transportation becomes that expensive, will the big box stores (like walmart or target) be able to obtain goods for sale? How long do they stay in business with empty shelves? Homes entering "the foreclosure process" (not all get foreclosed in the end though) are already up 30% over last quarter and up 70% over this time last year. The first big batch of "interest only mortgages" get converted to "interest+principle" starting in 2007. In some states IOMs are over 50% of home mortgages being written. If those folks were able to afford the houses they lived in, they would have gotten "interest + principle" loans. So, a realistic prediction of attacking Iran has to take into account a vast upsurge in bankruptcies.

Iran is 4x the size of Iraq, and has 3x the population. Unlike the flatlands of Iraq, Iran occupies three dimensions, and is more mountainous than not. Unlike Iraq, the Iranians haven't been gassing their minorities, so any attack will rally the population, rather than have large parts of the population cheering for the deaths of the bastards.

I'm still debating whether this whole pissing match between bush and Ahmadinejad is just a game, or an amazingly brilliant plot by the Russians to make fistfulls of money. When bush and Ahmadinejad smacktalk each other, the price of oil shoots up, making more money for Russia and the domestic business buddies of bush and cheney. Selling missiles to Iran makes the smacktalk go higher (and improves the wealth of the Russian aerospace industry), making the price of oil go up. Telling the US that they'll veto any Security Council resolutions means that all the US can do is even more smacktalk.

The Reagan administration was the last bunch that did this much smacktalking with Iran, who was busy selling them weapons, in violation of US laws, and using that money to fund his private army in Central America, in violation of more US laws. What? You forgot about Iran-Contra? The Iranians didn't. Neither did the bush administration, because they've rehired a lot of the same staff that was involved in Iran-Contra the first time. By rehiring that same staff, the message to Iran is clear: we'll make noises and make deals too, so don't believe our noises.

Ultimate lose/lose scenario.

Either a nuclear Iran or another Rummy led military fiasco.

At this point I think Ill go with a nuclear Iran. We were ok with a Nuclear Soviet Union, China, Pakistan, and North Korea. At least there is a possiblity of that not being a complete and utter disaster.

Ultimate lose/lose scenario.

Either a nuclear Iran or another Rummy led military fiasco.

At this point I think Ill go with a nuclear Iran. We were ok with a Nuclear Soviet Union, China, Pakistan, and North Korea. At least there is a possiblity of that not being a complete and utter disaster.

Unless some Radical gets his hands on 1 of thier nukes and launches it.
Then we can look forward to this picture:

http://www.geocities.com/lobo3315a/george_bushoops.jpg

1. Other Nuclear capable countries ever said they wanted to wipe a race off the face of the earth have they?
2. You see gas prices going to 30/50 bucks a gallon, but I see us having a new energy product by then.