Iran's Military Nuclear Program Lasted Longer Than We Thought (thebulletin.org) 134
Lasrick writes: Two articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists analyze the IAEA's December 2nd report (PDF) on the possible military dimensions of Iran's nuclear program. Ariane Tabatabai goes into what the report did (and did not) reveal: "According to U.S. intelligence, Iran ceased its nuclear-weapon-related activities in 2003 and did not subsequently make a political decision to resume them. The IAEA report unsurprisingly indicates that Tehran did have a “coordinated” nuclear weapon development program until 2003. Iran further engaged in some activities after 2003 but these were not coordinated, according to the report." Harvard's Martin Malin summarizes key takeaways from the process: "[T]he report points out that, unfortunately, Iran has taken steps that make it more difficult for the country to put the past behind it."
Let them have their nukes (Score:1)
They are a better ally than Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Re: Let them have their nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
The Persian people? Absolutely. The militant theocracy actively supporting terrorism in at least 5 sovereign nations? Hell no.
Re: (Score:1)
"Militant Christian theocracies"? Name one country outside the Islamic world where you can be put to death for leaving the state religion. FAIL.
Re: (Score:1)
Just to inform you: that has nothing to do with theocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of critical thinking and lack of information are two different things. I'm not a in favor of Republicans and I'm not in the position to vote any of them. I do read a lot of things, and yeah, i didn't read enough about Obama. Or read the wrong things. We are not too different, though :)
Re: Let them have their nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
They had a functioning democracy. They were even on their way to decent women's rights and progressivism. However, Anglo-Persian Oil Company (British Petroleum) didn't like how they wanted to nationalize their oil fields. So the US staged a coupé, and installed a dictator. There was another revolution later ... and you get the idea.
> The militant theocracy actively supporting terrorism in at least 5 sovereign nations? Hell no.
Wait wait. Um...America is a semi-theocracy (in the sense conservatives have used religion to bolster pro-war agendas) and is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world! The US has the largest air force, squadrons of remote killing machines (predator drones) and ten active air craft carriers (the nations with the 2nd largest fleets of aircraft carriers all have 2 or less).
You know why Iran wants nuclear weapons? They're not weapons. No one can actually use them today (Mutually Assured Destruction; if two or more nuclear nations launched weapons, the devastation would be beyond measure). It's the same reason Pakistan has them. It's about power.
They're scared, and rightfully so. The US, UK et al has been meddling in their nation for decades. None of these countries want war. All they want is to defend themselves from the US, Russia, the EU and anyone else that wants to take from them again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Holy false equivalence, Batman!
You might want to read some history before going off on people.
The only thing you were right about is the word "coup". I hope that makes you feel better.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
SumDog is wrong about the coup in Iran. The Iranian Prime Minister was the one that overthrew the government. He dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, faked an election to try to legitimize his actions, and refused the power of the head of state to remove him as is the customary power of heads of state. The Shah fled. The US and UK restored the Shah, the rightful head of state, back to power.
Iran will use nuclear weapons to intimidate its neighbors (which are already terrified by Iran) and likely
Re: (Score:2)
"The Shah fled."
The "shah" put on the throne was an army flunky. He may have had some claim via dubious royal bloodlines but the reality is that he was a puppet dictator installed to keep US and UK interests happy and he did what he was told, whilst trousering large quantities of the GDP and ruthlessly suppressing opposition. (The religious nutjobs now decreasingly in "control" effectively got their training from his secret police, but despite appearances and foaming-at-the-mouth speeches from past leaders
Re: (Score:1)
You were going so well, and then then you had to throw in this piece of shit: building nuclear weapons to threaten others. Israel barely acknowledges having the weapons. It certainly doesn't threaten anyone with them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I was replying to this:
Fuck off, you putinbot. And that should be "coup", not coupé.
My point was that making critical observations regarding the behaviour of the US does not automatically make one a fan of Putin (or of anyone else for that matter).
As for the role of the US in the events of 1953 in Iran, that's pretty well documented. And I agree it was motivated by greed, and proved (as greed always does) to be extremely short-sighted.
As for the assertion that the US being a semi-theocracy, I agree that's an incorrect assertion.
You, however, make it clear that you do
Re: (Score:2)
If the best you can come up with is "lol", then you've already lost the argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Still can't come up with an actual counterargument, eh? But then, I wasn't really expecting you to. We're done.
Re: (Score:1)
We staged a two-door hardtop car? I'm confused as to why we would do that to Iran.
Or did you mean "coup"? No, the "é" isn't part of that word, though it does show you can use unicode, I suppose....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
America is a semi-theocracy
That has legalized abortion, pornography of many ilks, gay marriage, constitutionalized freedom of religion including no religion and regionalized polygamy and prostitution? Yeah. Keep talking about this theocracy you talk about. I'm not a religious person myself but this is bullshit. People like you won't be happy until you can jail a man for so much as saying god bless you at a sneeze. As for the conservatives using religion to bolster war? Cite. Fucking cite it from a
Re: (Score:2)
Where is polygamy legal in the US? That's a new one on me.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be recognised in law? No? Then, legally, it's not polygamy.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually it's basically a complete theocracy once you throw in the PC-fundamentalist SJWs and their cults of offence. Now get on your knees and repent your sins.
Re: Let them have their nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
Aw...those fluffy little Iranians wouldn't hurt anyone, they only want to protect themselves...from the women and children in Syria that Assad is busy killing with the Iranian lapdogs, Hezbollah, or the useful idiots from Iraq they've convinced to fight in Syria, or their own poor suckers they've sent there? Them are some ferocious women and children they're killing. Or those naughty Jews in Israel who never gave a flying rat's ass about Iran until Iran decided to care about Israel? Or is it the Big Bad Sunnis in Iraq they can use as a foil to re-kindle their centuries long theocratic war?
And how do you know the Iranians don't think they can use nukes? There's no deterrent unless you actually have plans to use the damn things.
Re: (Score:2)
"And how do you know the Iranians don't think they can use nukes?"
For starters: MOSSAD - yes, the Israeli secret service - issue a report in the mid 2000s stating that they Iranians already had more than enough enriched uranium onhard to build several dozen bombs and had shown no inclination whatsoever to actually do so.
Instead, Mossad reported that all of it had been sequestered for use in their civil nuclear reactor.
Quite simply: after 60 years of being screwed over by the west and by the russians for ev
Re: (Score:2)
To quote Newton:
Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
When we put pressure on any nation or group of people, they are going to push back. For a long time - since WWII or so - the US has been one of the main generators of hostile pressure on nations in the Middle East and elsewhere, in the pursuit of 'American Interests' (iow: the interests of big, American corporations; funny how the interests of the American people seem to have little significance). As I keep saying: We, in the West, have to stop producing the conditions in which terrorism flo
Re: (Score:2)
America is a semi-theocracy (in the sense conservatives have used religion to bolster pro-war agendas)
Any democracy is a "semi-theocracy" in the sense that they have religious voters.
Re: (Score:2)
They had a functioning democracy. They were even on their way to decent women's rights and progressivism. However, Anglo-Persian Oil Company (British Petroleum) didn't like how they wanted to nationalize their oil fields. So the US staged a coupé, and installed a dictator. There was another revolution later ... and you get the idea.
No, Iran didn't have a "functioning democracy." The Prime Minister overthrew the "functioning democracy." He dissolved parliament, was ruling by decree, and faked an election in which he received a higher percentage of votes than either Hitler or Stalin in an attempt to "legitimize" his actions. Even worse, he refused the power of the head of state, the Shah, to remove him as would any monarch in a constitutional monarchy. That is the "functioning democracy" that was "overthrown." The US and UK didn't
Re: (Score:2)
However, Anglo-Persian Oil Company (British Petroleum) didn't like how they wanted to nationalize their oil fields. So the US staged a coupé, and installed a dictator.
Close. It was Anglo-Iranian and they were 51% owned by the British.
It also wasn't a case of them "wanting" to nationalise their oil fields. They did so, amidst violent protests, they kicked British and Americans out of the country and basically brought the 4th largest oil producer in the world to a standstill.
The USA didn't install a sympathetic dictator for several years. It was relatively easy to do too since the entire country was economically crumbling under the weight of the British and American sancti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"ten active air craft carriers (the nations with the 2nd largest fleets of aircraft carriers all have 2 or less)."
That's 10 supercarriers. The US has a _lot_ more flat-tops than that (it has 8 active wasp-class USMC carriers alone, just retired 5 Tarawa class ones, 1 America class one (of 2) and is building more Wasps. Most other countries' aircraft carriers are the same size as USA marine flattops which is why I'm using them for comparison)
The UK's 2 supercarriers are likely to be useless as they're oil-f
Re: (Score:2)
You know, thirty years ago people were saying the exact same thing about Soviet submarines and missiles. Of course, that was never tested.
Re: (Score:1)
Liberals are easy to manipulate, they're foolish and eager to stroke their own ego's. Their arrogance will be their downfall.
The Soviets even had a term for them: "Useful Idiots".
Re: (Score:1)
There will never be a rainbow-unicorn-we're-all-one world, ever, especially with Islamic radicals.
You'd better fucking hope there is, otherwise the Human Race won't be around much longer, we'll find some creative way to fuck everything up so bad that nothing can live on this planet anymore. Meanwhile fix your shitty attitude, you're not helping.
Re: (Score:1)
The lyrics to Guns 'n Roses' song, Civil War, come to mind. This is long but relevant:
"What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men."
Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before
Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before
My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars
Read the Rest [google.com]
It's actually worth reading the rest of the lyrics, they're not bad. I actually still enjoy the song today. I know, I know... It's GnR, you're not supposed to like them but I do.
Re: It did NOT last longer than I thought... (Score:2)
And who now thinks they've abandoned all capability before there's a non-aggression pact with the USG (which does not invade countries with nuclear capability)? It's not that history is predictable so much as humans respond to incentives.
Until 2003? (Score:5, Insightful)
People are still dumb enough to believe Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program?
Well, it's not "military" any more. (Score:4, Informative)
Which means that the scientists report to a guy in regular clothes instead of a military uniform.
Re: (Score:3)
Are people still dumb enough believe they can force anyone to abandon nuclear weapons research or that's even what was agreed to. They can research all they can, just at this time by agreement, they can not attempt to manufacture. So no nationwide threat of death for thought crimes, nobody agreed to it, nor would it be allowed. Before the US can say much more, they should start reducing the number of their weapons of mass destruction, as well as the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in foreign coun
Re: (Score:2)
Many us bases actually are closed. the USA is constantly closing bases, and let's look at Japan, which had the real USA occupation force in it.
In 50 years japan went from an aggressive industrial country to pacifists the USA military occupation allowed japan to focus their resources not on military but on infrastructure, and production. allowing japanese companies to grow at massive rates.
Actual us military occupation boosts the local country. what normally happens is a partial occupation where we try to
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Are people still dumb enough believe they can force anyone to abandon nuclear weapons research or that's even what was agreed to.
Why not? It's happened [bbc.co.uk] before [wikipedia.org]. It's clear that Iran's nuclear weapon program can be stopped, the only question is at what cost.
Re: (Score:1)
People are still dumb enough to believe Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program?
Stating that simple fact could get you mod bombed for the last decade on Slashdot.
Rights (Score:1)
Payback is a bitch. The USA stopped Democracy in the Middle East. [wikipedia.org]
You know, as I see the USA's real-politics (realpolitik) explode in our faces, our Middle East presence all for oil and nothing but for oil explode in our faces, I just have to wonder, wasn't there any hint of empathy when these policies were enacted?
None. Jimmy Carter in 1980 expressed the Carter Doctrine [wikipedia.org] and every President since then used it.
I'm in Georgia and if it weren't for the SS - Secret Service - I'd give ex-President Jimmy Carter
Re: (Score:3)
You're right, you're not getting any benefit. The US gets only a very tiny amount of oil from the Middle East. We get it from North and South America, mostly - actually by a huge margin. I don't recall the number but I think it's a single digit percentage of our oil comes from the Middle East the last time I looked.
Hmm... In 2012 NPR had it at about 12% but it's gone down since then as we've ramped up our production and Canada's sending us millions of barrels as they've ramped up too.
http://www.npr.org/2012 [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Um....the oil market is a Market, hence the name. Shut off mideast oil and watch how high the price goes.
Re: (Score:2)
US crude oil has an export ban. Crude oil is worth $5 less on the US market than the international market. Shut off mideast oil and Russia and Venezuela get a giant windfall, and US prices only spike 25% as much as everybody else because there is an international glut caused by Saudi Arabia flooding the market. Current oversupply, designed to shoulder out US producers, would have the opposite effect if the Saudis bumbled and flip-flopped and cut production after creating a surplus.
Canada and Mexico battle f
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be actual democracy or more along the lines of "this is the way we seize power" kind of democracy? I'm not sure that anyone in the mid-east (except for the Israelis) has any idea what that term means (democracy).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No. Children are collateral damage.
That's at least how it is for civilized countries. For countries that engage in and support terrorism, killing children is the objective. It's not just a mistake that doesn't serve the mission goals.
Although "children" can certainly be combatants. The idea that they can't ever be combatants is just vanity of pampered rich Westerners that can't relate to conditions in the rest of the world.
Re: The REAL question waiting to be answered: (Score:2)
Re:The REAL question waiting to be answered: (Score:4, Informative)
Then you are a fool with no knowledge of history. The US lives for war, they have been at war for almost the entire time they existed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's it asshole, play the man not the ball.
Re: (Score:1)
To be fair, the vast majority of that was on (allegedly) US soil against indigenous people. The United States has managed to stay out of foreign conflicts for most of its history.
People forget how hard it was to convince Americans to get involved in WW1. Of course, it all went downhill from there.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, my wording was a little unclear, but it's still true that the US has spent most of its history not involved in foreign conflicts. Let's go through a few of these...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not a foreign conflict.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not a foreign conflict.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Arguably not a foreign conflict, but we'll grant it for the sake of argument. One ship was involved, and the total duration was a few weeks.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
This one is open to interpretation. In one sense, the United States was not involved in the Second Opium War. It was not allied with either side, and took no
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is in the entire time since the formation of the US you have been at war with somebody for all but 16 years.
They are all foreign wars when you attack another country.
Re: (Score:2)
Attempting to indict the United States of intentionally killing schoolchildren in foreign countries
Strawman much?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't care, I would trust Iran far ahead of the US, you only have to look at recent history to see who the violent aggressive greedy money grabbers are, and it ain't Iran.
Re: The REAL question waiting to be answered: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you only have to look at recent history to see who the violent aggressive greedy money grabbers are, and it ain't Iran.
Well, my first thought was China invading the Marshall Islands to attempt to claim their neighbors' natural gas fields, but then I remembered Russia stealing Crimea and soon a quarter of Ukraine.
Iran falls far behind in the money-grabbing category, mostly due to a lack of ability. They certainly have opportunity; contrast the investment and technological progress that Saudi Arabia has made with their oil money, to the vast Iranian cities of mud-block apartments and tens of thousands of dead from even a mode
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
So where do you think I've got this wrong? Perhaps the problem is simply that you are living up to your handle?
Re: (Score:2)
Has Iran really finally given up on building a nuclear bomb (with which to attack Israel), or have they just moved it to some cave somewhere nobody has found yet,
The way I've heard it said: "If Iran doesn't have a secret nuclear facility, it will be the first time in decades."
That doesn't mean we should invade them, just be aware of the facts.
Re: (Score:2)
Know the real reason they're allowing Iran to sign a treaty? It's called 'giving them enough rope to hang themselves': If they abide by the terms of the treaty, then great, everybody wins, and the average Iranian citizen has time to fix the leadership problems in their own country; if they don't abide by the treaty, then we can throw up our hands and s
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what post you're butthurt about, but your mod-whine sure sounds troll-y to me. He hurt you bad enough for you to cry in front of your friends, so you should at least give him that much credit.
BTW, what you describe is not a "enough rope to hang themselves" situation, even though you label it as such. Lacking in your scenario is anything equivalent to a rope, or accidentally hanging themselves. If they abide by the agreement... then that is quite simply abiding the agreement. And if they don't,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't completely agree with you, obviously; of course there is the ostenisble, 'public' reason for the treaty; it's us extending an olive branch. I speak of the behind-the-scenes motivation, which is exactly as I stated: We give them a chance to abide by it and give up, permanently, the path they were set on (nuking Israel and who knows who else), and they get to re-join the rest of the world. They just use it as a way to buy time to complete th
Re: (Score:2)
Then nobody else in the world, or at least nobody that matters, will say a single word when we proceed to bomb them back into the stone age.
Except Russia. They matter, sadly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would trust there's an intelligence agency that's highly functional with the "real data", and tends to have very successful executions.
The same people that did Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There's better eyes and ears than ours (as far as that threat is concerned).
"According to U.S. intelligence... (Score:1)
...Iraq had WMD and the US had to invade them.
...the NSA did not collect any information on Americans.
...the Paris terrorists were using crypto to avoid surveilance, only thanks to Snowden. (even though they also said that in 2001, and Bin Laden, they were using crypto to avoid surveilance)
That's why I only believe US intelligence when the information was stolen.
Any country interested in nuc power... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only they worked. Thorium reactors are just a wet dream of pro nuke types. Never going to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Blow thorium reactors out your ass, they won't work.
Manufactured Crisis (Score:1)
For anyone interested in this topic there's a great book by investigative journalist Gareth Porter that details the whole saga: Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare [amazon.com]
It should be pointed out that the evidence which both the US intelligence estimate and the IAEA rely on to determine that there was an Iranian nuclear weapons program prior to 2003 is the so-called "laptop documents" which are fairly clearly forged but for which there are political reasons to ignore that fact.
These fo
Re: (Score:1)
Correction: the mention of the Gulf War should in fact be to Operation Desert Fox.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm unaware of an Operation Desert Fox as part of a Gulf War. Sure you're not confusing code names with the nickname of Rommel, one of Germany's more well-known commanders in WWII?
Re: (Score:1)
Here's an interview [scotthorton.org] with Gareth Porter on the IAEA's report.