US making battleplans for Nuclear Iran

[NiteStryker]

US making plans for Iran nuke strategy

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration is quietly laying the groundwork for long-range strategy that could be used to contain a nuclear-equipped Iran and deter its leaders from using atomic weapons.

U.S. officials insist they are not resigned to a nuclear Iran and are pressing negotiations to prevent it from joining the world's nuclear club. But at the same time, the administration has set in place the building blocks of policies to contend with an Iran armed with atomic weapons.

Those elements, former officials and analysts said, include the newly revised defense shield for Europe and deeper defense ties to Gulf states that feel threatened by Iran.

Does anybody honestly think that Iran will get nuclear weapons? Not in this climate. Isreal will hit them before the US can even get bombers in the air.

Im not sure why "creating a strategy" is news. The US already has battleplans created for a war with any country on the planet. I guess they mean "post-invasion" this time...

[crisissuit3]

swords are the new toys, guns are the new swords, and nukes are the new guns...

what did I just say?

but seriously a lot of this talk of nukes is getting pointless when it all comes down to "nuke us, we nuke you."

as for a battle plan. will this also take up to 10 years?

[AlDaja]

I want a nuclear Iran. The only power willing to combat them would be Israel. We just like to talk sh't.

[NiteStryker]

I would love a nuclear Iran. It would create some excitement and drama. Everyone does nuke talk, but none of it will happen. Nobody is gonna use a nuke.

[crisissuit3]

except you of course.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by crisissuit3

except you of course.

Of course.

I'd nuke someplace abstract. Like Iceland or the Azores. And write "From Iran" on the nuke, so Denmark would be like and then everyone would blow Iran into the stone age.

[computernerd]

Originally Posted by NiteStryker

blow Iran into the stone age.

I'd love to see that.

[NiteStryker]

Originally Posted by computernerd

I'd love to see that.

Enough nukes aimed at one point creates a time warp.

Proven fact.

[Phoenix_22]

Came across this article the other day:

Iran and nukes: 5 myths to ignore
By Joseph Cirincione
Special to the Washington Post

Iran’s expanding nuclear program poses one of the Obama administration’s most vexing foreign policy challenges. Fortunately, the conditions for containing Tehran’s efforts may be better today than they have been in years.

The recent disclosure of a secret nuclear facility in Iran has led to an apparent agreement to allow in U.N. weapons inspectors and to ship some uranium out of the country.

Of course, the matter is far from resolved, but the prospects of the world’s leading powers developing a strategy with a solid chance of success improve if we dispose of five persistent myths about Iran’s nuclear program:

1. Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon.

There have been claims since the 1990s that Iran was a few years away from a bomb.

Then, two years ago, U.S. intelligence agencies concluded that Iran had discontinued its dedicated nuclear weapon efforts in 2003. Today, the consensus among experts is that Iran has the technical ability to make a crude nuclear device within one to three years — but there is no evidence that its leaders have decided to do so.

The regime’s most likely path to the bomb begins in Natanz, in central Iran, the site of the nuclear facility where over the past three years about 1,500 kilograms of uranium gas has been enriched to low levels. Iran could kick out U.N. inspectors, abandon the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reprocess the gas into highly enriched uranium in about six months; it would take at least six more months to convert that uranium into the metal form required for one bomb. Technical problems with both processes could stretch this period to three years. Finally, Iran would need perhaps five additional years — and several explosive tests — to develop a Hiroshima-yield bomb that could be fitted onto a ballistic missile.

Of course, the United States and others would see Tehran moving in this direction, and exposure or inspection of suspected facilities would complicate Iranian objectives. We can further lengthen this timeline by ridding Iran of the essential ingredient for a bomb: low-enriched uranium. On Oct. 1, Iran agreed to ship most of this uranium to Russia for fabrication into reactor fuel; we will know in the next few weeks if it will keep that pledge. If it does, Iran’s “break-out” capability — the ability to produce a bomb quickly — would be eliminated, at least for the two years it takes to enrich more uranium.

2. A military strike would knock out Iran’s program.

Actually, a military attack would only increase the possibility of Iran developing a nuclear bomb. “There is no military option that does anything more than buy time,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last month. “The estimates are one to three years or so.” And that’s if the United States struck hundreds of targets.

Worse, after such a bombing, the Iranian population — now skeptical of its leadership — would probably rally around the regime, ending any internal debates on whether to build a bomb. Iran would put its nuclear program on fast-forward to create weapons to defend itself. It could also counterattack against Israel or other U.S. allies.

Attacking Iran would not end the problem; it could start a third U.S. war in the region.

3. We can cripple Iran with sanctions.

Sanctions rarely, if ever, work on their own. There is no silver bullet that can coerce Iran into compliance or collapse. Some mix of sanctions — whether restricting travel, making it harder for Iranian banks to do business, further limiting foreign investment or even denying Iranian citizens basic needs, such as gas — may be necessary if Tehran does not restrain its nuclear program or live up to its pledges. But the key is to couple such pressure with a face-saving way out for the Iranian leadership.

4. A new government in Iran would abandon the nuclear program.

Some believe that an irrational, apocalyptic government now rules Iran and that regime change is the only solution. But there is broad support across Iran’s political spectrum for the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Recall that the country’s nuclear program began with the shah, a U.S. ally who had plans to build 20 nuclear reactors, similar to the plans the mullahs promote today. The shah also started covert work on nuclear weapons. The U.S. government knew about this research but looked the other way, going as far as selling Iran its first nuclear reactor.

5. Iran is the main nuclear threat in the Middle East.

The real threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program is that other states in the region feel they must match it. The race has already begun.

While Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons has not spurred other countries in the area to develop their own, over the past three years a dozen states in the Middle East, including Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Libya, have begun civilian nuclear programs. These programs, alas, are not about reducing the countries’ carbon footprint — they are a hedge against Iran.

The real danger is not a nuclear armed Iran but a Middle East with more nuclear-armed nations and unresolved territorial, economic and political disputes. That is a recipe for disaster, and that is why there is no country-specific solution; we cannot play nuclear whack-a-mole.

A comprehensive plan must build barriers against acquiring nuclear weapons and must reduce the motivation to do so. This means dealing with the regional security and prestige issues that motivate most countries to start nuclear programs. It requires a global approach that deals with both sides of the nuclear coin: disarmament and proliferation. Reducing existing nuclear stockpiles creates the support needed to stop the spread of the weapons; stopping the spread creates the security needed to continue reductions. We must keep flipping that coin over. Each flip, each step, makes us a little safer.

Joseph Cirincione is president of the Ploughshares Fund and the author of Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons. He is an adviser to the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States.

Don't have a link to the article, but I have the article in print if you want source info.


Anyway, to the topic, I think it is a very stupid decision to continue the military aggression against Iran. If they want a nuclear weapon, they are going to get one whether we like it or not, and at this point it is better to have a nuclear Iran and have them not wanting to bomb us, rather than pissing them off as they get a nuclear weapon. Either way though, there may be some morons in Iran, Israel, the U.S. and elsewhere who are in charge of government or the military, and any action by one will drag everyone else in. For this, I hope Israel doesn't attack Iran and drag us into another war in the Middle East.

[NiteStryker]

Iran gets nukes, and "accidentally" loses one, which happens to go off in Berlin or Paris or New York. Pure coincidence, of course.

Not a good idea.

I love how the US intel community "absolutely knew" Iraq had WMD's, and now they "absolutely know" that "Iran had discontinued its dedicated nuclear weapon efforts in 2003. ".