Iran soon?
 

You got to be kidding me? Nuclear weapons against Iran? Do you want to turn the Middle East and maybe North Korea on us. Why don't we use the CIA to destroy the plant...we spend enough money on them. Even without the nuclear option...this is still crazy. Where are we going get these troops from? The army is stretched to the limited as it is...and a draft won't happen. This government just makes less and less sense.

They won't invade Iran, its just too much of a sticky situation. The people won't rise up, and the American and world public will never let it happen. People are furious now that the US can't control Iraq, and it has 1/3 the people.

It's just planning, the US can't and won't act upon it. Congress would never approve it, nor would any other world government go along with it.

This looks to me like nothing other than generic strategic planning that has been going on since the invention of warfare. I think the reporter, and the anonymous source, are seriously overinflating what is probably going on, which is just basic hypothetical scenario considerations.
I guarantee you similar things have been looked at in regards to China, Russia, France, and every other even remotely powerful nation in the world.

Ah, sensationalism at its best I see. They must be running out of good stuff to report.

Gee, looks like there'll have to be another terrorist attack on US soil before something like this happens...

Whoops, I'm letting out government sekrits.

Germany has far more to worry about Iran getting nukes than the US does.

I like how my posts always get deleted if you're replying to them, Gumby. This is the second time it happend. If an admin/moderator did this, I'd appreciate if they could contact me. I was just being cynical.

Also, you have to worry if you want to worry. I'm not afraid of nukes. Call me naive, but I just don't buy into this worldwide war on terrorism crap. It's totally exaggerated and blown out of proportion by politicians who like to use their people's fears for their personal agenda.

Please enlighten us on how the fuck attacking Iran is a personal agenda?

Also, I agree with Fjordor, not that anyone is going to read his post and actually listen to it.

I wasn't speaking of Iran in particular, but the "war on terrorism", which clearly is an agenda.

I forgot Bush is the only one who didn't like terrorists.

Gee thanks, you give me so much credit. ;_;

True, I'm pretty sure we've all heard the stories/rumors of the US's ability to orchestrate an invasion of any country on earth...Of course, whether thats true or not is a different issue. I agree with you on that though.

Iran is a threat not to the US, but US interests in the Gulf. It having a modernized military capable of acting rapidly and inserting itself into the Gulf region would paralyze global oil markets and the world economy. Iranian missile tests of extremely fast torpedos capable of sinking full warships and long range missiles only add more worry.

The Iranian military is developing into a fairly powerful force and is becoming very self reliant. The US is worried that if it becomes too strong, it will take advantage of the situation and act swiftly and powerfully enough that by the time the US is capable of retaliating, it would be too late. It's the exact same policy the Chinese are employing with Taiwan - be able to strike and destroy so rapidly that a response would be too little too late.


The only people with a legitament fear of Iranian nukes are the Gulf states. Iran wouldn't use one on Israel since that basically ensures their own destruction, however the Gulf states don't have such a weapon to retaliate, and the US wouldn't be too keen on doing it for them either.

Why would the Gulf states have the most to fear? I was under the impression that Iran's hostile intentions are directed to the Western nations.

And they consider Gulf states to be American stooges. Plus, they can't exactly attack US soil.

In general, Gulf states don't get along with Iran for a very simply reason. The Arab world basically has four power poles - Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. Each nation has its region of influence. Egypt has some of north Africa, Syria has Lebanon, Saudi Arabia has all the Gulf states and Jordan to an extent, and Iran is a power on its own and a Shia factor.

The Saudi's and the Iranians in particular do not get along well at all, ever since Ayatollah Khomeni came to power. On the surface they appear friendly, but they engage in skirmishes every once in a while and throw insults bashing the other side. They would both relish the chance to see the other regieme non-existent. The thing is, Iran is just too large for the Saudi Army to deal with in an offensive war, and Saudi is too large for Iran to deal with as well. A nuclear weapon however means one side can basically wipe out the major cities and gain a huge advantage. In particular, a strike on Prince Sultan Airbase, the King Khalid Military City, and one of the three major cities would completely cripple the countries ability to defend itself and cause it to keel over to an Iranian attack.

Okay dude umm see that's a pretty amazing statement! I want to tell you why: First of all, it's not like Germany is Iran's direct neighbor, so if you mean that Germany should worry more because it's closer to Iran than the US, then I have to tell you that it probably will take another 100 years until Iran is able to develop weapon systems with a range that could actually cause Germany to start worrying.

Second: Germany used to be ruled by a anti-semitic dictator called Adolf Hitler. That still impresses those guys down there.

And if you really think that Iran (and that's the same with North Korea) would start dropping atomic weapons on other countries, then you're fucking pathetic.

This may just be my ignorance, but who exactly are the AFP? They claim to be a worldwide news agency (and are the [sole] source of this article), but I've never heard of them. It's entirely likely I've just missed them for a few years, but are they reliable? I usually stick to the AP and the other major networks (BBC, CNN, MSNBC, Fox) myself. With how many people on both sides of the political fence are extremely angry with Bush right now, I doubt that he'd dare use nukes. That's just ASKING for an impeachment right there.

The Washington Post/MSNBC article about the topic, for instance, makes no mention of tactical nukes and suggests that the attack is not imminent.

According to their website the AFP is : Found here

AFP would likely ring more bells if it were referred to as Agence France-Presse.

Which makes it a threat to the US, dummy. Just because a country can't invade you or attack your home soil doesn't mean it isn't a threat.

There are some that don't consider a diminished base of power, and attacking the actual country to be the same kind of threat.

Yeah there would be a significant reduction in the US's economic power (and it would trickle down to other areas) if they lost support in the Gulf. But some don't see that the same as attacking America.

Being deprived of a thing does not (to some people's POV) constitute a threat. And (to some) does not come close to constituting an attack. Of course this would just get back into the debate about whether it's right to kill for money, and that's one that never goes anywhere.

Wanna know what the beautiful irony of this whole situation is? Guess which country is the only one that's ever actually used a weapon of mass destruction on civilians (hint -- it was about 60 years ago)

You mean the British bombing holocaust on Dresden in 1944?

lol WMDs doesn't always mean nukes, Casual_Otaku.

Not to downplay the incident, but a fuck-tonne of conventional bombs does not meet what is generally considered a 'weapon of mass destruction'.


lol nukes are ok because other WMDs are out there too.

I think mass destruction is equally weighted, whether it is done by a single weapon or otherwise. It's not the weapon that's scary - it's the mass destruction.

Well Tactical Nukes for example aren't really WMDs in the normal sense either.

Wikipedia on WMD

The Golden Horde flinging bubonic plague-infected corpses at Caffa in 1347 isn't about 60 years ago, and even then likely wasn't the first.

Speaking of the plague, the Japanese employed it against Chinese civilians, among other things.

Uh no. Why do you think France and Germany are supporting the US when Bush' administration talks about attacking Iran when they were insanely against attacking Iraq? Because they are now at risk.

This is forward planning being blown far out proportion. I'm sure you could find American plans to annex Canada locked up somewhere or Russian plans to invade some ex-Soviet republics. It's what forward planners are paid to do.

No, they are worried as well as the US about the stability of global markets and their interests in the Gulf. A threat to US/French/German interests does not mean its a threat to the actual countries, and even a complete end to oil exports from the Gulf would not doom the world economy, even though it would be a extreme setback.

Dresden had it coming just like Köln/Cologne, Hamburg, Kiel... You don't start / cheer on a dictator who starts an all out war with your neighbors, invade, destroy and terroize them and then expect retaliation to be all Geneva Conventions and what not.
Just the other week I was among the crowd that blocked a neo-nazi "memorial" march from entering the inner city of Lubeck. Sure, Lubeck was bombed by the British during WWII (that was the occasion alleged by those skinheaded clowns) but so was Coventry, just to name a city in England that was literally wiped from the map.

Agreed. International affairs of the world's so-called super powers always make me picture an angry kid whose lolipop was stolen.

Bush has just dismissed this as wild speculation. While I doubt hes being completely truthful, I think the issue has been successfully resolved.

Is there something I'm missing there ?

It could be April 17 of last year.

Or maybe it's EXTREMELY forward planning, like to the next level!

Perhaps they just ship some early.
I get my issues of Discover Magazine and Popular Science literally one month in advance. For example, in February, we got the March issues.

At first, I thought it was Syria that would be next on the list, but perhaps I was wrong.

It'll probably happen. I thought it was funny to hear today that one of the people who actually HEARD the plans from the higher-ups themselves said, "I had to ask them what they were smoking."

However, bombing the problem is not the solution. We don't need democracy in Iran. I'll take my chances with the current President Mahmoud or the Ayatollah than I would with anything America has to offer. It's not the US's job to go hunting for bombs. It's the UN's.

And on that note, if the US does strike Iran, we need to be kicked out of the UN and not let back in until reparations are paid. Not only would it be a violation of International Law, but it would be despised by most of the world (save for maybe Britain, France, Italy, and of course, Israel). Kicking the US out of the UN might not be the most feasible solution, but the UN needs to grow some balls anyway.

Well, it would be an interesting thing indeed, not the most fortunate of events, but interesting nevertheless. I personally don't think it will happen simply because it would cause a major wave of dissent not only in America but all around the world. Most of these countries see America as an aggressive state trying to push democracy on them, and any study of human emotions will reveal that anger is the direct result of pushing, both on a smaller and a larger scale. They don't care if maybe democracy is a generally good system of government, all they see is violence and the supposed "conquering" of their countries and believe that we are no better than a totalitarian, fascist, or communist regime. Makes no difference what the ideals are. It would be terribly unfortunate to see this pushed even further by either side of the fight, but something will certainly have to happen.

April 17th issue just means they are disclosing what they intend to show in it in advance. It's common for publications to do that, and indeed ship early as well.

That said, it just seems like common military planning. I highly doubt theres an active effort currently going on to find a way to launch an invasion.

As much as some people would like to see it happen, and as much of a threat Iran is right now, I have to say that it won't. Bush is just teetering on the edge of being a lame duck president right now, and proposing a war in Iran when the public sees Iraq as a gigantic quagmire (regardless of whether you think it is or not, the fact is that the majority of people think that Iraq was a mistake) would be political suicide.

Agreed, for the most part.

That would be a very interesting situation if the US were kicked out of the UN. It is a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto power. Plus, if expulsion require a Security Council vote, then it would never happen, because the US could either veto itself, or failing that, persuade one of the other members (most likely Britain) to veto it. Plus, assuming that the US were kicked out, I would be especially curious as to how the government would react, especially considering that the UN is hosted on U.S. soil. And if it were let in again, would it still retain its position on the Security Council?

Interesting points. I didn't think about some of those points, especially about the UN being hosted in NY. That's why I think the UN HQ should move to Switzerland :). Then we wouldn't have to worry about that. The government would more than likely be shocked. Expulsion from the UN shouldn't even have to be voted on by the Security Council though if it is direct violation of an International Treaty. If anything, it should be the World Court that handles that.

The US controls 25% of the world economy and is a sole superpower. Kicking it out of the UN destroys the UN. The US is the worlds only country capable of acting in many situations, and as has been said before - theres only one thing worse than Washington in power, and thats Washington not in power. Whether you like it or not, the US is a stabilizing force in the world, and kicking it out of the UN destroys the body and has huge ramifications.

Besides, no current veto country would accept it. Besides Britain, China, France, and Russia all want the US there. Thinking that UN ejection is even a remote possibility is actually pretty idiotic, for there are so many factors involved in the US's current power. And despite how shaky relations always seem to be with France and Germany, don't forget that they are still three of the worlds closest allies by any standard.

I can only offer the German perspective, but relations were anything but shaky until Bush went over the UN Security Council and invaded Iraq. That one was a killer on many levels.

The UN is dependent on the US for its teeth. Much of UN finances come from the US as well.

Anyway this ploy is just another tactical strategy by the US government to threaten Iran from pursuing nuclear development. I doubt that US will be attacking Iran anytime soon considering they're still tied up over Iraq.

I sure as hell hope you're right. It really bothers me how in George Washington's farewell speech, he specifically said to any future presidents of America something along the lines of "Do your best to remain neutral in world affairs."

Now here we are, the most imperialist country in the world!

As the worlds sole superpower, thats not an option. It ceased being an option after 1945. However, there is a difference between acting in world affairs and being imperialistic. The US needs to act to diffuse conflict and enforce international law in some ways since not doing so would result in flagrant violations. However, invading other countries is a different issue.

Agreed, though I'd argue that China could be called a superpower as well while it messes a lot less with world affairs.

Messing with world affairs isn't one of the criteria for being a superpower.

It's just something a superpower usually does, because it is a superpower. Not the other way around

Keep in mind that at the time, the U.S. was little more than an illegitimate country that had just revolted against Britain. They won the war only because the French arrived at the nick of time and assisted in a vital battle. The U.S. at the time was essentially friendless (except for France), powerless, and defenseless. If they had gotten themselves involved with world affairs at that point, they would have likely been on the receiving end of an invasion and swift defeat.

Styphon coming in and verbally owning me in history occurring in 3... 2... 1...

Good call!

To call the U.S. an illegitimate country that had just rebelled against Britain is inaccurate, since when Washington left the Presidency, the Revolutionary War had been over for 14 years. The nations of the world acknowledged it during that time, including Great Britain, making it legitimate.

Your statement about the U.S. being friendless (save France), powerless and defenseless is also inaccurate in its totality. During Washington and Adams' administrations, the United States and France became increasingly hostile to each other, and more pro-Britain. Towards the end of Adams' administration, in fact, there U.S. fought an undeclared naval war with France. Which the U.S. won. Within a few years, the United States was able to sustain a war in the Mediterranean against the Barbary Pirates. Granted, it wasn't a major war, like the ones being waged in Europe at the same time, but that's still far from home. Powerless countries can't do that.

Stoob's quotation of Washington is also inaccurate. Washington wasn't advocating neutrality, he was advocating not entering "permanent" or "entangling" alliances with other countries. He was all for temporary alliances that served a particular need should one arise, but a permanent alliance would tie the U.S. to other nations, which might become detremental to the U.S. later (as in the case with the alliance with France). His idea was not to promote American isolation from the world, but to let the United States "act for ourselves and not for others." (The next time the U.S. signed a treaty of alliance was 1949.)

Besides, it isn't as if neutrality and imperialism can't co-exist. For most of the Victorian Era, Great Britain remained largely neutral in European affairs, but during that same time, the British Empire expanded to cover 2/5 of the world's land area.

Superpower in the general regard refers to the overwhelming might politically, economically, and militarily. Politically, the nation must have a system which it can export and can survive (ie. Communism or Democracy), it must have an economy capable of dwarfing all other countries (ie. Socialist or Capitalist), and it must have a military capable of projecting its forces in land, sea, and air.

In this regard, China fails all three categories. Part of its peaceful rise policy means that it doesn't export its government system unlike the Soviet Union did, and China's sphere of influence basically encompases Mongolia, the DPRK, Myanmar, and Cambodia. Nowhere near the breadth of America's, which ecompases the Gulf oil nations, India, the rest of Southeast Easia, Western Europe, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.

It does not have an economy even close to rivaling the US. It's GDP in nominal terms is less than 2 trillion USD, less than Germany, Japan, and not much more at all than France, the UK, and Italy. The US economy on the other hand clocks in around 12 trillion USD.

Militarily, China is on the rise, but again, fails miserably. It's nuclear arsenal is its only projection ability. It's navy is far less capable than the British, Japanese, or French navies, and those three navies hardly even come close to rivaling the US. It possess no air projection capacity and thus does not have the infastructure to initiate an invasion of a nation half way around the world, or even far beyond its Western border (Tibet).

So no, I wouldn't consider China a superpower. It's definately on the rise and eventually, it likely will garner the name. But now, definately not.

It sucks that there is the idea of a nuclear strike, even if as a bunk-buster, going through some people's minds.

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

What is somewhat comforting though is that some officers would resign if the option were used. I can't imagine public opinion ever supporting this either though, so at least it would be okay there as well.

Never accept that idea. Challenge Styphon and others who know a lot (ie, Night Phoenix as well) or you'll never learn much. Having to figure out how to retort is better than just studying what they say. Thats just my opinion though.

China can have their say in world affairs through the UN or whatnot, but being able to act independently on these affairs is totally another matter. Thats what seperates a superpower, to say a reigonal power, which is probably what China is right now.

Very good idea. Styphon's owned me in history so many times that it's practically an inevitability by now.

Honestly, I have NO clue why I talk about history outside of pure masochism. That, and a futile hope that ONE DAY I WILL BEAT LORD STYPHON IN A HISTORY DEBATE. ;_;

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kenya, Brazil, Thailand, Australia, South Africa, Japan and South Korea, Morrocco, Argentina, etc.

They're all regional powers. I don't see any of them becoming world superpowers like China. Japan is already at its high and likely won't get much more powerful, and Brazil has the chance to rise, but it won't become a US or anything.

Regional powers are still very much alive and will survive, its not coming to an end really.

There is actually still quite a difference between a reigonal power and a world power. With reigonal powers you can get away with only a brown-water/littoral navy. But in order to be a world power you'll need a blue-water navy. In addition you will need the means to project your power, done through America's some 12 aircraft carriers (not counting Marine carriers). We can simply park a carrier battle group off the coast of a nation and we'll instantly have a powerful naval and aerial presence in the area, which is more then enough to sway events in the reigon to our favor. Even after that you will need to have the means to sustain such a presence at any point in the world. Currently only the US has the capabilities to fullfill all of the above, thus the world's only world power.

>.< I addressed the entire thing on page two.


Also, theres a difference between a world power and a superpower in some regards. You talked about the military aspect, although remember, military power is a difficult area. For example, the French and British both have remarkably powerful navies. No rivals of the US, but the French can still stick a CBG almost anywhere relatively quickly. The Charles De Gaulle is a formidable force. In addition, France has a formiddable strategic bomber force, nuclear force, and strong air dogfight capabilities. Yet, its not a superpower.

Distinctions are a bitch sometimes, aren't they?

But hey, it's France. ;)

I do understand what you're saying and agree, though. Just couldn't resist throwing in a jab at France for their military history.

Well, the French, British, Russians, and Americans are probably the four most liberally minded when it comes to using their militaries nowdays. The French certainly don't hesitate when it comes to dealing with their former colonies and civil wars (read: Ivory Coast).

Provided of course that the carrier works as intended once the carrier reaches its hotspot. There is a good reason why the French are considering to buy their next carrier from England instead of building it on their own.

I remember reading somewhere that the de Gaulle is actually slower than the carrier it replaced, the Foch. Of course its still quite fast, relative to slower than Foch ships.

However you are right about my word choice, should've used "Super power" instead.

Thats in general because the French have severe difficulties with all things nuclear it seems. They're nuclear deterrent (Force de Frappe) was and is the same bungled, absurdily expensive mess that the Chales De Gaulle is. Compared to the British version that is, which relies heavily on US designs such as the Trident missile.

Probably, its a pretty large ship. Although if theres a zone thats about to go hot, you usually have a few days/weeks notice to move there at least. Point taken though.

I will commend the French though, the Charles De Gaulle remains the most capable carrier outside of the US Navy, in which the Nimitz decimate almost anything else.

Its the massive nuclear clusterfucks like France has that seperates the real superpowers from the wanna-be superpowers, barring all other qualifications for superpower-dom.

That I must agree with you, or at least until Britian finishes their new full-sized carriers.

Military nerds are so funny.

~

What about the claims that Iran HAS finished enrichment of Uranium? True/False/Dream?

As far as I understand - enriched uranium is just one of the many steps required to produce a working atomic weapon. Through the use of various pieces of equipment, you seperate the U235 (middle weight isotope) from the mined uranium, usually by gaseous diffusion (uranium tetra-chloride), or centrifuges (iran is using the latter iirc).

Even though this is a major step - they are still far away from creating a working weapon - they still have to deal with obtaining the right weights for a critical mass, and perfecting the timers and explosives to the accuracy needed to acheive that critical mass. etc...

Just because they have a long way to go doesn't mean there is anything standing in their way.

If I recall correctly, gaseous diffusion isn't being used anymore, unless the plants are already built. It's inefficient when compared to centrifuges or other somewhat still experimental methods.

Sadly enough, this is not entirely true. What Iran has is enriched uranium, not the usual plutonium which can be produced using U238, in very large quantities. This might look like a good thing, as less material means less bombs, but there are other differences between Pu239 and U235. I explain those in the next paragraph, skip it if you want, it's not absolutely necessary.

(During the production of Pu239 through neutron absorption in a nuclear reactor, a whole load of different nuclear reactions take place in the fuel. You have the fission of U235 itself, used to produce energy, but you have impurities in the fuel which might be tranformed into other elements, or even a minority of "unusual" reactions in the U238, U235 or Pu239. One element resulting of those reaction is a rather uncommon isotope of uranium or plutonium, I can't remember which. I *think* it's Pu240, doesn't really matter. Anyway, that isotope has a somewhat low half-life, meaning it's likely to desintegrate and release a number of products, including neutrons. Neutrons happen to be what is used to split U235 or Pu239 atoms in an atomic bomb. The process is essentially this, you'll have different masses coming together, forming a supercritical mass, meaning more neutrons are produced than lost, leading to a chain reaction. The longer the masses stay together, the more energy you'll have time to release. If the masses do not stay supercritical for long enough, the bomb will fail to work correctly. Now, the thing is, the neutrons liberated by the Pu240 are enough to make the reaction begin much sooner, when the masses are not completely together, or right after they've touched. Enough energy will be generated to separate the masses, but not much else. In the end, the bomb will fizzle out.)

Now, what this means is that to use Pu239 you need to have a much greater force holding the masses of fissile material at first. Those found in an implosion-type device are enough. Those in a gun-type device are not. However, U235 does not have this same problem, meaning a gun-type device will work with U235. And gun-type devices are a whole lot simpler than implosion-type devices. First of all, there's no need to worry about explosion timing, no need to worry about explosive lenses used to focus shockwaves at particular points and all the calculations that follow. Second, the masses of fissile materials don't have to be made as precisely. Figuring out how much you need isn't the toughest thing ever. There are calculations to be made, of course, but they're not complex when compared to other things you encounter in physics or engineering.

This is somewhat similar to the path South Africa followed. They want to get a bomb, any bomb. It doesn't matter if it's inefficient and that they can't make it into an H-bomb afterwards. And they want it soon. Of course, there are other circumstances; unlike North Korea, Iran doesn't have a reprocessing plant or any other source of plutonium, and they're not building an arsenal capable of destroying the US, as the USSR was, so they have no reason NOT to make a gun-type device if they want a bomb.

I have a question, you may be able to answer it.

What is between ANY country and the building of a nuclear weapon, really? The technology CANNOT be that tough - the US got it right many many years ago.

Isn't there like tons of literature on it too?

Depends.

First of all, there isn't much litterature on nuclear weapons per se. Not technical litterature anyway, meaning you can have a good idea as to how a bomb works, but you won't necessarily have any idea how to make all the calculations. However, a large number of physicists have pretty much all the knowledge you need, so it's possible to fill the holes. For an H-bomb, then it's a whole different matter. Even the non-technical litterature is somewhat scarce. The basic principle is somewhat simple, but the actual "implementation" is harder.

As for what stands between a country and nuclear weapons, it depends on the country. One of the things is secrecy. Quite often, you don't want to tell the world you're making a bomb. If you're a somewhat powerful country, think G7 member, then it's likely easier for you as you already have a large nuclear industry which you can use as a cover for your activities. If you're a smaller country, then anything large is likely to be noticed by someone. Even if you're a walled hell-hole like North Korea, it'll be noticed. That means you're restricted in what you purchase and the size of your program.

Now, secrecy wouldn't be as much of a problem if not for what is essentially the biggest obstacle: obtaining fissile material suitable for bomb construction. Here, you have two options: Highly enriched uranium 235 or plutonium 239. Both have advantages, both have drawbacks. Though in both cases, you'll need large-scale facilities to do the processing. That's one of the biggest challenge. I assume here that no black market for such materials exist, and I think it's fairly safe to assume so (though if there is, any seller is welcome to PM me for offers...). The size of the facilities themselves are one issue, but the actual equipment you need is probably even worse. First, it's expensive. Not much of an issue if you don't mind starving your people to the death, though. Second, it's restricted. Unless you already have a nuclear industry, or are building a large one from scratch, people will wonder why you need those 800 separation centrifuges. There's no reason for you to enrich your own fuel, it doesn't make sense if you have one nuclear plant. Same goes if you choose plutonium instead of uranium; it doesn't make sense for you to have a reprocessing plant for your one nuclear plant. You could try to make the equipment locally, or even develop new methods specifically geared to produce a small amount of material of bomb-grade material, which I think is what Saddam did in the 80s. Or attempted, anyway. But the equipment we're talking about is often quite complex and you'll still need some high-grade material from other countries. Something else you need to add if you don't have a local uranium source is importing the actual ore, which might arouse suspicion too.

Then you have the IAEA and the like. Since you probably can't conceal your facilities, you might decide you want to try to conduct your enrichment or reprocessing in broad daylight and camouflage the whole thing as a civilian operation. For reprocessing, it's somewhat difficult to judge what you'll do with the plutonium you extract, so you shouldn't have much trouble. But the simple fact you built the plant in the first place means everyone know you're full of shit, unless you already have a real nuclear industry. If that is the case, then you're likely going to be able to proceed to the next step. If instead you build an enrichment plant for uranium, then your concerns are different. If you don't have a nuclear industry, then people know you're full of shit. If you do have a nuclear industry, or are building one, then you have yet another problem. Typical civilian fuel is 20% U235. For a bomb, you need at the very least 90%. Whether you obtain one or the other depends on how you configure your centrifuges. Feed the output of each centrifuge in the next until you reach the last and you get a small amount of bomb material. Make 5 centrifuge groups in the same way and run those in parallel and you get a large amount of civilian-grade material. But the problem is, the people inspecting your enrichment plant will know what you're doing. If you throw them out, then you're back at square one, since you wanted to camouflage your operation, except now everyone suspects you.

You got fissile material? Good! Now it's time to make the bomb. If you managed to get uranium, then you might actually be able to make a bomb easily enough, as I've said in my previous post. Congratulation. If you got plutonium, then your physicists will have fun with various calculations involving shockwaves and explosive lenses. It's much more complicated, requires precision and you might even have to develop a number of different technologies along with it. Not to mention you'll have to test it. A uranium bomb is relatively simple, and there probably won't be any need to test it, but not testing a plutonium bomb is insane. Unless you have access to a supercomputer of reasonable power.

So there you have it, this is what stands between a country and the bomb. How hard it is for a particular country, as I said, depends. One with a source of uranium will have an easier time. One with a decent industrial capacity will be able to do so faster than a seventh world agrarian people's republic. Lots of things factor in.

I stand massively corrected.

Still, your major point was that the biggest problem for a country is secrecy. Well, the cat's already out of the bag, so there's no sense in them even worrying about secrecy. As far as obtaining materials, aren't the Russian more than willing to sell nuclear technology? Weapons are their biggest export right now.

Yeah, but Russia isn't exactly interested in doing the tango with the US Government either. Russian nuclear facilities are also secured in large part by US money, there was a fund set up if I remember correctly after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I forget its name. Regardless, the US helps secure it, so it would be hard to conceal it in any case.

Russia depends on the US too much to be willing to lose that relationship over selling weapons to nations like Iran. Theres too much at stake.

But at the same time the US is looking after itself by halting nuclear proliferation. We give the Russians money to lock up all of their old nuclear warheads nice and tight and to keep detailed records of where each warhead is so that none of it makes it to the black market or into the hands of terrorists and the like.

However just because we give them money to do this doesn't mean the Russians aren't going to deal with whatever country we don't like. In fact its never stopped the Russians from selling weapons to Iran before.

The US is quite unfortunate when they trust thier allies with military technology... Isreal screwed them pretty bad too I heard.

Say what?

How did Israel screw the US over?

Ever wonder why Iran needs a nuclear weapon? Yeah - Israel has a good 200 of them.

Ever wonder why a majority of the Middle East is pissed off at the US? Yeah - blatant support of Israel.


Israel is the biggest reason the US won't win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. It either needs to become more balanced in its foreign policy, or enjoy the status quo.

Okay, but that's not really Israel's fault. I mean, Israel wasn't trying to hurt the U.S., they were just looking after their own interests.

The U.S. supplying Israel with weapons isn't Israel screwing the U.S. over, it's the U.S. screwing the U.S. over.

Or... you know... Israel blackmailing the US. Whichever you want to pick.

Care to expand on that?

You really shouldn't take me seriously, even though I am dead serious. I could provide you with articles from websites you wouldn't take as reliable information, so I'll just give you this, which should show Israel really does like the US.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/23/liberty.attack/

In addition, ever heard of AIPAC?

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

It alone is enough - and its influence has caused the US to be forced to act in Israeli instead of American interests multiple times.

You do not know what sources I will or will not consider reliable. You do not know my political agenda or leanings. Thanks for the link.

Unfortunately, both your link, and Adamgian's don't really look like 'blackmail' to me. Adamgian's at least could be spun that way, but by that spin one would have to assume that all lobies are engaging in blackmail.

Seriously though, if there were more specific instances of blackmail, I'd be most interested to read 'em.

Quotes like this from the Wikipedia article:


In addition, get a hold of the London Book Review version of the "Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy" booklet. According to their polls, AIPAC ranks as more powerful than the NRA and the AFL-CIO, and is only overtaken by the AARP. Considering what many have said, that isn't very farfetched. Goole Search the paper and read it if you have the time, its an eye opener.

Sorry for the misunderstanding then. In any case I was wondering if you read the related article on AIPAC.

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

If you want to really explore this line of thought, you are going to dark, dark places. Really, you can't expect the government to to be unaware of certain things that happen. Why do they support Israel so much, when all it causes is trouble? You have to come to your own conclusions.
http://judicial-inc.biz/False_Flags_summary.htm

I can't back this up at this time, but I've seen references which indicate that Israel would feel more compelled to use nuclear weapons in a war should the U.S. stop supplying them with military tech. Besides, without obvious American support, Israel would be more vulnerable as a target.

If Amenidijad or whatever his name is wants to wipe Israel off them map, he's not increasing his chances with his rhetoric which is only serving to bring Israel closer to the rest of the world.

What about selling AWACS to china?

Nobody is going to attack Israel because they know that Israel has a good 200 nuclear weapons of its own. No matter how crazy leaders may seem, they are not suicidal and will not turn suicidal unless threatened to that point.

AIPAC killed AWACS sales to Saudi for years for no apparent reason, theres no way China is going to get them. Besides, all the Western countries still have a arms block after Tianamen Square.

Israel is a geographically tiny nation. Its not one well equipped to have a MAD defense. One well timed suprise nuclear attack and israel would be incapable of retaliation no matter how many nukes its got. So its not as suicidal as it may seem for iran to threaten and possibly carry out an attack.

Yet you make a gross assumption that Israel would be the only one to come to it's own defense.

Well, assuming Iran could perform a quick and decisive strike against Israel using nukes, in that event there wouldn't be much of an Israel left to defend.

Of course, Iran wouldn't last long against the reprisal from the rest of the civilized world. The danger is that some of Iran's anti-Israel fundies might not care... so long as Israel is gone.

Wesker, Israel has a number of our boomer subs sitting out in undisclosed national waters. Should someone be foolish enough to nuke Israel, one of those subs has a large enough payload to destroy most (if not all) of the major cities in every country in the Middle East.

Where did you get the info regarding israeli nuclear subs? This is the latest on Israeli subs

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/sub/index.html

Small diesel powered boats is all I see.

What Gumby said seems to be implying that the Israelis have our ballistic missile subs on call to avenge them in the event of a nuclear attack on Israel.

Though I fail to see why Israel would need them to do their retaliating; Mossad is quite capable of smuggling Israel's own nuclear weapons around to insure a response to a nuclear attack.

Indeed Mossad is very capable inteligence outfit. Didnt they recently get into trouble because some of their agents got arrested in Italy with fake Canadian passports.

Wow, if that's true that sounds like some pretty sloppy work on Mossad's part, considering their fearsome reputation. Besides, don't they know that all Italian police accept bribes? :)

Well, to be honest, Israel's response to a nuclear attack is unclear. Israel has never tested a nuclear bomb, and they haven't announced that they do have the bomb. As a result, Israel has no discernable nuclear policy, as it can't put one forth. Would the Israelis strike pre-emptively? Where do they even have their nukes?

China, which has a similar small amount of nukes retains its deterrent by moving them around, which keeps a first strike from guaranteeing the destruction of their arsenal. They have neither the economy, nor the desire to facilitate a nuclear buildup, and neither does Israel.

Israel, on the other hand, has not only no discernable location for their nukes, but it has no nuclear policy, as I've mentioned before. That means that whether or not the Israelis have an offensive or defensive nuclear policy is impossible to determine.

For example: in the Big Boy's Nuclear Club, nuclear power forms into a trifecta. The first, ICBMs, are easily located, and once they are launched, are impossible to recall. That makes an ICBM a purely offensive weapon that is launched in a first-strike, or in reaction to a confirmed First Strike by ICBMs. The second comes in the form of nuclear subs. Subs can be recalled, but the range of their missiles creates a necessity for their proximity off of enemy coasts. That presence is both defensive, and offensive, as Nuclear subs can discretely launch their missiles, and then re-submerge, and one can never honestly know where they are at any given time.. That is why Sub Hunters were so important to the USN, since if we couldn't keep track of Russian subs off of our coasts, there was no means of destroying them and their payloads in the event of a nuclear exchange. The third comes in the form of Strategic Bombers. Strategic Bombers are mostly defensive, as you need a couple in the air at all times, and they can be recalled. Having bombers in the air guarantees your ability to react to a nuclear strike, and whether armed with ballistic missiles or air-burst bombs, so long as you have a sizeable bomber force in the air, it's impossible for the enemy air defence to intercept all of them.

The Russians focused on ICBMs and submarines to project their nuclear policy, which gave them an offensive nuclear stance. The Soviets also developed a Civil Defense network, which would have allowed the Russians to maintain as many people and resources as possible in the event of nuclear exchange, which implies that they have a backup plan, giving them an offensive edge.

The Americans, on the other hand, focused on Strategic Bombers and nuclear subs, which gave us a purely defensive Nuclear stance. If our ICBMs were eliminated in a first strike, we would still have bombers in the air, and subs in the water, which would guarantee a reactionary strike. The Americans also never developed a Civil Defense, which means that our position was purely reactionary, and that we relied completely on the deterrent effect of our nuclear arsenal.

We don't know, however, what the Israelis are arming their nukes on. That means that Mossad could be maintaining a device in Tehran for all we know. It's because of this impossible discernability that Israel's neighbors have kept their mouths shut, so as not to disturb the hornet's nest. Iraq and Iran, however, don't share a border with Israel, so they've been able to afford to talk shit, as the prospect of a military buildup against Israel is politically infeasible.

We support Israel so much because they are our aircraft carrier in the Middle East. Which is our number one priority region for more then one reason. Also, we sell a great deal of arms to Israel. Which sometimes get sold to our enemies through Israel. But money is money and hey, our bombs have to go somewhere when they're not flying in Baghdad yeah?

No rational debate is possible when talking about Israel and the US's foreign policy concerning them. Because if you're not pro-Israel you're a anti-semite!

I was under the impression that we support Israel so much because otherwise all the Jews in America would cry about how we're going to let another holocaust happen, as impossible as it maybe, then proceed paint whoever proposes a withdrawl of support as a pro-Nazi/Anti-Semitisc. As evidenced by this article.

We have other more important reasons besides that. Government(s) do not dictate their foreign policy out of the kindness or sympathy of their hearts. The American government's apathy to the jews getting gased in concentration camps is a good example. There was no public outcry or even acknowledgement about it. Even though accurate and detailed intelligence about the concentration camps came via the Polish resistence.

Israel would not exist as a state without it's "little brother" American mandate. Israel has defied twice as many UN resolutions as Iraq did under Saddam. But as long as they play their part we'll let that slide.

It's not just the proposal of the complete withdrawl of support that draws the anti-semitic label. The advocates of strengthening the Palestinian position often draw that label. Even though, ironically enough Palestinians/Arabs are a semitic people.

Honestly I can see why the Palestinians were upset over the creation of Israel. There is a misguided idea that the Jews have some sort of a birthright to that land. When Biblical Judaism was being practiced, the Jews needed to go to Jerusalem because the temple was there. True Jews had to make a sacrifice to atone for their sins at the temple. The priests in the temple were the only way for the Jews to have contact with God. When the temple was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70 Judaism..as it was practiced in the time of the Torah, ceased to exist. There was no longer any reason for Jews to remain close to Jerusalem, so they dispersed around the world. The establishment of Israel was a Zionist idea, with the ultimate hopes of reestblishing the temple.

All that being said....whats done is done, and Israel now stands as the only free democratic state in the Middle east and has every right to continue to exist They are a staunch ally of the U.S. and for reasons wide and varied the U.S. is and should continue to be counted on to come to the defense of Israel.

Are they?

Disregarding Israel's numerous unfriendly actions towards the United States, what treaty of alliance is there between the United States and Israel?

For that matter, what has Israel ever done for us?

If you consider Palestine a nation-state they're also a democracy. Whether you like the fact that Hamas is in power or not. I wouldn't call Israel "free" either. Did you know that in Israel there's Jews-only highways? Doesn't sound that free to me. With the repression of the minorities and all.

If you can think of another word for a state that receives the most military and economic aid from us in a mutual benefitial relationship I'd love to hear it.

I can only assume you're referring to the numerous espionage cases involving Israel. My response is that both countries throughly compromise each other through the Mossad/CIA. Even though espionage is a "unfriendly" act we still do it to our allies and friends as much as we do it to our enemies.

On the written treaty of alliance I have no clue. History has been definitive on the matter though. Quiet support for most, if not all of Israel's actions ranging from the wars against it's Arab neighbors to the Palestine question has come out of Washington.

Mutually supporting each other's positions in the United Nations. Provided us with a armed military camp in a vital, yet political unstable region. Acted as cut outs for the CIA/Government in such cases such as the Iran-Contra affair. Probably a lot more then either you or I know. Or should know. It's more then just a "Oh my god! Israel controls the U.S." conspiracy theory.

What are these reasons? Please tell me it's more than 'supporting democracy and freedom'.

Israel is a integral part of our defense industries. Not from merely a sales conduct standpoint. But the research, manufacturing, and testing.

That has 'national security' written all over it for both the United States and Israel.

Mutual? Could you elaborate a bit more on this? What exactly are we getting back from this "mutual" relationship?

How is Israel "supporting" the US? We are a permanent member on the UNSC while they are not. So everytime the UN gets around to slaming Israel for defying whatever sanctions the rest of the security council has come up with its always up to the US to cast the veto for Israel. This in turn only generates more animosity towards the US.

Finally, whatever Israel could offer in us terms of an armed military camp probably isn't very valuable to us anyways. If we need airpower in the reigon we could just put a carrier in the Mediterranean sea or the gulf. This is in addition to the various military bases we have in Europe and Diego Garcia. And all of the above are out of reach of Palestinian rockets and suicide bombers. The only value I see in having a base in Israel is merely to field a heavily armed quick reaction force.
I don't see what Israel has that our various weapons testing sites here in the US don't have other than live targets.

Weapons systems do need live targets for effective testing, yes. Combat conditions are much more important than testing.

Well I've already elaborated quite a bit. But eh I can keep going. It is illegal for the US to spy on it's own citizens. (Or it used to be) But it's not illegal for British intelligence or the Mossad to do it now is it? Once the domestic intelligence is gathered it's shared.

Don't know much about the Iran-Contra affair do you? All the weapons sales went through Israel.

As far as the UN goes, Israel isn't the only country to do some very unpopular stuff in the United Nations. Bottom line, is that we're both there for each other. We look out for each other's interests no questions asked.

Our Navy is limited. It can't be everywhere at once. Although it certainly tries to be. That aircraft carrier is best suited elsewhere. And why not? We hardly need it there when a close reliable strategic ally is present there for us. You're ignoring the fact that we'd have to violate somebody's airspace in the process of those bombing runs. Take a look at where Israel sits on a map.

Oh, and if we were satisfied with the amount of military bases we had in the Middle East we wouldn't have grudgingly withdrew from the bases we had in Saudi Arabia. Or depending on how you look at it, we wouldn't be building "temporary" bases in Iraq that look quite permanent to some people.

There you go. You said it yourself; live targets. Again, manufacturing is just as important, and having a deniable sales conduct is... essential.

"What? We're selling high tech weapons to China!? No we're not! We gave them to Israel..."

You might not like it, and I might not like it. We're not required too. It's just politics.

And obviously thats why our own intelligence agencies still have conducted illegal wire-tappings. You know, just to piss off the public and whatnot and to look like they're doing something.
You're right, Israel certainly isn't the only country to do unpopular things. But I never said they were. Difference lies in what happens after they commit the act. Where other countries have to face the UN security council's rulings and whatever consequences there might have, all Israel has to do is to sit back and wait for the US to cast that veto. Israel has really nothing equivalent to offer us inside the UN building. Compared to the number of UN resolutions and sanctions the US has helped Israel veto, their support for us is a mere drop in the bucket, then throw in all the heat we get for supporting Israel from the Middle East and all the trouble its caused us, then it becomes a drop in the ocean. As for their bases or whatever...

You have to keep in mind that while our navy cannot be everywhere at once its certainly unlikely that the rest of the world can come up with enough hotspots that we care about to occupy our entire fleet of carriers (I'm not just considering the CVN carriers but the Marine carriers as well). Israel sits on a tiny parcel of land next to the mediterranean on my maps, whatever airspace restrictions we might have in that area can be easily circumvented through passages over Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and now Iraq.


Well if live targets is what makes all the difference then so be it...

That's bullshit. How did you come up with that?

Well the illegal wire taps are only a recent development. Pretty sure the domestic intel sharing has gone back as far as the end of the second World War. As far as our intelligence services go, we hear about their failures more then we hear about their successes. Who really knows what they're doing anyway? We only get leaks of information about what they're doing.

You put a awful lot of emphasis into the power and prestige of the UN. Way more then I do anyway. Let's be honest, if the UN could actually do anything of significance the Iranians right now wouldn't be openly taunting them to impose sanctions.

As for the trouble we get from supporting Israel, I figure the powers that be think it's a fair trade for what we receive in return. I don't subscribe to the notion that Israel uses the United States as some pawn they're in complete control of.

Nothing in life is certain. We have a awful lot of commitments worldwide. That's a pretty large stretch of my imagination to say that we could cover any possible situation that might arise.

Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iraq. Exactly what I was thinking.

Saudi Arabia is an autocratic monarchy, an extremely unstable one. Yet they're a important ally to the US. Good thing we have troops in Iraq plus bases in Israel so we could support the royal family if they were overthrown in a Islamic fundamentalist revolution eh? See, Iraq isn't just about oil after all.

Turkey, well that depends on you what you think would happen if Iraq broke up and one of it's successor states happened to be Kurdistan. Given the fact they (the Turks) have been relatively swift in putting down their own Kurdish minority, I wouldn't be surprised if this prevoked some invasion. Regardless Iraq is under our care as some form of a protectorate. So bases to "keep the peace" seem ideal. Why waste a carrier group?

Iraq, uhh does anything really need to be said here on the benefits of the Israeli alliance when it involves Iraq?

Is it really that big of a stretch of the imagination? Last I heard, the Israelis were building a security wall around the occupied territories. For security purposes of course. Do you think that travel from said territories is any less controlled or regulated?

Do you have any evidence or proof to support what you've said?

I am not particularly fond of the UN myself and while the UN certainly is lacking in power (and the backbone) to enforce and to do the things they say they want to do, nonetheless the UN is still a well known and in some ways well respected organization, and so therefore the significance of what we do for Israel inside the UN building isn't really affected by what we think of the UN, or for that matter Iran. Not to mention probably one of the biggest reasons Iran even dares to taunt the UN is because of its oil fields.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't believe in the whole US is Israel's pawn nonsense either, I'm merely doubting the whole notion of how we support each other equally (or somewhat equally).


The chances of there being enough situations around the world that would occupy all of our carriers all at once is slim. For the most part we can simply drop a Marine carrier in the reigon and deploy a few Marines to cool the hotspot (for the most part its what we do anyways). In addition the whole world does not need our constant attention. For example we don't constantly need a fleet off of Europe's shores.


You have a point in pointing out that each of the countries I named are rather unstable. However should something happen in those countries that we needed to take care of we would still need the permission of Israel's neighbors to really be able to deploy anything from our Israeli bases be it land or air. And even if we were to move our assets through the Mediterranean we would still need a Naval presence to carry all of our troops to the target area. Maintaining a forward presence in the area through bases in Israel is no good if we can't really move them.

Sure, not all of it I'd take to court so to say. Enough evidence for me though. A day or two after 9/11 President Putin was on MSNBC talking about how he was trying to warn the US about the possibility of the coming attacks. Russia isn't exactly our closest ally, but they still handed over domestic intelligence. How complete we'll never know. (Ugh, this is where conspiracies are born) It's still a quite recent example of domestic intelligence being shared. Even among not so close partners.

Maybe what/how I said it came off a little wrong. Is it really that surprising that we share important strategic information with our closest allies? Couple years back, there was a spat in the news about how American intelligence shared some very complete and accurate satallite intelligence with Britain during the Falklands War. I would rate that more important then just some irrelevant domestic intelligence wouldn't you? Especially if it wasn't on a pro-quo basis.

You have a point there. It's still is, using our own terminology a popularity contest of sorts. Public opinion still counts in the world. I can agree with that what you said about Iran too. Iran certainly has some leverage on the UN. Sanctions in any case would hurt everybody. Not just Iran.

Doubt is never a bad thing. Don't get me wrong, I'd have to be blind to not see how much influence AIPAC wields. But so do a lot of other lobbyist groups in Washington.

You could always ask one our esteemed elected representives what benefits they see in continuing our current relationship with Israel. :) Probably would get better information then from me... probably. heh.

I've got no idea what our military thinks. But from West Africa, to Asia. To maybe even South America. (President Chavez comes to mind....) That's a heck of a lot of planet to cover. Especially if things go shitty all at once. Big 'if', but I don't doubt that our military has to prepare itself for such situations.

Last time I checked we had 100,000+ troops in Iraq. Who knows whether that would be enough, but where in the world would the rest come from?

It's not just "presence" I'm talking about. It's the projection (intimidation?) of American power throughout of the region. Yes, a carrier group in the Persian Gulf would do that job quite well. But from where I'm sittin' that job appears to be done.

I'm back, so time to address some comments.

AIPAC isn't just powerful, its considered the second most powerful lobby orginization in the US, ranked only behind the AARP. Even the NRA fails to compete against it. There's a difference between being a powerful lobby and one so influential that any major decision in Congress needs its approval. AIPAC ranks as the latter.

Saudi Arabia is much, much more stable than almost any other Middle Eastern country except Israel in many ways. It maintains an extremely capable army and national guard whos land forces can rival any other country in the region, including Iran. It maintains huge investments for keeping up the Grand Mosque and the Hajj in ways nobody can imagine. That alone hugely bolsters the Monarchy's position. In addition, it has led the country very, very well in the past decades. It has presided over enormous economic growth and wealth, and helped its people evolve. The Saudi economy is more resilient than any other in the region, it has proven virtually immune to the damage of terrorist attacks and stock market plunges. Lastly, the current King has a roughly 70-80% approval rating last I heard. US bases in the Kingdom has always been a contentious issue, but at the same time, the government is a respected international authority in the global and especially the Islamic world. It's a much more important and beneficial ally to the US.

So no, Saudi Arabia, while a monarchy, is in fact a very stable and secure country. The Iraq invasion also has no bearing on supporting the royal family, if you learned more about how the country functions, you'd find out that in fact Iraq harms the royal families stability so much more than it helps. The US has two military systems in the country (USMTM and OPM-SANG) to ensure the countries stability, and in any event of a real crisis, the US 5th Fleet and its troops are all in Bahrain, as is an air wing in Qatar.

America has the entire 5th Fleet in Bahrain, what more protection could you ask for? It secures oil assets everywhere from Kuwait to Oman and is right next to the most critial pieces of oil infastructure in the world - the Abqiaq and Ras Tanura refiners.

I don't know anything about the Russians handing over intelligence to us so I'm not really going to say anything about it. However as with us sharing intelligence with Britian I think its important to keep in mind that we were talking about other governments providing intelligence to us about our own citizens, domestic intelligence. During the Falkland Wars our intelligence was about Argentina, not about British citizens. What we gave Britian was foreign intelligence.

Unfortunately for us each time we help Israel veto a sanction or resolution against Israel public opinion about the US in the middle east takes a plunge.

Our military does have a lot to keep an eye on, but not all hotspots that spring up will require the immediate attention of a carrier group. And even then, enough hotspots to take away all of our available carriers? I certainly admit it might happen, but I just don't think its very likely.


While our bases in Israel does help in the projection of our forces I remind you again that our presence will mean nothing if we can't use the presence and project our force. We still need permission from neighboring countries to use their airspace and what not in order to strike where we want from our bases. I understand that bases in Israel means freed up CBGs, however those bases are not absolutely essential, and now especially since we've got bases in Iraq and Afghanistan as well (Kuwait too I think? I'm not sure) and finally all this is on top of our permanent Mediterranean naval presence (I can't confirm this at the time of typing up this post but if I find evidence I'll post it). They have the same restraints as CBGs only difference is that if things get too hot a group of rouge gunmen can physically harm those bases.

I still think that people give AIPAC too much credit. Israel/AIPAC still has not secured the release of Jonathan Pollard even though they've asked a half a dozen times or more. From both Democrat and Republican presidents. It seems that AIPAC has been taking an increasing amount of heat for the US's actions involving Palestine over the years though. So at least there's a scapegoat.

I'll take your word for most of what you talked about. The news we get over here about that particular country is too skewed to make much sense of it. On the financial front though, no economist in their right mind will believe that Saudi Arabia is 100% immune from terrorist attacks on refineries or other oil infastructure.

I would like to know where you're getting your numbers though. Outside of Al Jazeera (sp?) I don't think they have a lot of independent media in the region. So anything else is state owned. Forgive me for being a little skeptical, but we are talking about an autocratic monarchy.

What about Bin laden's influence? He's a Saudi after all, and his family is influencial or so I hear. As for the US military deployments in the region I had no clue.

I still consider foreign intelligence more important then domestic intelligence. Especially in an armed confrontation between two allies where we loudly proclaimed our neutrality. After all, that intel we gave them probably revealed how capable our satalites and other intelligence gathering was. I doubt any of our intelligence agencies liked that one bit.

I'm slightly torn on the issue of the domestic spying issue. On one hand there's the fact that organizations like INTERPOL and other countries more then likely don't respect our rights to our citizens and "guests" privacy. (There's another example. The FBI/CIA and INTERPOL routinely share domestic intelligence. Why wouldn't they?) Only the rights are guaranteed to our citizens though. How is the NSA anyone going to know which phone calls have actual citizens on the line? If they're just sweeping up and filtering everybody's international calls that'd be impossible. This is such a messy issue and more then the "THIS IS TO CATCH TERRORISTS!" or "BUSH IS SUCH A DICTATOR! POLICE STATE AMERICA HERE WE COME!" arguments. But this is totally off topic here.

I think worldwide public opinion of the 'States is already at rock bottom. What with the war in Iraq, the prison scandals, and numerous other reasons. Our actions involving Israel does not need to help kill our country's reputation or popularity any.

Think Adamgian took care of most of this. My knowledge on this type of matter is very limited.

Maybe, although heh, we're both guilty of trying to place a somewhat numerical value on influence, and in that regard, its difficult to judge the power of a group. It's all very relative.

Definately, its not 100% immune or anything, but its simply more stable than most other countries in the world where such actions would shock the country into a stock market crash.

I forget where, and in general, it might not be a number so much as a popular feel. The King has a good reputation, much better than his predecessor, and hes done a lot with the influx of oil money to increase his popularity.

As for independent media, its a funny issue. In one regard, there are a decent number of media stations in the Arab world that are private, and Al Jazeera is not one of them. However, most private media stations are owned by Saudi investors, meaning that while independent, they aren't very critical of the country. Al Jazeera, as a state owned group by the Qatari government, has the feeling of being independent, although in actuality, it is under the whims of a government.

The Bin Laden family is a touchy issue. He has support among some poor groups, although some actions he sponsored were not popular, and attacks against economic infastructure do not go over well in the country overall.

His family disowned him as well, and for good reason. They're one of the wealthiest families in the world, and have strong ties to the royal family and many US corporations.

Lastly, the US deployments are pretty low key. They are primarily for training loyal national guardsmen to ensure the stability of the royal family. As I said, its a contentious issue and so they don't want to give any ammo to their critics.

Actually, you'd be surprised. In the Arab world and Europe, its in the shitter. But looking at polls in places like India, I actually think that its not overly negative. US ideals and the dream of a better life still cling on, and since India feels unthreatened by the US, people are more willing to look at the positive side.

In the Arab world also, its not overly atrocious. You have all the groups, but as well, many realize what the US has done for these nations. The Gulf would never be what it is today without huge US help, and Iranians on the streets are generally friendly to US views.

In general, people don't hate the US. They just hate the Bush administration.

But when you are asking other countries to do your domestic spying for you in order to circumvent whatever restrictions your own government has placed over domestic spying the situation changes, its no longer just a simple sharing of intelligence it becomes the executive branch trying to undermine the laws and restrictions set in place by the other two branches. And while foreign intelligence certainly is more important than domestic intelligence during times of war it doesn't mean domestic intelligence isn't any less important.

If world opinion of the US really is already at rock bottom then the only place it can go is up right? If so then we don't need any more issues weighing down our world opinion, especially when it comes to issues that really should be another country's issues.

It is. Why making stuf up in this debate?
Is this really a serious debate or just propaganda?
In my eyes your credibility dropped down to zero.

Yeah, I suppose. It still makes for a compelling debate. Especially with the latest scandal allegedly involving Condi Rice and AIPAC. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101648_pf.html)

Ugh, is that the newly crowned King or the one that passed away?

Still doesn't change the fact that Bin Laden wants to overthrow the monarchy who he views as American pawns. Given the oppurtunity he probably would. So that's still a source of instability in my mind.

I don't think anybody in the world blames Americans per say for what our government has done foreign policy-wise. Certainly didn't detect any resentment or scorn during the Iraq war being abroad. I just wish I could say that Americans were like that themselves. Freedom fries anyone? Liberty Cabbage maybe?
Where is the line drawn though? This is basically what the debate is about. There has to be some fine balance between the respect and protection of our civil liberties, and cordinating law enforcement internationally. You say that this is the executive branch trying to undermine the laws, but the general concensus is that that current laws are not adequate. Laws cannot determine whims or motives. Again this is a very messy debate. I'm really not trying to take Bush's side. Sure sounds like it though.

Sure. But the Palestine question concerns everybody and not just Israel. It was really the UN that started this mess in the first place.

I'm not making anything up. Just providing a different prespective. Challenging another person's prespective requires them to think. That, or get emotional which underminds their point.

As far as my credibility goes, I never thought it was higher then zero. I am not going to change the way anybody thinks here. I have no influence or power in that regard. However I can provide an alternative prespective to consider or outright reject.

Good. So from now on I'll take what you say as pure propaganda which parts of it and even all of it is false.
It also makes this thread and debate useless because everyone can make up whatever they want.

So I want to make a stand as well and annouce that the CIA has discovered that Iran plans to attack the US once they get their hands on nuclear weapons. Moreover, it appears that Iran is in tight contact with the known terrorist Bin Laden.
Like it's not enough, except the usual US flag burnning ritual, last week, a group of American reporters were captures by Iranians in Iran and were burned to death by the massive crowds.


No no no. There are perspectives/opinions and there are facts. Don't mix between them.

Double Post:
Good. So from now on I'll take what you say as pure propaganda which parts of it and even all of it might be false.
It also makes this thread and debate useless because everyone can make up whatever they want.

So I want to make a stand as well and annouce that the CIA has reported that Iran is planning to lanuch a nuclear attack against the US this summer.
Apprently, Iran cooperates with Bin Laden which can be seen in Bin Laden's latest tape.


No no no. There are perspectives/opinions and there are facts. Don't mix between these.

King Abdullah, the newly crowned one.

Of course, but hes a destabilizing figure just like the KKK was in the US. He wants to change how the government functions, doesn't mean they have the knowledge or capability to do so however.

The Palestine issue concerns the entire region especially. The US needs to remain involved, and US opinion isn't at rock bottom anyways.

Ahh okay. That's what I thought. The old king wouldn't have been able to do much in his final years with the stroke practically incapacitating him. I gather he was still relatively popular though?

I'm not disagreeing with that any. Well, except where world opinion of the US's foreign policy lies. But on the Palestine issue I mean. I don't think Yggdrasil was either.

I still don't know which facts you're denying. The fact that Israel is building a barrier wall around the occupied/annexed territories. The fact that the Israeli military rigidly controls the roadways in and out of said territories. Or the now recently reported fact that the IDF is making it impossible for Palestinians to leave the occupied/annexed territories even if they have a permit to leave. (Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4830654.stm) The last two facts brought about my observation that there were "jews-only highways". While being slightly antagonist, it still appears true from my perspective.

Ahh well. 'Least I wasn't called a anti-semite.

I admit that our current laws are indeed sorely lacking but does that mean we can just start circumventing the laws? On that same basis would torture be justified because our current interrogation techniques are not adequate so we've instead opted to circumvent the interrogation guidelines and start to use torture? We have systems in place to change the laws, unfortunately however it is here that we see some of democracy's downsides where changing such laws under a democratic system takes some time. But we adhere to the system nonetheless.

Laws are circumvented all the time. What's the difference between an individual flaunting and/or circumventing the law as opposed to an agent of the government? It doesn't necessarily have to be a elected official. It could be a police officer. I guess this is just another way of saying at what point can we validate that the "spirit" of the law has been violated?

If the law is not treated seriously, then all legitimacy is lost. It was Martin Lurther King that said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." If all legitimacy is lost, then government is unjust. Like in the case of segregation. Is that really a bad thing? That's the only way a discussion or legal furry is going to be stirred up to affect any sort of change. People have to ignore the legitimacy and primacy of the laws/government before a positive change can even take root.

The U.S. actually DOING something about Iran??...unless they're stupid enough to send one of those nukes flying our way, I don't really think so.

Kim Jong Il: Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro. Great to see you again, Hans!
Hans Blix: Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.
Kim Jong Il: Hans, Hans, Hans! We've been frew this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destwuction, OK Hans?
Hans Blix: Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else.
Kim Jong Il: Or else what?
Hans Blix: Or else we will be very angry with you... and we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are.

So, uh, the correct way to deal with the Iran situation is to take a hard line with North Korea?

Also, what do you suggest be done since letter writting obviously is the punchline in your joke?

From what you are saying it seems we should just not have laws at all. And yes, people certainly are flaunting laws all the time, but thats why we have consequences and punishments. And again, there are ways to change the law without breaking them.

You misunderstand me. I don't really have a problem with the law per say. It's more or less with the centralized institutions that are authoritarian purely by their own nature in how they operate.

"Consequences and punishments?". Don't do this, or I'm gonna fucking spank you? That sounds more like extortion. Hardly democratic eh? I wish I could say people were afraid of the consequences, but I doubt people that commit murder who are clearly irrational think of the consequences.

Mmm, there is. But what better way to change the law then to ignore it completely? By your rational we would still probably have prohibition, and we would still grovel for our right to alcohol. We need to live in a ideal and ordered world and play by the rules even if we don't agree with them. "What, you disagree? Don't question my authority." There's no room for meaningful dissent.

Well if consequences and punishments sounds like extortion to you then what idea do you have in mind on how to keep the order? While irrational murderers certainly don't think of consequences when they pull the trigger but what are we supposed to do? Just let them go simply because they didn't have their head on straight?

While breaking the law to change the law works, when it comes to matters such as exchanging domestic intelligence by our very own government to circumvent laws that itself had put there then its a new problem. The founding fathers created 3 branches of government for a reason, and when one branch of the government goes about to undermine the authority of the other 2 branches it isn't breaking laws to change laws, its breaking laws to change the government.

Double Post:
Shifting gears now...

While we were having a pleasant political conversation about laws and what not Iran has continued to defy the UNSC and the IAEA. And now Iran's religious leader (the guy who really holds the reigns) has just issued his own warning to the US and the UN. Now I'm pretty sure we all know that Iran blows a lot of hot air sometimes, but considering the possibility that Iran has terrorist connections that have cells in various parts of the world. Could this threat actually be carried out? And with only 2 days from the typing of this post before the IAEA reports to the UNSC about Iran's nuclear program might we actually see the UN do something?

Yggdrasil, if you want to continue this just private message me or something. Otherwise just consider this the "final word" from me on this particular topic. We've throughly derailed this topic so I don't know if it will matter either way. Although the discussion has been quite fruitful in organizing my thoughts on these particular matters.

Absolutely. I don't believe that without a authoritarian institution in control of things that there would be disorder. There's plenty of examples to the contrary. The old west for one. Despite most movies to the contrary, (Thanks Hollywood) there was little crime in the old west. While there was plenty of saloon shootouts (guns and alcohol don't mix well!) overall crime was relatively small.

If you can't buy that particular example just think of how much chaos and disorder those very same institutions we mention has caused. From the genocide of the Native Americans. To the violent suppression of trade unions. This were not examples of disorder caused by Anarchy or rather the lack of control of a central authority. These particular events were caused by the central authority "taking the gloves" off so to say.

There's a fine line between consequences and justice. Realisticly, I don't know where that's drawn. But I refuse to believe that consequences should be used to intimidate you to stop you from utilizing your judgement. It's an affont to human dignity. As well as crossing a very dangerous line with that sort of thinking.

I can't argue with the governments shouldn't be breaking their own laws. At least by doing so it started a dialogue on how the founding fathers would spy on the domestic population and cordinate international crime in these modern times.