Iran to have nukes in 3-8 years!

Its been stated by the U.N's nuclear watchdog that iran are going to be capable of having nukes in the next 3-8 years. The international atomic agency confirmed also that the Iranians uranium enrichment program is growing rapidly but the U.N's knowledge of their activities are shrinking.

What are their plans?

Link is here for you all: Iran nukes

Their plan? They seem to be actively trying to provoke a holy war in the mid east if not WWIII. Iran is the agressor.

And? So? Besides the 'big boys', India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel all have nukes. Not to mention any number of former Soviet blok countries (although they have all allegedly given them up). What's the big deal about Iran? And please don't parrot-back that tired 'they threatened to nuke Israel diatribe'. GWB has a HO for Iran, plain and simple. Just like Iraq before it. They're no threat to us or anyone else for that matter. They know, like all other countries that have nukes, should they decide to use or even shake one at another country they'll be glassed-over. End of story. Don't drink the koolaide kids.

I love when people claim that when someone trys to obtain a nuke that they intend to use it against someone. This is totaly untrue, think about it. We have about 5-8 countries who currently have nuclear weapons, and only one has used it on another country as a fast way to end a war.

So you tell me, do you think Iran is really planning on using a nuke if it obtained one? It would be obliterated the moment it used it by the entire west, with no one to help it. Iran wishes to protect itself from a country who wishes to nuke it. Nukes will never be used against another country who has a nuke, ever.

I actually think that no one should have nukes at all. Dissarm every country of nukes so that we will never have to worry about such a horrible thing. Not only do they cause massive damage, cause lasting effects.

-Reform America

They know, like all other countries that have nukes, should they decide to use or even shake one at another country they'll be glassed-over. End of story.

Except maybe you two are too young to remember the Iran Iraq war of 1987 ?

The mullahs sent battalions of teenaged boys. Schoolkids with AK-47s in suicide charges against the Iraqi troops. They were quite litterally sent on suicidal banzai charges over open ground against machine guns in WW1 fashion.

This from a country which embraces the Shia concept that it is glorious to die in holy Jihad.

Iran is a most dangerous blend of two forms of insanity... fanatical religious fervour and that other insanity, that believes in solving everything with war.

Unfortunately history proves that when monsters like this arise... Hitler was another, war IS the only solution.

Iran already has a Soviet era nuclear research reactor identical to one modified by North Korea to use highly enriched uranium (80%). North Korea has shared it's technology with Myanmar to help that country develop a nuclear weapons project.

In actual fact there is no need for Iran to build a new reactor at all. if it modifies it's existing reactor to become a Plutonium breeder, something it may have already done, then the timeline is about 5-6 years from when modification occured.

Two years to cool the irridated U235 fuel three years to cool the spent fuel rods and a short period to chemically precipitate Plutonium from the uranium waste.

EDIT: Hey Reform America, I personally agree that USA is a country in need of political reform. 30 years ago I was a passionate anti nuclear protester in New Zealand where I and a few hundred people like me turned around this country's attitudes to nuclear weapons.

The nuclear scenario is more complex than it was in the Regan era. Now you have irrational despotic regimes with nukes and all bets are off.

Personally and this is me speaking as a former anti nuclear protester, I think Netanz needs to be taken out by ICBM. That is how seriously I view the danger. The consequences of any action will be huge and WW3 is no joking matter, but letting Iran develop nuclear weapons is more dangerous still.

[edit on 24-5-2007 by sy.gunson]

Why would you want to be an agressor to an enemy who is so determined to win they'd send schoolkids on banzai missions?

Why does Iran want nukes in the first place? Who is there biggest threat in the area with nuclear weapons? Take away Israel's nukes publicly by force if necessary. The US would gain alot of ground amongst the "terrorists" and it would be a great first step towards fixing relations which have been so poorly handled.

Would Ahmenijad agree to a middle eastern anti-nuke pact?
Would Israel?

Of course this is using the assumption that nuclear intentions are the reason for conflict and not just the excuse.

I think the only reason that Iran wants nukes is so that they can protect themselves, just in case. They are obviously not going to plan on using a nuke as soon as they develop it because they know they wouldnt get away with it.

It almost seems like america is just trying to stop them from defending themselves. if other countries can have nukes then you cant stop others from having them.

Old enough to remember the Iran-Iraq. I'm old enough to remember the Cuban missle crisis. I lived through the Cold War. I'm fully trained in 'Duck-and-Cover'. I fully realize they're religious zealots. So is North Korea. So what? They would never have the opportunity to use a nuke.

It would be great if nukes simply didn't exist. It would be great if we could all just turn them in to a neutral agency that would destroy them. But the unfortunate reality is that we would never truly know if every one was turned-in. And there lies the rub. I'd personally rather Iran NOT have nukes. But the risks and ultimate costs associated with the USA going into (yet another) country are higher than not. As has been abundantly proved in Iraq, it only makes matters worse.

If we attack Iran's nuclear facilities it is widely understood that tactical nukes will be required to do the job. The international ramifications of our attacking them AND attacking them with nukes are massively unacceptable. We CANNOT afford to further compromise our world reputation and standing. It's simply not woirth it. Proclaiming openly that we will level every developed part of the country should Iran use or threaten to use a nuke would, despite this gung-ho religious zeal, be a major buzz-kill to their having nukes.

Appeasement does not work. That was tried in 1939.

If you keep giving ground to bullies in the end you find that the fight you have to fight is fiercer than had you made a stand in the begining.

I am not saying there are no consequences.

I am saying it is not true that by doing nothing that there will be no consequences either.

Ultimately the consequence of doing nothing will be greater than acting now. I have put my neck on the line enough times to fight for nuclear disarmament to have the right now to say there are times and circumstances when one has no choice but to fight.

In the Cold War the communists had sufficient grasp on reality to see the senselessness of all out nuclear war but these religious fanatics see no limit to their conduct with nuclear weapons. Al;l bets are off when you are dealing with a regime gripped by a psychotic religious fervour.

The unstability of the iranian president(and mullahs?)is fairly obvious."Wiping zionists off the map",kidnapping people in international waters,threatening wwIII?Are these the acts of a responsible regime?Would i feel safer knowing that iran had nukes and delivery systems?I dont think so....

[edit on 25-5-2007 by Xfile]

I'm surprised thet the time scale given out by the media has come down so much so quickly. I'll have to look at some old articles but i'm sure 5-6 months ago Iran wouldn't get the bomb for 15-20 years at least. And in subsiquent reports it now gone as low as 3 (to 8) years. Is that just the western news getting more info as time goes on, scaremongering? Mind you, I reckon Iran probably has a few nukes already from other sources, probably using them for R+D. If they did, they would not use them execpt in dire circumstances - untill they have the capability of makeing their own that is.

Originally posted by Reform America
I love when people claim that when someone trys to obtain a nuke that they intend to use it against someone. This is totaly untrue, think about it. We have about 5-8 countries who currently have nuclear weapons, and only one has used it on another country as a fast way to end a war.
-Reform America

I'm not too sure a 'fast way to end a war' was the only reason the US had for bombing Japan, sure that worked, but equally important was preventing subsiquent nukings by showing Russia they not only had the capability, but also the spuds to use the bomb, hence the cold war. Granted lives were saved ending the war a bit earlier, but Japan was beaten. I think more lives may of been saved by the fact that only one country has gone that far up to date.

I'm more worried about Israel and American Govt has nukes. They're freakn crazy they dont mind blowing our own citizens up. The enemy within..

Originally posted by jtma508
If we attack Iran's nuclear facilities it is widely understood that tactical nukes will be required to do the job. The international ramifications of our attacking them AND attacking them with nukes are massively unacceptable. We CANNOT afford to further compromise our world reputation and standing.

This is the most rational viewpoint I've seen on the matter.

Xfile,
"Would i feel safer knowing that iran had nukes and delivery systems?"

An Iran with nukes is an Iran that the US won't send troops into. There's not enough troops to go around at the moment anyway so either it will be a horrific bombing by air or conscription especially if China or Russia get peeved. Either way the idealogy of pre-emtive war is something which Bush should be impeached and jailed for.

sy.gunson,
"If you keep giving ground to bullies in the end you find that the fight you have to fight is fiercer than had you made a stand in the begining. "

I'm confused, which side are you on?