How long until Iran has nuclear weapons?

[bitkahuna]

With these 'friends', can it be long? Then what?


RUSSIAN, INDIAN FIRMS HELP IRANIAN WMDs

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- Indian and Russian firms have again been deemed suppliers of Iran's ballistic missile program.

The United States has imposed sanctions on seven foreign companies for exports of components for Iran's missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The companies included those from Cuba, India, Russia and North Korea.

Officials said the sanctions, effective July 28, would last for two years and ban the U.S. government from purchasing goods or services from these seven companies. U.S. companies would also be prohibited from selling a range of military equipment, services or technologies to the sanctioned firms or their subsidiaries.

The sanctions were imposed by the State Department under the Iran Nonproliferation Act, passed by Congress in 2000. So far, 33 foreign companies have been penalized.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...t/08_07_1.html

[mmarshall]

Yeah......ever mind the Hezbollahs in Lebanon. I imagine that right now the Israeli Air Force has some long-range planes fueled up, armed, and ready to go on a moment's notice...and some aerial tankers to extend their range. Target: Iranian nuclear sites, just as they did in Bagdad in 1981.
The Iranians had better watch out, and come to their senses pretty quick. If they keep going down this road they are in serious trouble...the Israelis don't fool around. If it turns out to be too far away for the IAF, then we may end up doing it ourselves from carrier strikes, long-range missiles, or long-range strategic bombers.

[bitkahuna]

May not work. Iran may have built them too far underground this time.

[ebruce2]

Originally Posted by bitkahuna

May not work. Iran may have built them too far underground this time.

two words, Bit: Bunker busters!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...st_montage.jpg

[CVsIS250]

I can tell you right now that either the US or Israel will take out the Iranian sites if need be. We CANNOT let this country have nukes...if they get them, terrorists will too.

CV

[AJ]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

The Iranians had better watch out, and come to their senses pretty quick. If they keep going down this road they are in serious trouble...the Israelis don't fool around. If it turns out to be too far away for the IAF, then we may end up doing it ourselves from carrier strikes, long-range missiles, or long-range strategic bombers.

and off goes WW III . let me ask you this, why is it that only certain countries are allowed of having nuclear weapons ? doesn't that make a threat to other countries then they go and develop weapons for themselves ?

[CVsIS250]

Originally Posted by AJ

and off goes WW III . let me ask you this, why is it that only certain countries are allowed of having nuclear weapons ? doesn't that make a threat to other countries then they go and develop weapons for themselves ?

That is a fair question. Let me ask you one. How is Hezbollah getting their $ and rockets to attack Israel? That is why.

I also don't think that this would cause WWIII. There are too many players that would be against them and not for them and their radical views.


CV

[BlkGS3]

Originally Posted by AJ

and off goes WW III . let me ask you this, why is it that only certain countries are allowed of having nuclear weapons ? doesn't that make a threat to other countries then they go and develop weapons for themselves ?

Because the countries that do have them don’t go around and advocate the destruction of other nations.

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by AJ

and off goes WW III . let me ask you this, why is it that only certain countries are allowed of having nuclear weapons ? doesn't that make a threat to other countries then they go and develop weapons for themselves ?

No, I disagree. The sooner that the Israelis ( or someone else ) take out Iran's nuclear capabilities, the sooner WWIII is prevented. Bitkahuna may have something, though, when he says that that might be easier said than done if they have gone deep underground.

My opinion on the second question is that no country who does not currently have nuclear weapons should be allowed to acquire them. That may sound unfair and one-sided, but you have to draw a line somewhere if you are going to prevent WWIII, and now is as good a place and time as any. If we let one country do it, then another one will, then another, and....well, you get the picture. A serious mistake has already been made allowing North Korea to have gone as far as it has.....much less even further.

[oohpapi44]

That is a fair question

If the question is fair, lets answer it and not do what this govt does now in saying the exact same thing.

YES, that's a fair question and I have an answer, but before that, Iran sucks.... I think he's asked a very good question and it does deserve an answer. We use our nuclear facilities for energy, so as it seems now with Iran whose stated intention is to build facilities for energy. Who are we to say NO, you cannot have any nuclear capability versus implementing some sort of US (Not UN) monitoring system to ensure that is the case. (It's not easy to go from a energy facility to weapon facility overnight and without notice). Part of the problem is Bush's foreign 'policy' doesn't allow for any chance at developing / strengthening any type of relations with any country at all, not even our supposed allies. Our closest 'ally' Israel will only listen to Big Brother when it suits their purpose (lets not forget the West Bank settlment expansion earlier this year where they effectively ignored all our 'suggestions' )

I may be mistaken but I don't think so in saying that no Islamic 'axis of terror' country has ever attacked a US citizen with even a chemical weapon much less a nuclear one. I'm not saying I have the answer but it seems hypocritical that we (US) can determine who has nuclear capability when we are the only govt to ever use one (WMD) on ordinary citizens (Japan).

After the weak showing we've done in Iraq, is anyone really scared of US threats anymore? Obviously it doesn't bother North Korea who has 100% confirmed that their arsenal is weapons grade but yet we do nothing besides focus on Arab countries.

But back to the point, what's the detemining factor to allow a country to have nuclear capability?

[oohpapi44]

Because the countries that do have them don’t go around and advocate the destruction of other nations.

There are degrees to this statement now. I agree that countries who clearly advocate destruction should be dealt with. How I'm not sure.

But regardless of the reason why we went in, the US has gone into the business of removing govts now so isnt' that an off-shoot of your argument above since we have threatened other 'non-democratic' nations/govts alike? We don't advocate destruction, but we have clearly shown and threatened other govts with removal as we deem necessary.

Does a sovereign government deserve the right to protect itself from an unprovoked attack by all means? Under the reasoning of removing possible future threats, what is the determining factor? No country like Iran can advance their technology because we're not 'friends'? Is the threat of war easier than making attempts to resolve differences to establish working relationships with other non-friendly countries?

[SC400DAVE]

Originally Posted by AJ

and off goes WW III . let me ask you this, why is it that only certain countries are allowed of having nuclear weapons ? doesn't that make a threat to other countries then they go and develop weapons for themselves ?

Why do you think? It would seem that you would be in favor of not having nukes in your backyard. Do you favor the regime in Iran having nukes? Before you say that Israel has nukes, they have not talked about blowing any other country or race of the face of the planet. They are not a threat to you or anyone else, unless you attack them.

[mmarshall]

Originally Posted by oohpapi44

There are degrees to this statement now. I agree that countries who clearly advocate destruction should be dealt with. How I'm not sure.

Not sure? Well, that is the attitude that can get us in trouble. WWII would have never happened if the West had been more forceful with both Hitler and the Japanese before it was too late.......but Neville Chamberlain was " not sure " how to deal with Hitler at Munich, and ended up appeasing him, essentially giving him a green light to continue threats and aggressiuon.

WWIII certainly WILL happen if we sit around arguing about how to take out governments like Iran because we are " not sure ". I'm not saying make a rash decision without any consideration, but when danger signs pop up, time is usually working against you....you have to act, as was the case with Saddam. Fortunately, because we went in when we did, we didn't get any WMD's, although it is possible they were snuck out of the country.

[AJ]

Originally Posted by SC400DAVE

Why do you think? It would seem that you would be in favor of not having nukes in your backyard. Do you favor the regime in Iran having nukes? Before you say that Israel has nukes, they have not talked about blowing any other country or race of the face of the planet. They are not a threat to you or anyone else, unless you attack them.

Forget Iran , no middle eastern country is allowed of having Nukes . why is that ?

[AJ]

Originally Posted by mmarshall

you have to act, as was the case with Saddam.

Who's country is now a big ****ed up mess.