Possibly Israeli strike on Iran fraught with logistical difficulties.

[JEDIYoda]

I *do* know what I'm talking about- the delegation sent to discuss inspection of additional sites went home empty handed, while the inspectors are still working at Iranian enrichment facilities.

You're just spreading your usual FUD.

back it up...since I just proved you wrong!!
Apology accepted ahead of time....for accusing me of spreading my usual FUD,,,,,,

 

[Jhhnn]

back it up...since I just proved you wrong!!
Apology accepted ahead of time....for accusing me of spreading my usual FUD,,,,,,

You proved nothing, other than your insistence on spreading lies.

Nice video about the ongoing inspections of Iranian facilities, other than Parchin-

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399473n

Iran has not denied access to other sites, and the insistence on visiting Parchin seems more political than otherwise-

Despite Mehmanparast’s too-honest admission of Iran’s intentional opacity, the IAEA itself has hardly been transparent as to why access to the site at Parchin was important enough to cause the failure of negotiations. A 2006 report from the IAEA (.pdf file) repeatedly indicated that nuclear inspectors had last visited the site in late 2005 and found absolutely nothing of note: “On 1 November 2005, the Agency was given access to a military site at Parchin where several environmental samples were taken. The Agency did not observe any unusual activities in the buildings visited, and the results of the analysis of environmental samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear material at those locations.”

General Dempsey’s comment seems to indicate that U.S. military officials believe Iran is seeking what is commonly termed “breakout capability,” meaning the ability to make a nuclear weapon in a short amount of time rather than possessing one outright. Indeed, Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified to the Senate on February 16 that it is “technically feasible” though “practically not likely” that Iran would build a nuclear weapon. All military officials who testified to the Senate during the hearing advised against military conflict with Iran.

http://www.insideiran.org/critical-comments/iran-limits-access-to-iaea-inspectors/

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You proved nothing, other than your insistence on spreading lies.

Nice video about the ongoing inspections of Iranian facilities, other than Parchin-

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7399473n

Iran has not denied access to other sites, and the insistence on visiting Parchin seems more political than otherwise-




http://www.insideiran.org/critical-comments/iran-limits-access-to-iaea-inspectors/

So the IAEA people can look at anything that Iran wants them to, otherwise no.

Okey doke.

 

[Jhhnn]

So the IAEA people can look at anything that Iran wants them to, otherwise no.

Okey doke.

They already looked at Parchin in search of evidence from alleged activities of a decade ago, and found nothing. Nor has the IAEA been forthcoming about their reasons for wanting to do so now. They haven't claimed new evidence or anything of the sort. It would be a mistake to think that the IAEA doesn't have motives beyond honest inspections.

Parchin is an extremely sensitive military installation for the Iranians, and they likely fear that inspectors may well be seeking other information useful in the event of an attack on them.

I'd expect the Iranians to take a hard line when a hard line is being laid down against them, when their machinery has been tampered with using a computer virus obviously created by a hostile govt, & when their nuclear scientists are being assassinated by persons unknown... not to mention continuous Israeli threats...

If we want them to be reasonable, maybe we need to appear to be that way ourselves.

 

[duragezic]

A year or two I read a paper about what it would take Israel to strike the Iran nuclear program. Very interesting. It actually was written in 2006 but still seems relevant.

SSP Working Paper - April 2006 - " Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities"
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...xrTqAw&usg=AFQjCNFt2aWbXVYwzWCY5TutGj08PrChUg

If the paper is almost 6 years, how long has Israel been considering the attack? Or have they studied it and determined it's not feasible? I would imagine it's harder to pull off now than 6 years ago if there are more sites to hit in Iran or they are better defended structurally and militarily. I guess they may have some bigger bombs now but mostly seems like their capability now is the same as the paper describes.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

They already looked at Parchin in search of evidence from alleged activities of a decade ago, and found nothing. Nor has the IAEA been forthcoming about their reasons for wanting to do so now. They haven't claimed new evidence or anything of the sort. It would be a mistake to think that the IAEA doesn't have motives beyond honest inspections.

Parchin is an extremely sensitive military installation for the Iranians, and they likely fear that inspectors may well be seeking other information useful in the event of an attack on them.

I'd expect the Iranians to take a hard line when a hard line is being laid down against them, when their machinery has been tampered with using a computer virus obviously created by a hostile govt, & when their nuclear scientists are being assassinated by persons unknown... not to mention continuous Israeli threats...

If we want them to be reasonable, maybe we need to appear to be that way ourselves.

Right now the credibility of Iran is questionable and they face sanctions. They can of course deny the IAEA access however the latter does not have to provide justification. If the Iranian leadership decides that it won't let the IAEA then there is no way of knowing if Iran is up to something and therefore any other inspections aren't going to allay suspicions and the inspection process is rendered useless. At that point the IAEA might as well go home, but there will be consequences. We're back to square one.

 

[Lemon law]

Ok, let us assume that if Iran opens up the parchin non nuclear site, it may prove that Iran has researched its nuclear weapons options also.

But still that sheds no real light on any questions, after all proving some one knows the old Indian methods of starting fires involves just one match and a gallon of gasoline, does nothing to prove they intend to become arsonists.

And besides, Iran at this point, has no Uranium enriched beyond 20%, and even a crash effort on the part of Iran would be hard pressed to come up with enough Uranium enriched to the 95+ level to produce a single critical mass needed to even produce a single nuclear weapons.

After all, U235 is not the route Israel selected to become a nuclear weapons power. As Isreal depends on a breeder reactor to produce plutonium based nukes. As every two years, Israel has been adding to its nuclear weapons arsenal from spent Uranium based reactor fuel rods.

 

[Jhhnn]

Right now the credibility of Iran is questionable and they face sanctions. They can of course deny the IAEA access however the latter does not have to provide justification. If the Iranian leadership decides that it won't let the IAEA then there is no way of knowing if Iran is up to something and therefore any other inspections aren't going to allay suspicions and the inspection process is rendered useless. At that point the IAEA might as well go home, but there will be consequences. We're back to square one.

Right now, the credibility of all parties questionable. Both the US and the IAEA want Iran to stop their enrichment program, even though they have every right to do so under IAEA inspections. So the IAEA and the US will attempt to paint the Iranian program in an unfavorable light & to make not really reasonable demands, considering the current climate & ongoing Israeli threat posture. The goal is not to have honest inspections of Iranian facilities, at all, but rather to make them stop their program entirely, depend on outside sources for nuclear fuel with no real guarantees that the supply won't be cut off for political reasons.

They learned some bitter lessons about self sufficiency in the wake of the revolution, and seem very unlikely to give that up wrt nuclear fuel production. We certainly wouldn't.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Right now, the credibility of all parties questionable. Both the US and the IAEA want Iran to stop their enrichment program, even though they have every right to do so under IAEA inspections. So the IAEA and the US will attempt to paint the Iranian program in an unfavorable light & to make not really reasonable demands, considering the current climate & ongoing Israeli threat posture. The goal is not to have honest inspections of Iranian facilities, at all, but rather to make them stop their program entirely, depend on outside sources for nuclear fuel with no real guarantees that the supply won't be cut off for political reasons.

They learned some bitter lessons about self sufficiency in the wake of the revolution, and seem very unlikely to give that up wrt nuclear fuel production. We certainly wouldn't.

It creates a catch22 situation though. No one trusts anyone so nothing changes.

 

[Lemon law]

It creates a catch22 situation though. No one trusts anyone so nothing changes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that is exactly the point isn't it haybaysusa, the question now is will anyone support Israel to act on mere mistrust issues at the risk of totally destabilizing the entire mid-east?

While risking the economic stability off every oil dependent economy on earth?

As many other wiser nations assert the best way to defuse the Crisis is to make the entire mid-east region into a nuclear weapon free zone.

 

[Muse]

I know what the problem is.

He (Lemon Law) is still flustered from when I called him out on his tendency to start a lot of sentences with the word 'as'. Since then, he has not started one sentence (that I know of) with that word, which was almost always used in an overly presumptuous manner. Since our good friend Lemon Law was overly reliant upon starting sentences with the word 'as', and his apparent refusal to use it since having been called on it, his writing has gone down hill. D:

He's clearly carried away. He rattles off his posts and hits the send button, in a god awful hurry, can't be bothered to proof read, ignores spelling errors (those squiggly underlines warning of typos), just doesn't give a damn what others' experience is when they are confronted with his posts. He comes off as a jerk and frankly when I sense this in a person I don't bother to read his/her contributions. There's a great deal in this life that's worth the time and effort. Someone who doesn't give a damn about others is best ignored when possible.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Iran has not denied access to other sites, and the insistence on visiting Parchin seems more political than otherwise-

Thats just stoopid......you stated as a fact that the IAEA had inspectors on the ground at other sites in Iran.....

#58 -- False attribution. IAEA inspectors are still onsite at Iranian enrichment & processing facilities. -Jhhnn

I then proved that you did not know what you were talking about!!
All the IAEA inspectors left Iran!!

Then you accused me of spreading FUD -- even when presented with proof that you were lying....

What have they got to hide? UN nuclear weapons inspectors leave Iran after being turned away from key military base -- what part of UN Nuclear weapons inspectors leave Iran do you not comprehend??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ctors-leave-turned-away-Parchin.html?ITO=1490

Jhhnn--I *do* know what I'm talking about- the delegation sent to discuss inspection of additional sites went home empty handed, while the inspectors are still working at Iranian enrichment facilities.

You're just spreading your usual FUD.

What part of your credibility have I left intact?? No part!! Pwned!!!

 

[EagleKeeper]

To those mesmerized by the drumbeat for war with Iran, Tehran's rejection on Tuesday of an International Atomic Energy Agency request to visit a sensitive military site signaled grim prospects for diplomacy resolving the nuclear standoff. The IAEA delegation had made its request to visit the military munitions facility at Parchin a litmus test of Iran's readiness to cooperate with efforts to investigate possible weapons research work Tehran is alleged to have carried out, particularly before 2003. Iran rebuffed the request, failing the litmus test....

Link

Iran is not willing to cooperate on what might have been done 10 years ago.

They sure as heck are not going to allow inspections on areas where they may have been moving ahead.

The U.S. intelligence consensus is that Khamenei has not yet decided whether to build nuclear weapons, although he is defiantly maintaining -- at mounting cost to Iran -- a nuclear program that steadily accumulates the capability to build such weapons should he deem them necessary

A missile is not operational until a warhead is placed on it. but that does not take much time to mate when everything is already prepared

 

[cybrsage]

They already looked at Parchin in search of evidence from alleged activities of a decade ago, and found nothing.

There you go, they looked there a decade ago and found nothing. Since it is impossible for anything to ever change over time, there is no reason to look there again.

 

[cybrsage]

As every two years, Israel has been adding to its nuclear weapons arsenal from spent Uranium based reactor fuel rods.

Out of curiosity, do you have links to this? I have not read anywhere which says Israel developed and maintains nuclear weapons. I have read random quotes from random people saying Israel may have nuclear weapons, but nothing close to definative. I am not doubting they have them - if I was Israel, I would want them...but I would also let everyone know I have them to make me invasion proof.

 

[Nebor]

Out of curiosity, do you have links to this? I have not read anywhere which says Israel developed and maintains nuclear weapons. I have read random quotes from random people saying Israel may have nuclear weapons, but nothing close to definative. I am not doubting they have them - if I was Israel, I would want them...but I would also let everyone know I have them to make me invasion proof.

Even with nuclear weapons, Israel is far from invasion proof. Using nuclear weapons defensively when your nation is so small is just suicide. You'd ruin your land for a thousand years.

 

[cybrsage]

Even with nuclear weapons, Israel is far from invasion proof. Using nuclear weapons defensively when your nation is so small is just suicide. You'd ruin your land for a thousand years.

Maybe, depending on the type. You would use them on the attacking nations. Since the nations which would attack Israel are nearby, they are certainly within missile range.

Iran's attacker would be the US, which is outside of missile range, so they woul have to use them on their own soil to be an effective deterrent.

 

[zsdersw]

Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if every one of our nuclear weapons struck Iran at one time. Glassify the whole country, IMO.

I have no patience or sympathy for anyone in the Middle East, Israel included, but Iran upsets me the most.

 

[Lemon law]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemon law View Post
As every two years, Israel has been adding to its nuclear weapons arsenal from spent Uranium based reactor fuel rods.
Out of curiosity, do you have links to this? I have not read anywhere which says Israel developed and maintains nuclear weapons. I have read random quotes from random people saying Israel may have nuclear weapons, but nothing close to definative. I am not doubting they have them - if I was Israel, I would want them...but I would also let everyone know I have them to make me invasion proof.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel has denied it has a nuclear program but its well known that is a lie.

Its easy to prove on google--here is a small sample of links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwG1R1tcicQ

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

http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-repor

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

I can easily come up with more links, cybrsage, but that should due for now.

 

[cybrsage]

Ouch!

Personally, I hope no one ever uses nukes again. The ecological damage is horrible from even using one.

 

[zsdersw]

Ouch!

Personally, I hope no one ever uses nukes again. The ecological damage is horrible from even using one.

Unlike with the governments of the Middle East, the ecological damage from nukes can be cleaned up; progress can be made.

 

[blankslate]

The fact is if Benjamin Netanyahu was an American Politician in the early part of this century he'd be a Neocon.

If Israel attacked Iran under the auspices of their right wing government, it'd be bad news for us.


http://inplaceoffear.blogspot.com/2012/01/eight-current-and-former-heads-of.html

Above is a link about Mossad chiefs current and former and their opinions on how feasible a quick and clean attack on Iran is.

 

[cybrsage]

Israel has denied it has a nuclear program but its well known that is a lie.

Its easy to prove on google--here is a small sample of links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwG1R1tcicQ

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

http://www.ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-repor

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm

I can easily come up with more links, cybrsage, but that should due for now.

The .mil one initially looked like it would be the most reputable, but the title of the publication immediately cast doubt on its integrity. I read through it anyway, and found that they think Israel started its nuclear program with 200 pounds of lost uranium...but that they found 220 pounds of uranium in the plant when it was decomissioned...they found more than they lost. The article flips back and forth between measuring systems (it actually lists the found uranium in Kg but the lost uranium in lbs). I cannot use that as a reputable source, it is too poorly written.

The youtube video is from the Russian Government Owned TV channel...and they did not even bother to show the papers they claim show the nuclear weapon info. They say they exist, but do not bother to show them. It is a non-source.

The ploughshares paged does not exist. Did you even look at your sources before saying they are actual supporting sites? So far, it is 0 for 3.

I started with what I felt would be the most reliable, but I am ending with the wiki, since it is often very reliable, but you have to follow the support the site lists to double check it. It took the longest time to check (15 minutes, give or take a few).

The wiki article is also the most compelling. It shows how Israel could have developed nuclear weapons on its own. It falls far short of actually showing Israel has nuclear weapons, though. It simplly assumes they do and goes from there.


Do you have any actual sources which show that Israel has nuclear weapons? The declassified South African documents the Russian State Run news agency mention would do it.

 

[Lemon law]

The .mil one initially looked like it would be the most reputable, but the title of the publication immediately cast doubt on its integrity. I read through it anyway, and found that they think Israel started its nuclear program with 200 pounds of lost uranium...but that they found 220 pounds of uranium in the plant when it was decomissioned...they found more than they lost. The article flips back and forth between measuring systems (it actually lists the found uranium in Kg but the lost uranium in lbs). I cannot use that as a reputable source, it is too poorly written.

The youtube video is from the Russian Government Owned TV channel...and they did not even bother to show the papers they claim show the nuclear weapon info. They say they exist, but do not bother to show them. It is a non-source.

The ploughshares paged does not exist. Did you even look at your sources before saying they are actual supporting sites? So far, it is 0 for 3.

I started with what I felt would be the most reliable, but I am ending with the wiki, since it is often very reliable, but you have to follow the support the site lists to double check it. It took the longest time to check (15 minutes, give or take a few).

The wiki article is also the most compelling. It shows how Israel could have developed nuclear weapons on its own. It falls far short of actually showing Israel has nuclear weapons, though. It simplly assumes they do and goes from there.


Do you have any actual sources which show that Israel has nuclear weapons? The declassified South African documents the Russian State Run news agency mention would do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok Cybrsage, I will continue to play your game.

Try the following link, maybe the4 best I could find on short notice.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents

But seriously cybrsage, if you don't believe Israel does not have nuclear weapons, its the rough equivalent of still believing in the tooth fairy.

Can you prove the tooth fairy does not exist?

 

[Lemon law]

Meanwhile back in Israel, Israel continues to defy the international community by announcing more and more Illegal Israeli settlements on disputed territory.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-documents