Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 07/08/2004 View Wed 07/07/2004 View Tue 07/06/2004 View Mon 07/05/2004 View Sun 07/04/2004 View Sat 07/03/2004 View Fri 07/02/2004
1
2004-07-08 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Israel tells ElBaradei Iran wants atomic bomb
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-07-08 1:13:30 AM|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 I guess ElB wasn't listening when Iran stated that as soon as they have a nuke Israel gets nuked.
Posted by Raptor 2004-07-08 7:03:17 AM||   2004-07-08 7:03:17 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 This is HUGE trouble, and I wonder just exactly how much longer we are going to dick around with the "international community" that knows so goddamn much about whats good for everybody but is to pussified to do anything about it?
I'm much more frightened of nuclear war now than I was 25 years ago. Too bad there are so many brillant assclowns that refuse to learn from history and insist that the world is beyond disinegrating into war. The League of Nations UN has already demonstrated itself as usless at best and dangerous at worst, they really need to be told to do one of 3 things: Lead, Follow or get the hell out of the way. My money is on them continuing to hem and haw and get absolutley nothing done, while the Islamist world gears up for their global caliphate.
Posted by JerseyMike 2004-07-08 8:15:52 AM||   2004-07-08 8:15:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 When enough unstable countries get nulclear weapons and a city gets nuked, what are the options for the target country?
1. Take it and do nothing. This invites more nuclear attacks.
2. Nuke a city of the counties they suspect.
A. Which invites nuclear retaliation.
B. Which invites all out nuclear war between target country and suspect countries.
C. If suspect counties are to be destroyed, before going down, they have incentive to nuke their other enemies in order to prevent takeover.
D. Cycle (C) repeats with these new target counties.

Logically, once a nuclear exchange starts, the incentive is to skip escalation and immediately nuke all possible enemies before you are destoyed.
Posted by ed 2004-07-08 8:42:52 AM||   2004-07-08 8:42:52 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 
Israel tells ElBaradei Iran wants atomic bomb
Don't waste your breath, Israel. Baradei knows that. In fact, he's trying to help them get it. Just so they can murder you.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2004-07-08 10:27:47 AM||   2004-07-08 10:27:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Does anyone have an idea why we or Israel hasn't already taken out Iran's nuke factory? It really makes no sense to me. I'd bet the Israel of 20yrs ago would have already done it. Do you think Iran already has a few and thats why we aren't taking action?
Posted by Yosemite Sam 2004-07-08 10:46:10 AM||   2004-07-08 10:46:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 ElBaradei has said "the jury is still out to lunch" on whether Iran is seeking the bomb.

ElBaradei is hopelessly compromised and any putative authority he may have had is fatally flawed. Get rid of him, quick.

When enough unstable countries get nulclear weapons and a city gets nuked, what are the options for the target country?

This is why it is so important to obtain "fingerprint" samples of radioactive material from all foreign reactors. It permits tracing the residue of any nuclear explosion back to the enrichment facility that produced it.

Pakistan has refused to release such specimens and Iran doubtlessly will avoid doing so as well. In such an event, if a city is nuked, then those countries who have not provided trace analysis samples should immediately be glassed over.

This needs to be made a global policy. The real problem comes if a black market Ukraine suitcase bomb gets set off. I do not see any other measure but to nuke Ukraine as an example. There has to be a horrible price for anyone considering nuclear terrorism or assisting its proliferation.

America has the benefit of being outside the range of all but the most advanced missile technology. We will need to carefully deploy devastating strikes against anyone who even attempts a nuclear attack upon us.

None of this pre-empts the importantance of interdiction. Iran's weapons program immediately must be reduced to smouldering rubble. There is not one single reason for taking any chances with such a bellicose regime and they certainly deserve none.

Do you think Iran already has a few and thats why we aren't taking action?

It's unlikely that Iran has fabricated any devices as of yet. You can rest assured that Israel is straining at the leash right now. Because there is no obvious or peaceful resolution awaiting this entire issue, I fail to see why anyone is waiting. A nuclear armed Iran would be one of this century's greatest blunders.

Posted by Zenster 2004-07-08 6:56:15 PM||   2004-07-08 6:56:15 PM|| Front Page Top

13:55 Antiwar
13:48 Antiwar
13:51 Liberalhawk
13:51 Liberalhawk
13:40 Antiwar
13:37 Antiwar
13:22 Antiwar
13:06 Antiwar
13:03 Antiwar
11:49 Antiwar
13:23 Liberalhawk
13:23 Liberalhawk
09:25 Antiwar
07:20 Antiwar
06:43 Antiwar
06:31 Antiwar
05:52 Antiwar
05:31 Antiwar
05:06 Antiwar
16:19 Antiwar
16:08 Antiwar
15:37 Antiwar
15:34 Antiwar
14:59 Antiwar









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com