why the deal with Iran

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by williatw »

williatw wrote:Wonder how much Iran would have offered Russia during their economic meltdown following the collapse of communism during the late '80's early 90's for a few dozen old nukes dating back to say the '60's and/or '70's? Many billions of dollars of hard currency in exchange for some old nukes during Russia's worst economic disaster in a generation.

KAHLILI: Iran already has nuclear weapons

Western intelligence has known it for years
The pressure the United States and the West is bringing to bear on Iran to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons is all for naught. Not only does the Islamic Republic already have nuclear weapons from the old Soviet Union, but it has enough enriched uranium for more. What’s worse, it has a delivery system.

When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990, Iran coveted thousands of tactical nuclear warheads that had been dispersed in the former republics

Kazakhstan, which had a significant portion of the Soviet arsenal and is predominately Muslim, was courted by Muslim Iran with offers of hundreds of millions of dollars for the bomb. Reports soon surfaced that three nuclear warheads were missing. This was corroborated by Russian Gen. Victor Samoilov, who handled the disarmament issues for the general staff. He admitted that the three were missing from Kazakhstan.

Meanwhile, Paul Muenstermann, then vice president of the German Federal Intelligence Service, said Iran had received two of the three nuclear warheads and medium-range nuclear delivery systems from Kazakhstan. It also was reported that Iran had purchased four 152 mm nuclear shells from the former Soviet Union, which were reportedly stolen and sold by former Red Army officers.

To make matters worse, several years later, Russian officials stated that when comparing documents in transferring nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia, there was a discrepancy of 250 nuclear weapons.

Last week, Mathew Nasuti, a former U.S. Air Force captain who was at one point hired by the State Department as an adviser to one of its provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq, said that in March 2008, during a briefing on Iran at the State Department, the department’s Middle East expert told the group that it was “common knowledge” that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet republics.
“History suggests that we may already be too late to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb. Why do we suppose Iran cannot accomplish in 20 years of trying - with access to vast amounts of unclassified data on nuclear-weapons design and equipped with 21st-century technology - what the U.S. accomplished in three years during the 1940s with the Manhattan Project?” asks nuclear weapons expert Peter Vincent Pry, who served in the CIA and on the EMP Commission, and is now president of EMPact America.

Mr. Pry concludes that Iran only needs a single nuclear weapon to destroy the United States. A nuclear EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack could collapse the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures that sustain the lives of 310 million Americans.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... /?page=all

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

I trust Israel's intelligence on what Iran's capabilities are. They have assets in Iran, the matter is of great interest to them, they've successfully sabotaged much of Iran's efforts, and I very much doubt Iran can hide this sort of information from them.




If Israel attacks Iran, and I will be surprised of they don't, then that will pretty much confirm that Iran does not yet have working nuclear devices.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

williatw
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:15 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by williatw »

Diogenes wrote:I trust Israel's intelligence on what Iran's capabilities are. They have assets in Iran, the matter is of great interest to them, they’ve successfully sabotaged much of Iran's efforts, and I very much doubt Iran can hide this sort of information from them.
Who says Israel doesn't know about the tactical nukes Iran acquired from the collapsing Soviet Bloc? They most likely do know about them why wouldn't they? They would still vigorously oppose Iran's efforts to acquire the ability to make nukes on demand designed with delivery systems compatible with said nukes. Old tactical nukes that were probably old when they bought them in the late '80's early '90's that are now decades old; many of which likely in poor condition with crude retro-fitted delivery systems; vs new much more modern designed by Iran with very compatible delivery systems also made by Iran in whatever quantity they wish; Israel would of course do everything they could to try to stop Iran from having this, even accepting they already had some limited number of crumbling old nukes. (As far as Israeli intel, easier to hide old nukes than it is to conceal a vigorous modern program to develop new ones). Russian and China on the other hand are simply rationalizing their desire to lift sanctions and copiously trade with Iran by arguing to themselves "well..they have nukes anyway what's the difference if they can make more?"


Diogenes wrote:If Israel attacks Iran, and I will be surprised of they don't, then that will pretty much confirm that Iran does not yet have working nuclear devices.
Well you seem to be coming around to my belief that Israel will likely attack Iran 1st; the answer is that if the Israeli's attack with conventional (non-nuclear) forces, Iran wouldn't likely respond by wheeling out and launching their old Soviet era nukes with probably relatively crude delivery systems; they probably are more of a hail-Mary response if Israel nukes them 1st. Oh they would respond to a non-nuclear Israeli attack by terrorism or something else; to nuke Israel with their much cruder nuclear capacity after a non-nuclear attack from Israel would be to invite massive nuclear retaliation from Israel. Iran wants the ability to go toe to toe with Israel with their own modernized nuclear forces rivaling Israel's own nukes; (not crumbling old Soviet bloc tactical nukes); then provoke Israel into attacking them 1st. As I have repeatedly said just because their crazy doesn't mean they don't have enough wits to appreciate the political value of getting the "evil Zionists dogs" to attack them first; giving them "morale" justification then to nuke Israel and its allies (US maybe Europe) in retaliation.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by paperburn1 »

I have my doubts that Iran has any"operational" Soviet block weapons. Just to hard to maintain without appropriate infrastructure. Just my guess ...
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Skipjack »

I think the Washington times article is BS and simply aimed at getting people in line for an attack on Iran.
I mean what is it now? the Ayatollahs are so eager (and suicidal) to nuke Israel which they could have already done with the nukes they allegedly have and that we do not want them to ever have, or they simply don't have any nukes? If it is the first one, then why haven't they done it yet? They had plenty of opportunity, not in the least via supporting terrorists that they allegedly love so much.
If it is the second, then what is all the fuss about?

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by ladajo »

I think it is a crock as well. But, to be completely fair, one never knows until one knows.
Not likely, but crazier things have happened.
If they had weapons already, they would be behaving very differently.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

williatw wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I trust Israel's intelligence on what Iran's capabilities are. They have assets in Iran, the matter is of great interest to them, they’ve successfully sabotaged much of Iran's efforts, and I very much doubt Iran can hide this sort of information from them.
Who says Israel doesn't know about the tactical nukes Iran acquired from the collapsing Soviet Bloc? They most likely do know about them why wouldn't they?

Because they would take them out. Since we haven't seen any mushroom clouds over Iran, I think it's safe to conclude that the Iranians haven't got any of the old soviet tactical nukes. I cannot see Israel allowing them to keep any such thing, and I can't see the Iranians stopping the Israelis from destroying any such facility where such weapons might be stored.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Diogenes »

ladajo wrote:I think it is a crock as well. But, to be completely fair, one never knows until one knows.
Not likely, but crazier things have happened.
If they had weapons already, they would be behaving very differently.


Years ago I read a series of articles entitled "Nuclear Warfare 101." One of the articles highlights your point. Nations with Nuclear weapons behave a "certain" way.


Here is a link to a message board posting of some of the articles. Perhaps you've seen the set to which I am referring?
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by ladajo »

Stuart Slade has published a number of thoughts on these lines.
While I agree with some of his tenants and thinking, I do not agree with all. I have also, as I recall, spoken on this topic (not Stuart) here before.
One of the areas we agree with most closely is in what I call "The Nuclear Mythology".
This is the idea that propaganda has run rampant with nuclear capability truths.
Most of this propaganda is resident in the entertainment realm, and is treated on second, third, and forth order contact as truths. It is unfortunate and fortunate, both.
Some internet conspiracy nuts might even go one further to imply or claim that Nuclear Mythology was pushed by the soviets.
Some of this Mythology may have been on purpose, but I suspect a good bit of it running around today has taken a life of its own.

In any event, yes, nations that actually have nuclear capability do behave differently than others.
This, currently, is why I don't think Tsar Vlad is long for this earth. While he may be thinking to go the way of Idi Amin, retiring with his ill gotten booty to a nice coastal villa somewhere not Russia, I think that others (Russian), will intervene and do so based on nuclear logic.

This is also why I do not think that DPRK has a viable nuclear option. If they have anything, they don't trust it and behave accordingly.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

krenshala
Posts: 914
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:20 pm
Location: Austin, TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by krenshala »

I guess thats the difference in attitude displayed between "You see this shotgun on my back? Leave off!" and "Leave off, or I'll go home and get the shotgun I recently got!"

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by paperburn1 »

There is circumstantial evidence that points to an Israeli covert attack on a Iranian nuclear facility, the one in Parchin in 2014.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Skipjack »

The Mossad is the best secret service in the world. If the Israelis knew that Iran had any nuclear capabilities, or were very close to having them, they would immediately show the proof to the rest of the world. Then they would take that as a reason to justify an attack Iran and probably ask for support from the US for that. The fact that they have not done that, tells me enough.
The rest is propaganda to ensure that things keep going certain ways. Lots of people will lose lots of money when sanctions on Iran are lifted. Some might make some money too. If you ask cynical old me, those objecting to the deal are afraid to lose money or act on behalf of someone who is afraid of losing money.

paperburn1
Posts: 2484
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:53 am
Location: Third rock from the sun.

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by paperburn1 »

On the issue of money I think people are forgetting that Iran has well over $75 billion being held in foreign accounts. This is the official amount and does not include the 10s of billions that have been squirreled away outside of Iran in non-sanctioned accounts by the mullahs. This could actually be considered quite a windfall in any economic circle. While on undoubtedly there is hundreds of millions be made in black-market trade events I think the people that control the money have realized that there is even more money to be made by releasing all this money that has been locked up over the years.The United States will rescind most of its banking sanctions, allowing Iranian banks to reconnect to the global financial system, and will lift restrictions on various Iranian industries, as well as trade in gold and other precious metals. Nearly 750 companies, individuals, aircraft and ships will be removed from U.S. blacklists.
I am not a nuclear physicist, but play one on the internet.

Skipjack
Posts: 6805
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by Skipjack »

I think that the republicans that are against the Iran deal are told to do so by certain oil companies that are threatened to lose a lot of money once Iranian oil starts flooding the market.
The rest are just paranoid. Really every since 9/11 American are suffering from some sort of mass paranoia. All of a sudden, everyone is an enemy and out to destroy the glorious US.
In reality, there has not been a serious terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and car accidents kill 10 times as many people every year as 9/11 did. 10,000 deaths on the roads due to drunk drivers every year. Want to make people safer? Install breathalyzers into every car.

palladin9479
Posts: 388
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 am

Re: why the deal with Iran

Post by palladin9479 »

Skipjack going all nutty on this already.

Iran almost certainly has soviet era nukes, whether they are actually operational or not is harder to tell. The triggers on those nukes need to be replaced at regular intervals, otherwise they degrade and run a big risk of the weapon not detonating. Iran may not have the technology required to fully replace those triggers or may only be replacing them with poor quality home built versions. This makes any nuclear options they might possess very sketchy and not particularly reliable. And assuming Israel knows about this, they wouldn't want to directly tell the world how they know because they would then lose those critical intel assets.

World geopolitics isn't a game about who's "right" or "wrong", Israel running around saying "Look mommy I have proof Johny is mean to me" won't garner much if any real support. Instead their best course of action is to let on that they know less then they really know and to keep letting Johny think he's not being watched.

Post Reply