Ahmadinejad speaks, and UN reps walk

Actually, where nukes are concerned, it is -- literally -- the worst track record in the world.

Who ever said anything about a free pass?

 

Republicans.

OH SNAP

 

Well, you also have to ensure it's properly strong, stiff, flexible, and weatehr-resistant, as well as avoid such things as resonant harmonics. You have to balance the predicted forces of wind, rain, cars, the bridge itself, the paint, any pedestrians, a certain amount of debris, and other things. None of those are problems for a nuke. That's where your analogy falls apart.

Those are concerns for maximization of the bomb, not for detonation. If you just want it to go boom without the use of conventional explosives, it really is that easy, and will still produce a very nice yield. If you want it to convert 99% of the uranium into energy, then things become much more complicated again. I'm just talking about the bare necessities.

As an appropriate example, you can argue that, as a bare necessity, you can make your bridge across the canyon simply by filling in the canyon. That's the simplist way to do it, and anyone who can get enough materials can do so. That is a little more complicated, as you have to account for compression and strength of the materials as well, but still pretty simple.

Only in the technical sense. It's also the best in the world in the chronological sense (no one's gone as long as we have with nukes and without using them). In a practical sense, it's scoring a 99/100 on a test instead of a 100/100. Some fear Iran may score a 30/100 and in doing so kill millions of people. It's best not to give them the test in the first place.

I did, and if you continue to read the rest of my post, I explain it. Funny how you conveniently excluded that part.

 

No. It's failing the damn test. We knew what the bomb would do. We knew how horrible it was. We knew we weren't the only nation developing the thing. We dropped it anyway.

This is still entirely beside the point. This new revelation from Iran does nothing to expedite Iran's arriving at a nuclear weapon, and there's no conceivable way that they could have been using the facility to enrich uranium since, if you'll recall, isn't even up and running, yet. Yes, they didn't give the notice required by the Subsidiary Arrangement they made in 2003, but as Ragusa points out, their parliament didn't ratify the Subsidiary Arrangement. They are well within the guidelines that the Iranian parliament has ratified, giving about twice the notice required under their safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Tap, tap, tap. Let's examine that next part.

You really like implying things so that you can deny ever saying them when you are actually called on it, don't you? Throughout your entire post and throughout this thread, you have continually equated the non-hard line approach to Iran to what amounts to a free pass...and you shoot down your own argument by simply conceding that no one is talking about it officially? Thanks, but no thanks. State clearly that the people advocating diplomacy with Iran don't even come remotely close to advocating a free pass for their nuclear program. State it clearly and unambiguously and I'll gladly let it rest.

 

Actually, we really didn't know how horrible the bomb was. We knew about it's explosive potential, and we understood some of the flash effects, but the radiation fallout was vastly unexpected. On top of that, the bomb was dropped in an unprovoked, defensive war in an attempt to force a surrender. Just so you know, the estimated casualties of US troops for a ground invasion of the main island of Japan were in excess of 200,000, and that was before we found out the japanese house wives were being instructed on where to stab a man. Realistically, a ground invasion probably would have cost many times that many lives on the US side, and a sizable portion of the japanese population on their side. Ultimately, the decision to drop the bombs, while costing about 220,000 lives, probably saved several million.

The test isn't whether or not nuclear weapons are used, but whether or not they're used wisely. The use of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still in debate, but I feel it was wise. The use of nuclear weapons to redirect or destroy an incomming asteroid would undeniably be wise. The use of them in any defensive war is arguable, but on the table. The use of them in an uprovoked war of agression is unforgivable.

I don't think any sensible person in the US has advocated, or even come close to advocating that Iran be given nukes. There are a few senseless people who basically argue what Iran does is their own business and no one should interfere unless Iran starts something (literally giving them a free pass), and I do equate that with giving it to them, but I'm glad to see that you aren't one of them.

Ultimately, I'm getting the feeling that the biggest difference between your position and mine is not one of action, or even intent, but of attitude. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

True or false:
Stacking two 40Kg cubes of 85% pure U-235 onto each other will result in an explosion larger than a single stick of dynamite.

Mind you, 50Kg is the critical mass at 85% purity.

 

This is blatantly false. If you can prove otherwise, I'll give you a cookie. Seriously, there's this great company I buy from that sells online and drop ships. I'll have them send you a gift certificate. We knew more than enough about the fallout to know damn well what we were doing to Japan. We didn't know as much as we do today, but the radiation fallout was far from "vastly unexpected". We blew a few of the damn things up in testing, after all, and saw what it did to the surrounding area...as well as some of our own people.

 

My point was not that everybody does it, but why everybody works him- or herself into a mindless frenzy over Iran while the manifest and openly acknowledged reality of what Iran is inconclusively accused of doing appears to be a-ok with Brazil.

Yes, indeed, how can they ... digging back a little bit ... I recall I addressed that point already ...

Well, obviously. Now all it takes to put the burden of proof on Iran again is another allegation. If you're inclined (or interested) to not believe the Iranians anyway, Iran will never been able to come clean to soothe the worst paranoia. And if you have that inclination you believe neither the IAEA nor Iran anyway. As I said, Iran cannot prove a negative - they cannot disprove that they don't have something, after all it could always be hidden somewhere. So I forestalled a bit; it apparently it took you a few more posts to get there than I thought To re-emphasise, let me put it more pointed: Iran is just one allegation away from coming clean.

That said, the IAEA inspections are very thorough and work reasonably well. Interesting article on the work of the IAEA with three radio streams. Worth hearing.

And I apologise for the typos in my last post. I wrote it in a hurry.

 

Actually, we only detonated one beforehand, nicknamed "the Gadget", and it was less than a month before Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped on Japan. Here's Wikipedia's History_of_nuclear_weapons. Look near the bottom of "From Los Alamos to Hiroshima". The Trinity Site explosion was performed on July 16th 1945. Little Boy was dropped on August 6th. On top of that, the massive secondary casualties from the fallout over Japan were unexpected by US officials, also according to Wikipedia. This explains why a known POW camp was within the fallout range.

No, not really. The question was how the IAEA can say for certain that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program when they themselves admit they haven't had access to all the records and facilities needed to determine that. You're response seems to have been that Iran shouldn't need to prove it. That's not a response, that's a redirection.

I don't intend Iran to prove it. I intend the IAEA to prove/disprove it. In a trial, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution. They obtain a search warrant and search the premises. If they fail to search effectively, and, for example, ignore the garage, the basement, and two of three bedrooms, and then declare the person innocent because there's no evidence, I fully expect people who know anything about the investigation to cry foul.

Interestingly, the first audio piece you linked includes Dr. ElBaradei saying, "I will not come to a hasty conclusion... We have to... make sure that we will not make a verdict... before we've examined all the evidence."
Now, either you are misrepresenting his current position, or he's changed his mind, since they haven't examined all the evidence.

Don't worry, we all make a few.

 

NOG,
you still don't understand. The prosecution analogy is false.

The IAEA needs no warrant, they inspect declared facilities and keep record on declared material. So far they find Iran in full compliance under the rules that Iran has accepted under international law.

The problem with Iran's new facility at Quom is basically about whether Iran would have had to report it 180 days before it becomes operational, or right after they they started construction. The rules the Iranians did not ratify hold the latter, the original rules the former. The US are maintaining that Iran should have reported immediately under the latter, un-ratified rules. Iran is referring to the lack of ratification, and is behaving in accordance with the former, the original set of rules.

It's about whether Iran missed a deadline for issuing a report. That is it. A legal dispute over a technicality. It is almost funny, wouldn't there be the threat of war in the air.

 

It's also about Iran's history with undeclared facilities. Now, sure, they were trying to gain access to technology they supposedly (i.e. legally, though no one in the west seemed to agree) had a right to access, but it does show that Iran is willing to break the rules to get what they want/think they deserve (whether they actually deserve or not is a seperate issue for this discussion).

 

NOG,
imagine you were head of a country that wants access to a technology that it has a right to use, but is barred by other states to buy it - then going illegal, smuggling, is the only means to get what you need. From a Iranian perspective smuggling is resistance and self-aid - and a matter of survival. The US have embargoed Iran since the Iraq-Iran war, when they sided with Saddam. Saddam received modern western weapons, while Iran was being denied supplies. Smuggling at that time for Iran was a matter of survival. That left a lasting impression. The Iranians are not the types who wait and see or bend over and ask for more. They do something to further their interests.

Iran once bought themselves into a European uranium enrichment consortium to receive nuclear fuel from there. They lost their money and never got their fuel as a result of European and US pressure (making the deal effectively a scam). It is often remarked that Iranian smuggling proves their nefarious intent and general untrustworthiness. That would only be true if Iran could buy openly, but chooses to smuggle instead to hide what they're up to. As it is they don't have that choice as they are being actively denied even legitimate material and technologies through legal channels.

And as for the secrecy - in case your nuclear energy program would be under threat of attack, wouldn't you undertake efforts to preserve, through secrecy and dispersion, the very technology air strikes are being threatened against? For Iran it does make sense to pursue nuclear energy to free up their fossil fuels for export as a source of revenue. The UAE intend to do the same. In any case, the Iranian secrecy doesn't necessarily indicate a weapons program but might very simply be a reasonable precaution in face of real threats from the US and Israel. That that doesn't inspire trust is another matter, but for Iran's conduct to be really malign the West, the US in particular, needed to be completely honest first.

 

Ragusa, you make a very compelling case for Iran, and I respect that, I really do. Given the posturing done by Ahmadinejad, though, isn't it prudent for Israel and its greatest ally, the USA, to be extremely wary of the guy?

I can't remember the fellow who said it, but he said something along the lines of "Israel cannot lose a single war, or it will face obliteration." The US doesn't face constant threats from powerful entities who consistently state that it should be blown off the map (or, to use lesser phrases, state that it has no right to exist in the first place.) I am hard pressed to think of a currently independent nation-state that faces as dire a threat to its existence.

 

While neither independent nor a nation-state, I'd say Palestine faces threats that are equally dire.

 

I have never heard an Israeli Prime Minister make a statement that implies that the Palestinians should all be killed. Perhaps such a statement has been made, but I've not heard it.

I was also thinking of Tibet, although again, I don't believe that the Chinese government dreams, threatens, or plans on a genocide there.

There are several other groups, though not nation states, that are threatened, but to my knowledge none of them are threatened with genocide, or have serious and horrible elements of their past being denied.

 

I agree that Iran's course in the past was understandable, and even that I'd do the same thing in their place (probably, don't know the details), but then I'd also expect those groups not to trust me in the future and, if things ever did come out in the open, I'd embrace openness in an effort to dispell the fears of the past.

 

You don't need to kill everyone to ethnically cleanse a terretory. Just ask the people from former Yugoslavia, they just kill enough to make the rest flee somewhere else. You do realize that nearly half of Palestinians live somewhere else than within the terretories of Israel and are in fact refugees from their homeland? Getting half of the population to flee is very efficent as far as ethnic cleansing goes, it would make someone like Ratko Mladic proud.

Then there's the Israeli settlements within Palestinian terretory, quite frankly long term ethnic cleansing is about the only reasonable reason I can think of why they are built and why they exist. If you can tell me of better reasons to move civillians to live into Palestinian terretory I'll gladly hear you. Funny you should mention Tibet since this is exactly what the Chinese are doing in Tibet, they get enough Han Chinese to move into the area and efficently convert it into Chinese terretory and in that way they can handily claim that most of Tibet is in fact Chinese and rightfully a part of China and the claims for independence of Tibet are undemocratic, heck they might even go so far as to organize a referendum about it in the future.

 

On a different note regarding this same sort of topic, I enjoyed this article by Salim Mansur. I particularily enjoyed this quote:

That says it all to me -- how do you negotiate with people who see any attempt at reasonableness on your part as an invitation to attack?

However, this article backs up what Ragusa has been saying for quite a while now (not that Ragusa needs my backing, but I want to demonstrate my open-minded nature)