[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great

[asher]

PS - I am not a nuclear weapons expert, but I am a science geek ... and I did grow up in America during the Cold War!

[Mokhber]

I think that before anyone starts talking about destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, the nuclear facilities in Israel, Pakistan, North Korea and India should be destroyed first.

But having said that, it isn't the nuclear reactors that will be generating material for a nuclear weapon, if that is what Iran intends. Bushehr will generate electricity and nothing else, most likely. The reason is that Iran already has the technology for uranium enrichment by centrifuge. Reactors are used to create Plutonium but that route requires highly radioactive processing to extract materials, it requires a great deal of technological expertise in metallurgy, in high explosives fabrication, &c. The fact that Iran dabbled with Polonium, which is used in initiators for Plutonium bombs, but stoped work many years ago suggests that the decision was made to forgo that route.

Uranium enrichment, on the other hand, is almost a sure fire path to nuclear weaponry because the technology to weaponize the U235 product is not nearly as great (the U.S. used a howitzer to build the first U235 bomb and didn't even test it before dropping it on Hiroshima because it was so certain to work). Also, U235 is not very radioactive and because a reactor is not required, there is no highly radioactive processing. So contrary to the last post, while bombing an enrichment plant might scatter Uranium all over the place, it wouldn't be a radiological catastrophe like bombing a working reactor.

Despite this, I do not believe that such action by Israel or the U.S. is the proper way to promote peaceful use of nuclear technology. Thus far there is no evidence that Iran intends to build a nuclear weapon although it appears certain that it intends to gain the knowledge and capability to create such a device if international strategic conditions change.

[Iranian Boy]

No to Israeli or American military attack on Iran but yes to moralic support for regime change.

A foreign attack on Iran is exactly what the mullahs want, and an israeli attack could create closer relationship between people and regime

[Iranian boy]

[asher]

Mokhber, thanks for the clarification!

[jamesbond]

LISTEN - I have no problem with missile trikes on the mullahs installations however only if these strikes are combined with internal operations to overthrow the regime.. simply sending some israeli fighters to bomb nuke facilities and say **** you mullahs without supporting the Iranian people makes no sense..

STRIKE the mullahs but combine it with support both external and internal for the Iranian people...

!!!!

[stefania]

it's clear that him who posted this hysteric anti-Israel post as "guest" looks more anti-Israel than anti-mullahs..
_________________
Referendum AFTER Regime Change

"I'm ready to die for you to be able to say your own opinions, even if i strongly disagree with you" (Voltaire)

[asher]

I respect Mokhber's analysis but I disagree with the conclusions. I don't see any basis for comparing an Israeli airstrike with saddam's war on Iran in the 1980's. The regime will use whatever pretext it finds convenient to try to deflect the people's anger away from the mullahs; I happen to think the Iranian people are smarter than that.

There's something to be said for a broader program of de-nuclearization, but I don't think you can compare Israel with North Korea or even India/Pakistan - these are all very different situations. The intentions of the state possessing the nuclear weapons must be taken into account. And yes, a "nonproliferation" policy that overlooks (or pretends to overlook) that factor is somewhat hypocritical; but that's not an issue we can resolve immediately, and it's outside the scope of the present discussion.

I'm afraid the fine distinction between "intending to build a weapon" and "intending to gain the knowledge and capability to create such a device if international strategic conditions change" is a little too close for comfort. I am certain the Israelis would not be comfortable with it.

If the US and Israel perceive a nuclear threat from Iran - and it's clear that they do - then we must accept that a response is inevitable. Again, I think it is in the best interests of both Iranians and the West to insist that any such action be accompanied by meaningful support for regime change. In that case, I do not see how either Iranian activists or their Western supporters could object.

[Mokhber]

Asher,

I think that the "value" in this situation is that it forces the government to have some accountability. It can't have it both ways; being a member of IAEA and NPT and also running secret programs behind the scenes. It really puts pressure on Khamene'i, especially. I mean, either he knew about all the secret goings on or he did not. Either way he makes himself to look like an ass. Why agree to the additional protocol if there are still things to hide?

On this bombing question, what is there to bomb? Bombing Bushehr would serve no purpose except punitive and it would create an environmental disaster. Bombing the known enrichment sites would also be pointless unless Iran pulls out of the NPT. As long as there is IAEA oversight, there can be no significant* violations at those locations. The only sites of any value to destroy would be something that has not yet been declared and publicly identified. And one would think that such facilities would be underground in hardened bunkers, if they exist.

* "Significant" from a practical bomb making standpoint. Declared facilities, including the U.S. built research reactor at Daaneshgaaye Tehran, were used for the experiments to produce insignificant amounts of plutonium. With the additional protocol, even these little experiments should not be possible without IAEA knowing about it.

If U.S. pressure drives Iran out of the NPT then all the leverage that presently exists against the Iranian government will be eliminated. An attack on Iran would probably guarantee that it would go nuclear.

[Mokhber]

[Liberty Now !]

[cyrus]

[blank]

I agree with Azadeh, they should do the same thing as they did with Sadam's nuks.......

[asher]

Cyrus,

Thanks, that clears things up a great deal! I do understand - and share - the objection that a counter-nuclear weapons strike ALONE would actually set the cause of freedom back, by taking the pressure off the regime.

Your four-point plan for comprehensive regime change NOW, not later, looks really good and I could support that. Have you started circulating it as a petition?

Undoubtedly US citizens can help by writing to their President, Defense and (groan) State Secretaries, and Congressional representatives. Would you advocate any other measures (e.g., a boycott of UK consumer goods)?

[asher]

Liberty Now,

Could you explain your last post a little better?

What changed your mind?