Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Habu on February 01, 2007, 08:38:26 AM
-
Interesting article in the NY Times.
First he makes a bunch of outrageous statements regarding Iran making nuclear bombs and then the next day he retracts them.
Senile old git (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/01/world/europe/01france.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin)
-
Or else you just saw what Chirac really thinks; Iran with a nuke really isn't a big problem. I wouldn't jump to "senility" just yet. Maybe that is his true position and thus the true position of the French government.
There are divisions within the French government — and between Europe and the United States — about how much Iran should be punished for behavior that the outside world might not be able to change. Some French officials worry that the more aggressive course of action by the United States toward Iran will lead to a confrontation like the Iraq war, which France opposed.
In noting the sanctions against Iran that were imposed last month by the Security Council, Mr. Chirac warned Tuesday that escalation of the conflict by both sides was unwise. “Of course we can go further and further, or higher and higher up the scale in the reactions from both sides,” he said. “This is certainly not our thinking nor our intention.”
Maybe it was just a peek behind the curtain.
As far as his contention that they can't launch on Israel, I think he misses the change in tactics. I seriously doubt any country planning such a move would launch from their homeland. That'd be like painting a bullseye on your own forehead. Rather, the weapon would be supplied to a shadow group with suicide troops (maybe Hezbolla which is said to be under heavy Iranian influence) so that there would be at least some doubt about the true source of the weapon/strike.
In this world it would take only a shred of doubt to protect Iran from any retribution.
-
Mr. Chirac, who is 74 and months away from ending his second term as president, suffered a neurological episode in 2005 and is said by French officials to have become much less precise in conversation.
The French policy on nuclear proliferation has always been dangerous and reckless.
The Iraqi nuclear program of the late 70's and early 80's was to construct a French designed and built reactor solely for the purpose of making nuclear weapons. The French knew this and did not care despite the turmoil such a development would have had on the middle east.
Read his comments in that article and see how little the top opinion on that subject has changed.
Allowing nuclear weapons to be developed by country lead by a Holocaust denier who has avowed to wipe Israel off the map is pure maddness.
-
Originally posted by Toad
In this world it would take only a shred of doubt to protect Iran from any retribution.
The only problem with that logic John is that the onboard Uranium will have it's own very distinct signature. So, like DNA in a crime, they will be able to prove Iran was responsible.
-
Are there any officially certified samples or profiles of the product of the Iranian refinement process?
I don't think there are. Further, I'm sure when the time comes to get one they will either refuse or pull a switcheroo and provide something that does not corelate to their production process.
-
I think the problem with that will be the centrifuges. They will be too highly contaminated to allow for a "switcheroo". But, then again, I am not a nuclear physicist and am only speculating.
The scary thing is that the liberals will probably have completely disarmed us by the time Iran tries it anyway.... :rolleyes:
-
You assume that they will allow the centrifuges to be inspected and samples taken.
-
If a nuclear attack is launched against a country like Israel the response will be in minutes not days or weeks.
Such an attack would not be a one off event but part of a plan by the attacker to wipe them off the map. Thus Israel would would not sit by for a month or so while samples are collected and analysed and then sit though some sort of trial where guilt is determined. Finally a decision is made to retaliate and then and only then a nuclear retaliatory attack is launched (against an empty city).
It doesn't work that way.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You assume that they will allow the centrifuges to be inspected and samples taken.
Which further assumes that all centrifuges will be known. Not likely.
Everyone keeps saying everything nuclear has a DNA like signature. The problem is that you have to have the original to compare it to. The idea that some agency some where knows about EVERY SINGLE PIECE of nuclear material is wishful thinking at best.
When it happens, and it probably will, having a DNA like signature from the material used will be real comforting to the victims and their families. Almost as comforting as having DNA evdience from a murder but nothing to compare it to in the way of known DNA samples. And just about as useful.
-
Originally posted by Habu
If a nuclear attack is launched against a country like Israel the response will be in minutes not days or weeks.
Such an attack would not be a one off event but part of a plan by the attacker to wipe them off the map. Thus Israel would would not sit by for a month or so while samples are collected and analysed and then sit though some sort of trial where guilt is determined. Finally a decision is made to retaliate and then and only then a nuclear retaliatory attack is launched (against an empty city).
It doesn't work that way.
Tell me how this works.
A nuclear device is smuggled into Tel Aviv by unknown parties; shipping container, back of an Abdul's Rental truck, whatever. The device is exploded dead center down town.
In minutes, Israel responds and hits.... what country?
We have the same problem in the US, btw.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Tell me how this works.
A nuclear device is smuggled into Tel Aviv by unknown parties; shipping container, back of an Abdul's Rental truck, whatever. The device is exploded dead center down town.
In minutes, Israel responds and hits.... what country?
We have the same problem in the US, btw.
EXACTLY.
And even if you DID know where the device came from, it wouldn't matter. The devices (yes, that's plural, they'll be like Lay's potato chips, you won't get just one) will be in the hands of terrorist groups who already don't give a damn about anyone outside their little group, and they have little or no regards for human life even within their group. If they were in the hands of Hamas or Hezbollah (a radical wing of either, most likely), for example, you can be sure neither group will be bothered in the least if the victim of the attack reduced the source of the weapon to glowing rubble. In fact, that would be the best possible excuse to trigger the next device. Given the desire of the current regime in Tehran to see the Islamic version of the Apocolypse, it wouldn't even be a surprise.
The most likely scenario, given the mindset of the people involved, is that they end up with several devices in several locations. Each retaliatory strike will be followed by the triggering of another device, at least until they run out of devices. Because they don't care who they kill. No one is innocent. Not even their own.
-
Simple
Tehran. About 5 minutes after the bomb goes off.
Then the next 5 biggest towns in Iran.
You can't make plutonium in your basement. If you have a reactor then you are going to be held accountable, even if you got a terrorist to do your dirty work.
And while that is going on I am sure North Korea and Pakistan would be sweating bullets while the US ponders if they were responsible.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Because they don't care who they kill. No one is innocent. Not even their own.
This rings very true.
hap
-
Andi if it later turns out that Syria had purchased the materials and they were responsible, how would you explain that to Iran?
Or are you just in the "nuke SOMEONE" mode?
-
Toad it would not matter.
Do you think that it mattered that Iraq was in no way responsible for 9-11 when the US invaded it?
When a bomb goes off your enemies will pay. Even if they did not deliver it personally. If you don't respond you will be extinct in a short time.
Do you not think Russia could not have snuck a bomb into the US all through the cold war? Why did they not do it? They could have had one stored in NYC in a basement just waiting for the right time to set it off.
Why did Russia instead build billions of dollars of military junk that probably would not have worked if ever needed instead?
It was because both Russia and the US had an understanding. You don't f*ck with nuclear weapons. If you do then you will be obliterated. And since both sides knew that there was no winner in a nuclear war neither ever stepped over that line.
Why do you think Russia backed down in the Cuba missle crisis? It was because there was a line in the sand and the US would have attacked their ships and then they would have had to go to war against the US. So they backed down.
If you think the response to a nuclear attack on Israel would be careful investigation you are deluded. Israel would have no choice but to nuke their biggest enemies who were capable of carrying out the attack.
The scary thing about all of this is people believe Iran and its leadership is crazy enough to try an attack.
-
Originally posted by Habu
Do you think that it mattered that Iraq was in no way responsible for 9-11 when the US invaded it?
It matters greatly.
hap
-
When the US had the biggest terrorist attack ever launched on its soil two radical middle east countries fell within a very short period of time. One deserved it and one did not. Makes no difference. And if the leaders of Pakistan did not suddenly become very cooperative allies of the US in the war against terrorism (at least publicly) then there is a very good chance that they would have some very difficult ultimatums to deal with.
You poke a beehive with a stick and the bees come out and sting everything.
Why do you think that no country no matter how sympathetic is giving any terrorist group aid and support to carry out an attack on the US these days?
They know that it is not enough to punish the terrorists, governments must fall. That is how it works.
Do you not think that the leaders of Syria and Iran did not see the tape of Saddam dropping though the trap door and know that it could very well be them one day? Sure the Iraqi courts and people convicted him and carried out the sentence. But who do you think delivered him to them and flew him in a helicopter to his date with destiny?
-
A couple of points. First, during the Cold War there was a VERY limited number of "the usual suspects". If the US got nuked, there was an infinitesimally small chance that it was Britain or France that did it and the USSR was pretty much the only other power with the capability to deliver such a weapon.
Right now, in theory, there's fissile material from the US, USSR, GB, France, China, India, Pakistan, probably N. Korea and Israel with Iran apparently on the verge. It's known that some of these states (Pakistan) have supplied technology and some may have possibly sold fissile material to other states.
I think the idea that either Israel or the US would start slinging nukes in 5 minutes is completely unbelievable. For a response of this kind, there will have to be a target that has been proven "guilty" with little doubt.
Second, the idea that Congress was persuaded to give Bush authority to invade Iraq base on Iraqi involvement in 9/11 is ludicrous. The case made in the UN and in our Congress was that Iraq had defied UN resolutions and was in possession of WMD's. THAT is how the war was "sold", not on the basis of Iraqi involvement in 9/111.
Are there parts of the citizenry that believe Iraq played a role in 9/11? Sure. But they didn't make the decision to go to war, Congress did.
Are you saying Congress believed Iraq had a role in 9/11?
-
Imagine Israel launches a retaliatory attack 5 minutes later.
What is the downside? An avowed enemy that has been funding Hamas (and is Hamas) is gone. No one will retaliate against you or the US will strike them. A strong message is sent out to all nuclear powers that you will be held accountable.
Who is going to prove Iran was innocent? How long will it take to prove it? And if you prove it who will believe it? Israels population will want blood for blood and if they don't get it Israel will ceise to exist. There would be a civil war and revolt in the armed forces.
And despite what reasons were used to justify the invasion of Iraq the only reason the US did it was 9-11. There was a need to eliminate dangerous foes from the world as letting them live and let live had only lead to a series of increasing deadly attack against US interests.
They had the perfect opportunity to bring one enemy down as an example to the world and they seized it.
The only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening is to stop the spread of nuclear technology to rouge states. A concept that seems alien to France.
-
Using your logic then, what is the downside to Israel nuking Iran right now? Why wait?
I submit that the reasons for waiting now are the same reasons that would require certainty before retaliation if they (or we) were struck.
-
Israel I am sure has a no first strike policy as does the US Russia and every other responsible nuclear power.
Israel does not acknowledge it has weapons and thus the Arab middle eastern countries are not in a battle of pride to develop them and be on a par with Israel. They do not show them off, they do not threaten to use them.
They are there for one reason only. Retaliation.
Using them first is not an option.
Once hit though, the rules change.
-
The rules change to "nuke 'em all"?
I don't think so.
I think the potential world-wide repercussions would prevent that.
-
now why would the muslims want to make "their" land completly uninhabitable for the next 100 years?
when theres perfectly good chemical weapons that are a whole lot easier to come by, and dont damage historical buildings, or hang around for decades.
-
I think they care about Jerusalem but I'm not so sure they give a hoot about Tel Aviv.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Andi if it later turns out that Syria had purchased the materials and they were responsible, how would you explain that to Iran?
First, no need to explain to dead people.
Second, when has Israel ever felt the need to explain its actions?
My guess would be that Israel would proceed to nuke Damascus and any other Syrian population centers. As for Iran ... serves them right for selling the stuff to Syria, don't you think?
-
1. I doubt all Iranians would be killed in any attack by any nation. Unless someone used overlapping detonations. This would leave some very angry folks looking for payback.
2. Israel usually does explain its actions. The rest of the world decries their actions no matter if there's just cause or not, but they usually explain why they're acting. The recent foray against Hez in Lebanon is an example.
3. You assume Iran would be the seller to Syria. Why not Russia? Syria is was a strong USSR client state. Why not NK? Kim is way short of cash/food/energy; I'm sure one could strike a deal. Why not Pakistan? They already exported nuke technology.
In a way, I view this as watching the run up to "Peace in our time" starring Neville Chamberlain. I never understood how that worked but I think I'm seeing it come round again.
-
I think that if anybody nuked Isreal it would be a very bad day to live in Syria, Iran, Jordan and Egypt. I'd think that they would nuke all of their enemies.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Or else you just saw what Chirac really thinks; Iran with a nuke really isn't a big problem. I wouldn't jump to "senility" just yet. Maybe that is his true position and thus the true position of the French government.
Maybe it was just a peek behind the curtain.
As far as his contention that they can't launch on Israel, I think he misses the change in tactics. I seriously doubt any country planning such a move would launch from their homeland. That'd be like painting a bullseye on your own forehead. Rather, the weapon would be supplied to a shadow group with suicide troops (maybe Hezbolla which is said to be under heavy Iranian influence) so that there would be at least some doubt about the true source of the weapon/strike.
In this world it would take only a shred of doubt to protect Iran from any retribution.
I think that if they are counting on that they may be miscalculating egregiously. Hurt someone bad enough and they will strike out against those they most distrust without regard for certainty. We are more than capable of obliterating those suspected of inflicting serious injury upon us or our favored allies.
-
But we won't without proof; disagree if you like but that's IMO.
-
I think that the day a nuke is exploded in Israel, rational thought will go out the window, and a mass retaliation against their enemies will happen.