Attack on Iran inevitable?

Remove all ads!

It's not looking good, I hope the Americans fall flat on their face.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/10/politics/main1483188.shtml

 

I'm curious if you will feel the same way if the Americans do nothing and Tel Aviv gets nuked.

A freaky read.

 

I don't think an attack on Iran is inevitable. I'm positive that the U.S. has plans drawn up to attack Iran, but that's just smart contingency planning. Just because you have the plan doesn't mean that its implementation is going to be immenent. Sure, Bush is stupid - potentially really stupid - but no one is THIS stupid. Especially considering this decision would not be Bush's alone. This would entail collective stupidity - which may or may not be the easier thing to get in this case.

The last thing that the U.S. needs is another military conflict, and that includes something as little as selective bombing. If you think that Iran will sit idly by and not attack U.S. forces in Iraq with more than the insurgents they are already sending over if the U.S. starts bombing Iran, you're kidding yourself. Bush never has to answer to the voters again, but he knows that the view on the war in Iraq is dire for his Republican cronies seeking re-election. I have no doubt that the U.S. will start withdrawing troops before the November elections, and that can't happen with a hostile Iran on their doorstep.

 

You're exactly right, TGS, a freaky read. And dammit, I *knew* we shoulda killed off all the Iraqi men and enslaved their women and children... finally some peace and quiet in Baghdad!

 

@Bion,

Thanks, a buddy of mine is a big fan of the author. The part that disturbs me is that I couldn't find anyplace on the site where he calls it fiction

 

The part that disturbs me is that, with the article in Snook's link, you could replace the references to Islam (Muslims, of course, have a diabolically sinister plot to destroy anything non-Muslim) with references to Jews (who, of course, have a diabolically sinister plot to rule the earth), and all of a sudden you have justification for the holocaust.

Edit: And I know what you mean about not calling it fiction, TGS. I felt the same way after I read Lord Of The Rings.

[ April 11, 2006, 02:42: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

If you bomb Iran, who the hell will be left to overthrow the government? Especially if you bomb their nuclear sites (that is, if they ever exist), because hitting a nuke is like setting a nuke off... it explodes, and wreaks havoc. Try sustaining that...


EDIT: Hopefully that freaky link is fiction...

[ April 11, 2006, 04:07: Message edited by: Saber ]

 

A great read, Snook Simmons is a pretty good writer. But of course, it's just fiction.

That is not to say that all things are rosy. About Iran: the tought of them getting nukes is truly disturbing. On the other hand, there is not much US can do about it now. (As a consequence of Bush's failure in Iraq, and on pretty much any international issue). So, we can only hope that the next administration is smarter (and the'll have to be pretty good to be able to get us out of this mess). It is not like Iran will get any significant nuclear capability in the next 3 years, anyhow.

 

Sure. But the basic point--that by defining our war as being "against terrorism", we make it unwinnable--is perfectly valid. That doesn't mean you need to agree with the idea that we're at war with Islam as a whole, but...

Here's a question for all you folks (maybe I should start a new thread for this; if so, say so, ye mighty mods): Who or what is America at war with?

AFAIK, no it doesn't. Nukes only work if the explosives that set in motion the process of splitting the atom are detonated simultaneously. Dropping a bomb on a nuke won't do that. It will scatter some radioactive material, but that's a bit different than a nuclear detonation.

 

I believe the only accurate answer to that question is: Yes.

 

I find the idea that the only nation that has been callous enough to actually use them (against civilians, no less) has nukes disturbing.

 

Well I'd rather a country like Iran NOT have nuclear weapons. Last thing I want is some Muslim Government with their finger on a big red button... they'll probably name is 'Smite' or something. Frankly I simply don't trust any government that takes laws straight from a holy book.

 

Correct. In fact, you probably won't even scatter any nuclear material, because the reactor chamber is the most heavily fortified section of the entire facility, not to protect it from bombs, but to contain the radiation.

To go further, even if you drop a conventional bomb directly onto the top of a nuclear warhead you STILL wouldn't get a nuclear explosion. They don't work that way.

 

You mean like we've been trying to do with Bush in power?

 

Actually, protecting the reactor itself from an explosive device IS one of the scenarios considered when designing the strength of the reactor building. IIRC, it's not the limiting factor. While the building itself does provide some protection from radiation, it's not the primary source of shielding. Concrete - the construction material of choice - is most effective when shielding neutron radiation (which is contained within the reactor vessel under all but extraordinary circumstances), while the gamma radiation emitted by the fission by-products and activated materials that escape the vessel is best shielded by denser materials, like steel or lead.

Rally, BSNE.

 

Ok, fine, I'm wrong. But still, sustaining explosions... kind of hard to do without a lot of collateral damage, don't you think? In any case, bombing anyone isn't good, because then they retaliate... most people think in "An eye for an eye" way of running a government, which doesn't work.

If Bush bombs Iran, they will retaliate, and we won't like the consequences.

 

I'm going to surprise some of you a bit. I've always considered Iran to be a bigger threat, and a more serious one to the US than Iraq. One of the problems with the needless war in Iraq is that it opened a lot of opportunity for Iran. If there is one country, which both the US and its collective allies, including Israel, should consider a dangerous enemy, at the present time, it's Iran.

From a strategic standpoint, what does Iran need with nuclear weapons?

[ April 11, 2006, 20:58: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Quibbling: The blast radius is so large, how do you not use them against civilians? It's not like a smart bomb or a shaped explosive; when a nuke goes off, it really goes off!

EDIT: Fixed tag.

[ April 11, 2006, 19:40: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Well, the reason I'm sure they're going to give is that they are placed in a strategic disadvanage when so many nearby countries have nuclear weapons and they don't. Granted, Israel and a little further away in China - they've had nukes for decades now, but just recently India and Pakistan joined the nuclear club.

According to published reports, Iran is still far away from producing weapons grade uranium. The process to enrich uranium is done by passing uranium gas through a series of 164 centrifuges. Currently, Iran has one set of these centrifuges, but would require dozens more of these sets to produce weapons grade uranium in sufficient quantities.

The biggest problem of course is that the process to enrich uranium to weapons grade is the same process you use to enrich to make nuclear fuel for reactors. The only real difference is how much enrichment takes place, as you don't have to enrich it as much for fuel grade compared to weaponized grade.