2) Iran is said to be about 5 years away from getting anywhere close to a bomb.
who "says"?
this seems off the mark from what I've heard. "anywhere close"? I'd say they're already "anywhere close" relative to other countries in the world. I mean, they have nuclear sites already under construction
without advocating a military campaign, I would suggest that in any case, what's important is not how long until they are actually pointing operational, nuclear-tipped ICBMs at us.
the relevant number is how long until they have achieved the capacity to make their own weapons on their own without our being able to stop them. estimates place that date as soon as 10 months from now.
I heard a couple nuclear experts on various shows talk about Iran's capability vis a vis their centrifuges which are needed to enrich uranium to begin the process of building a nuclear bomb. Most of them all said about 5 years away. Of course, this is just an estimate, but it's what I've heard. There might be other numbers out there.
As far as missiles go, they can hardly hit Israel right now with any kind of accuracy.
I would say that 10 months number is crap.
like I said the ten months figure is the most extreme (e.g. "...estimates place that number as soon as[/b] ..."). you seem to insinuate that the 10 months figure came from the Israelis. fair enough. I will admit that they have an interest in dealing with this threat sooner than the US does (they are, after all, more immediately threatened). but I would also suggest that Israel may just have the best Western intelligence on Iran.
and again, I question your 5 year figure: is that 5 yrs from actually holding a functional nuclear bomb in their hands? or we have five years to deal with this before it's even a threat (i.e. before they have the know-how and resources and diplomacy can no longer work)?
BIG difference.
Where the hell did you get anything about the Israelis from my post?????
Anyway, from what I understand, they don't have the centrifuges to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb PERIOD right now. The figure of 5 years comes from an equation of how many centrifuges they have right now, plus how many they've said they plan on building, compared to how many they need to enrich enough uranium to make one bomb. Not only that, but the interviews I've heard say that even after they have enough enriched uranium they still need additional help to
Simply having nuclear facilities right now does not mean that they are capable of turning that technology into a bomb.
Not only that, but once they get the centrifuges, once they get the enriched uranium, they still need to have a workable plan for a bomb.
For example, Iraq had 2 plans for a bomb. Both were so heavy that they could never be used because Iraq didn't have anything powerful enough to get them off the ground.
Where the hell did you get anything about the Israelis from my post?????
From this:
As far as missiles go, they can hardly hit Israel right now with any kind of accuracy.
We weren't talking about Israel (you were the first to mention it), so I thought you were suggesting that the 10 month estimate was an Israeli figure, which it might be (I think it's a figure the Israelis have used in the press).
In any case, from your explanation, the 5 year estimate is the point at which the Iranians will at least be fully capable of making a bomb on their own. Though it may take them a few more years of planning, the ability to stop them from making one will have been lost. So it seems to me the 5 year mark is a useless figure if we are talking about denying Iran the bomb, because at that point it's too late, right?
Now, deterrence is another issue altogether. If we believe we can deter them from using the thing once they get it, then how long it takes them to get it is less relevant.
So I'm wondering is deterrence, which "worked" in the context of the Cold War, relevant here? Maybe, maybe not.
Where the hell did you get anything about the Israelis from my post?????
From this:
As far as missiles go, they can hardly hit Israel right now with any kind of accuracy.
We weren't talking about Israel (you were the first to mention it), so I thought you were suggesting that the 10 month estimate was an Israeli figure, which it might be (I think it's a figure the Israelis have used in the press).
In any case, from your explanation, the 5 year estimate is the point at which the Iranians will at least be fully capable of making a bomb on their own. Though it may take them a few more years of planning, the ability to stop them from making one will have been lost. So it seems to me the 5 year mark is a useless figure if we are talking about denying Iran the bomb, because at that point it's too late, right?
Now, deterrence is another issue altogether. If we believe we can deter them from using the thing once they get it, then how long it takes them to get it is less relevant.
So I'm wondering is deterrence, which "worked" in the context of the Cold War, relevant here? Maybe, maybe not.
On Israel, OK. Now I see where you're coming from. My reference to Israel was because that's about the range of Iranian missiles right now. The 10 months figure I haven't heard before your post.
On the deterrence point, no. At 5 years or so they will simply have the capabaility to enrich enough uranium for one bomb. That doesn't = a bomb. Just one part of the process of making one.
They still need to come up with all of the other parts of a bomb, like one that actually works, a delivery system, etc. I've heard that all of those steps will require foreign assistance as well.
I see. I guess the important thing from the standpoint of this administration is that the real threat emerges after they've left office. Ditto on North Korea.
Basically the Dems (assuming they can field a winning candidate) are going to inherit a fucking mess, and the Republican opposition is just gonna lay into them.
I foresee a scenario in which the Iran and North Korea threats become so large during the next administration, and the Republicans abuse the issue so selfishly, that the only thing the (presumably Democratic) president can do to save face will be to catch bin Laden or something. Of course at that point the Republicans will argue that he is no longer a threat.
I see. I guess the important thing from the standpoint of this administration is that the real threat emerges after they've left office. Ditto on North Korea.
Basically the Dems (assuming they can field a winning candidate) are going to inherit a fucking mess, and the Republican opposition is just gonna lay into them.
I foresee a scenario in which the Iran and North Korea threats become so large during the next administration, and the Republicans abuse the issue so selfishly, that the only thing the (presumably Democratic) president can do to save face will be to catch bin Laden or something. Of course at that point the Republicans will argue that he is no longer a threat.
What's interesting is the similarities and differences between how Bush has handled Iran and North Korea.
North Korea has several bombs. Not too long ago it was announced that they might have a dozen or so. This was received as no big deal by the administration and the media. The news cycle lasted maybe a day or two.
Iran on the other hand talks about how it wants to enrich uranium, and people start talking about war or bombing strikes.
In both cases, the administration has also taken the same negotiating tactic. We want you to disarm, but we won't talk to you or give you anything in return. If you want something you'll have to talk to a third party. In Iran's case it was 3 or 4 European countries like England, with North Korea it was a couple of its Asian neighbors like China, Japan, etc.
And in case people don't know, but North Korea is involved in some really heavy stuff. They counterfiet a couple million U.S. dollars each year, they're involved in the drug trade, they've passed on missile technology to other countries, they use to kidnap Japanese citizens so that they could teach North Korean spies Japanese! Crazy shit.
That was my understanding, but I don't know anything. Also, I skimmed most of the posts but, regarding the initial article, I am not sure that I believe an argument that the Euro is a vastly safer bet than the US dollar right now. As headed for destruction as the US economy seems to be, haven't the accounting lies in Greece and other newer EU nations to get accepted made the Euro questionable in the last year? I think the aguement would be more sound if it just said that Iran hates the US and wants to spite us, as well they should.
Comments
Where the hell did you get anything about the Israelis from my post?????
Anyway, from what I understand, they don't have the centrifuges to enrich enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb PERIOD right now. The figure of 5 years comes from an equation of how many centrifuges they have right now, plus how many they've said they plan on building, compared to how many they need to enrich enough uranium to make one bomb. Not only that, but the interviews I've heard say that even after they have enough enriched uranium they still need additional help to
Simply having nuclear facilities right now does not mean that they are capable of turning that technology into a bomb.
Not only that, but once they get the centrifuges, once they get the enriched uranium, they still need to have a workable plan for a bomb.
For example, Iraq had 2 plans for a bomb. Both were so heavy that they could never be used because Iraq didn't have anything powerful enough to get them off the ground.
From this:
We weren't talking about Israel (you were the first to mention it), so I thought you were suggesting that the 10 month estimate was an Israeli figure, which it might be (I think it's a figure the Israelis have used in the press).
In any case, from your explanation, the 5 year estimate is the point at which the Iranians will at least be fully capable of making a bomb on their own. Though it may take them a few more years of planning, the ability to stop them from making one will have been lost. So it seems to me the 5 year mark is a useless figure if we are talking about denying Iran the bomb, because at that point it's too late, right?
Now, deterrence is another issue altogether. If we believe we can deter them from using the thing once they get it, then how long it takes them to get it is less relevant.
So I'm wondering is deterrence, which "worked" in the context of the Cold War, relevant here? Maybe, maybe not.
On Israel, OK. Now I see where you're coming from. My reference to Israel was because that's about the range of Iranian missiles right now. The 10 months figure I haven't heard before your post.
On the deterrence point, no. At 5 years or so they will simply have the capabaility to enrich enough uranium for one bomb. That doesn't = a bomb. Just one part of the process of making one.
They still need to come up with all of the other parts of a bomb, like one that actually works, a delivery system, etc. I've heard that all of those steps will require foreign assistance as well.
Basically the Dems (assuming they can field a winning candidate) are going to inherit a fucking mess, and the Republican opposition is just gonna lay into them.
I foresee a scenario in which the Iran and North Korea threats become so large during the next administration, and the Republicans abuse the issue so selfishly, that the only thing the (presumably Democratic) president can do to save face will be to catch bin Laden or something. Of course at that point the Republicans will argue that he is no longer a threat.
What's interesting is the similarities and differences between how Bush has handled Iran and North Korea.
North Korea has several bombs. Not too long ago it was announced that they might have a dozen or so. This was received as no big deal by the administration and the media. The news cycle lasted maybe a day or two.
Iran on the other hand talks about how it wants to enrich uranium, and people start talking about war or bombing strikes.
In both cases, the administration has also taken the same negotiating tactic. We want you to disarm, but we won't talk to you or give you anything in return. If you want something you'll have to talk to a third party. In Iran's case it was 3 or 4 European countries like England, with North Korea it was a couple of its Asian neighbors like China, Japan, etc.
And in case people don't know, but North Korea is involved in some really heavy stuff. They counterfiet a couple million U.S. dollars each year, they're involved in the drug trade, they've passed on missile technology to other countries, they use to kidnap Japanese citizens so that they could teach North Korean spies Japanese! Crazy shit.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5196002
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5341043
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5337938
That was my understanding, but I don't know anything. Also, I skimmed most of the posts but, regarding the initial article, I am not sure that I believe an argument that the Euro is a vastly safer bet than the US dollar right now. As headed for destruction as the US economy seems to be, haven't the accounting lies in Greece and other newer EU nations to get accepted made the Euro questionable in the last year? I think the aguement would be more sound if it just said that Iran hates the US and wants to spite us, as well they should.