Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

[Astronuc]

Iran is ratcheting it up again! http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060405/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_missile

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran said Wednesday it has successfully test-fired a "top secret" missile, the third in a week, state-run television reported. The report called the missile an "ultra-horizon" weapon and said it could be fired from all military helicopters and jet fighters.

. . . .

On Tuesday, Safavi called for foreign forces to leave the region. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain.

That same day, Iran tested a new surface-to-sea radar-avoiding missile equipped with remote-control and searching systems, state TV reported. It said the new missile, called Kowsar, was a medium-range weapon that Iran could mass-produce.

It also said the Kowsar's guidance system could not be scrambled, and it had been designed to sink ships.

On Friday (last week), Iran tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Iran also has tested what it calls two new torpedoes.

One of the torpedoes, unveiled Monday, was tested in the Straits of Hormuz. That seemed to be a clear warning to the United States that Iran believes it has the capability to disable oil tankers moving through the Gulf.

Some military analysts in Moscow said it appears the high-speed torpedoes likely were Russian-built weapons that may have been acquired from China or Kyrgyzstan.

Others have questioned their capabilities of evading advanced radar systems such as those in Israel.

The United States said Monday that while Iran may have made "some strides" in its military, it likely is exaggerating its capabilities.

"We know that the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons system by both foreign and indigenous measures," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "It's possible that they are increasing their capability and making strides in radar-absorbing materials and technology."

Both sides seem to be blustering.

It would seem that such provocation is inching the participants to a showdown. I hope not.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes but you can't always depend on the brits being around to save your butts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MK_15_Phalanx

The Missouri was not armed with Standard SAMs, and a Frigate like the Jarrett cannot be relied upon to detect an incoming missile (see: USS Stark), so the situation you have there is identical to the one I described: A gudied-missile destroyer did its job by intercepting a missile that may have been targeted at the high-value target it was tasked to protect. It doesn't matter what flag it was carrying - an American destoryer would have been able to do the same thing. Apparently, the missile didn't get close enough for the Missouri to engage with her own CIWS.

You'll use any excuse to take a pot shot at the US, but there really isn't anything wrong with that scenario. You're firing an empty gun.

 

[Art]

The Missouri was not armed with Standard SAMs, and a Frigate like the Jarrett cannot be relied upon to detect an incoming missile (see: USS Stark), so the situation you have there is identical to the one I described: A gudied-missile destroyer did its job by intercepting a missile that may have been targeted at the high-value target it was tasked to protect. It doesn't matter what flag it was carrying - an American destoryer would have been able to do the same thing. Apparently, the missile didn't get close enough for the Missouri to engage with her own CIWS.

An earlier post referred to the strength of the phalanx sysyem. The piece I quoted showed this particular CIWS was less than effective in what appears to be the only time it was used in anger. Another notable failure of the system was when a japanese phalanx shot down a US A6 aircraft instead of the drone target it was towing.
Anti-missile missiles still seem to have the edge. I don't know what the US has in this line but the new european PAAMS missiles are said to be a vast improvement on the very effective sea dart.

You'll use any excuse to take a pot shot at the US, but there really isn't anything wrong with that scenario. You're firing an empty gun.

Russ my comment was meant tongue in cheek. I hardly thought the british missile frigate was there by pure luck

As for your accusation I'd like to point out that what you say is insulting and unadulterated nonsense. Once again you're confusing Bush with the USA. Being anti-chimp does not make one anti-american as I'm sure many of your fellow citizens have pointed out to you.

Criticism is healthy. In fact for a democracy to thrive it is essential. In industry it's called continuous improvement. As soon as a project is finished you critique it, both the end product and the way it was arrived at, to see what could be done better next time. If blind loyalty prevents people from criticising the results or decisions taken along the way then lessons are never learned and old mistakes get repeated ad infinitum.

Perhaps if you read comments from international posters and indeed many of the american posters on this forum from a slightly less paranoid viewpoint you might find the criticisms are valid and valuable.

In keeping with this forum's guidelines try to limit your arguements to attacking ideas you disagree with rather than attacking the people who promote them.

 

[Cyrus]

Criticism is healthy.

Provided that it is constructive.

One thing that should be kept in mind is that all this fancy and expensive missile prevention technology is not fool proof. That's not to say that they would not get through, they would, but at the same time there is a good chance of taking some hits along the way.

There was one show on (discovery channel?) a while back where they did a simulation to check for preventive measures. During the tests some things managed avoidance far too long than was acceptable. (How this got on Tv was quite amazing, I don't see how they would have disclosed that, it look's bad for the Navy's image.)

 

[SOS2008]

"Iran is not Iraq" - Condoleezza Rice

Really!? Smartest thing I've heard in awhile from anyone in Bush's administration.

In the meantime, you geeks sure love to debate the nuts and bolts of military strategy. Christ!

 

[Art]

Provided that it is constructive.

One thing that should be kept in mind is that all this fancy and expensive missile prevention technology is not fool proof. That's not to say that they would not get through, they would, but at the same time there is a good chance of taking some hits along the way.

There was one show on (discovery channel?) a while back where they did a simulation to check for preventive measures. During the tests some things managed avoidance far too long than was acceptable. (How this got on Tv was quite amazing, I don't see how they would have disclosed that, it look's bad for the Navy's image.)

Although anti-missile missiles have evolved since Gulf War 1 the lack of success of the patriot missile system during that period must be alarming to the Israelis in particular.

A 10 month investigation by the House Government Operations subcommittee on Legislation and National Security concluded that there was little evidence to prove that the Patriot hit more than a few Scuds. Testimony before the House Committee on Government Operations by Professor Theodore Postol (a professor of Science, technology and National Security Policy at M.I.T.) On April 7, 1992 and reports written by professor Postol raised serious doubts about the Patriot's performance. After examining video evidence of the Patriot's performance in Israel during the Gulf War and conducting his own tests, professor Postol claimed that the Patriot had a very low success rate.

"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)

http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html

 

[SOS2008]

Read my lips -- oh wait, that was Bush Sr.

Don't f**k with Iran. Make friends...yes, we need friends...especially in the Middle East (isn't that why we were going to sell out our ports to DP World?)..yes, we need friends, we need friends in the world for that matter...

 

[Astronuc]

Making friends in the world will be hard with Bush at the helm. Except for a few friendly dictators, and Blair and Howard, he seems to have alienated most world leaders.

 

[Art]

In the meantime, you geeks sure love to debate the nuts and bolts of military strategy. Christ!

I suppose the point is Iran is trying to convince the west that it has an effective deterrance in an effort to persuade the west an attack on Iran would result in painful losses for the attackers. Whereas the US are showing off their hardware to show the Iranians 'resistance is futile'
It is a high risk strategy by Iran as if they succeed in their efforts to portray themselves as a credible force this in itself may well be the primary driver for an attack as the opposing forces will be determined to halt their military technological advances.

 

[Art]

Perhaps the idea the US will use nuclear bombs in a strike against Iran is not as farfetched as some thought.

Iran accuses US of "psychological war"
Sun Apr 9, 2006 11:14 AM BST
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

By Parisa Hafezi

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran on Sunday brushed aside what it called a U.S. "psychological war" against its nuclear programme after a published report described Pentagon planning for possible military strikes against Iranian atomic facilities.

A report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker magazine, citing unnamed current and former officials, said Washington has stepped up plans for possible attacks on Iranian facilities to curb its atomic work.

The article said the United States was considering using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's underground uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz, south of Tehran.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/new...UKOC_0_UK-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml&archived=False

So if this article is correct the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, led by Bush will use nuclear weapons to stop Iran from possibly aquiring nuclear weapons because Bush says Iran is a 'Rogue State' who might use nuclear weapons and using nuclear weapons is a no-no in our modern, western, civilised world.

Bush also quotes the need to avoid nuclear poliferation as a justification for stopping Iran whilst simultaneously supplying nuclear fuel and knowhow to India and whilst acting as the intermediary in the sale of uranium to Taiwan by Australia, actions which apart from being in direct contradiction to what he says are also in direct contravention of the NPT.

Now what was that he was saying about Rogue States led by mad mullahs??

 

[Art]

More from today's papers;

Iran - Bush 'ready to use nuclear weapons'

The White House is stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran and, in a shock revelation, is seriously considering using 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons, according to a report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
Hersh's story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, says President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler," and sees "regime change" in Tehran as the ultimate goal.

"This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.

The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution. "We are not going to discuss military planning," said spokesman Blair Jones.
<snip>
The Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying some senior officers and officials were considering quitting over the plans to use nuclear weapons.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=382508&in_page_id=1811

It's about time the terror of Bush's War on Terror was brought to an end.

 

[Amp1]

Yep, its on the mainstream media now too. This in light of some posts I read that we (the US) had stopped the tactical (bunker buster) nuke program. [sarcasm]Yeah right[/sarcasm]. The news reports I saw said much the same as your snip Art - that senor pentagon officers and officials have grave concerns about the use of tactical nukes on Iran. There was talk about Bush drawing a line in the sand where he will order the use of these nukes, I think it is when Iran starts making enriched Uranium or Plutonium or something like that.

 

[russ_watters]

Naah. Big talk, that's all...

I agree. The current effort is Iraq is about all we're up to.

Echo, echo.

 

[SOS2008]

U.S. seen stepping up war plans for Iran

Washington Post
By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Updated: 10:32 p.m. ET April 8, 2006

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/

No matter how the U.S. looks at it, the risks are always too high.

Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "Whatever you do," he said, "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb program rather than destroy it."

What it boils down to is a paranoid Israel putting pressure on the U.S. to act aggressively against all Arab enemies, real or perceived. Israel makes me think of a woman who is always getting her husband or boyfriend into fights because of her.

The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.

And Israel is threatening to take action on it's own if the U.S. does not (as if that wouldn't automatically draw the U.S. into the conflict).

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosive-carrying dogs.

The reality is no Arab country is crazy enough to attack Israel. It is all rhetoric.

The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally, Israel," Bush said. "That's a threat, a serious threat. . . . I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

The U.S. does not need to engage in military action, nor does Israel in order to keep the peace. Like Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War, Israel's, the U.S., and eventually Iran's nuclear arsenal will prevent war from happening.

In the meantime, I believe Bush welcomes Iran's threats as a diversion from all the other bad news.

...the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.

It is making us all forget the price of gas is skyrocketing again (etc., etc., etc.).

 

[jimmie]

Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

Has the US demonstrated a nuclear explosion during a time of war? Yes, Japan, 1945.

Has the US demonstrated they are fully capable of a pre-emptive strike? Yes, Iraq, 2003.

Has the US demonstrated they are not fully capable of a pre-emptive nuclear strike during a time of war? Not yet.

Just like a salesman; he can get a thousand no's, but one yes and he wins.

 

[Astronuc]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_16;_ylt=AiRu8X8sOf.JYSvOKWBI7XBSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

No nation has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons, that is as a first strike against another nation. The U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in a conflict during World War II.

It would be a very dangerous precedent.

I heard someone mention today that both Russia and China might have retargeted (or may be considering retargeting) the US with their nuclear missiles! I hope that was pure speculation, since that would mean we re-enter the Cold War, which now won't be so cold. It just increases the risk that conflict for limited resources will escalate.

It was pointed out that most of the Iranian oil is toward the Gulf Region, although I suspect that there is considerably more reserves in the Caspian Sea. The US could occupy the oil regions of Iran, and do so without resorting to nuclear weapons.

 

[Astronuc]

The argument that the enrichment is sufficient for nuclear reactor fuel is somewhat disengenous since the Iranian could use Canadian CANDU technology, which the Canadians have used successfully for decades, and which has been exported to Romania (Cernavoda), Argentina (Atucha) and Korea (Wolsung).

So maybe the Iranians want LWR/VVER technology, but the Russians and others can supply the fuel.

Nevertheless, there is no valid reason to pre-emptively attack Iran. But then, there was no valid reason to attack Iraq - which doesn't seem to be a problem for the Bush administration.

 

[batboy]

More fuel:Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
Here we go! Let's play hardball...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany

 

[batboy]

I thought that Iraq had failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441? What does one do next, pass the buck?

 

[sid_galt]

Nevertheless, there is no valid reason to pre-emptively attack Iran.

Not even if it is run by murderers who kill their own countrymen on a daily basis and are now threatening to destroy other countries (Israel) and are intent on getting their hands on the most destructive weapon in human history?
When does it become reasonable to attack them? When they have annhilated us and killed millions more? The world is going the way of Neville Chamberlain here.

 

[SOS2008]

Unlike Israel, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives them the right to peacefully use nuclear technology for energy generation. The U.S. completely supports the development of nuclear energy globally and "without discrimination," and Iran has shown a clear need to do so.

Even with prior U.S. support and assistance, it has taken Iran until 2006 to enrich uranium to reactor-grade from 164 of their centrifuges - 39 years since the program began in 1967. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program#Timeline

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, and no doubt the amount has increased. I am so done with Zionist alarmists -- stop it for peace sake.

 

[sid_galt]

And Mr. Murderer has promised never to kill again.
Promises mean nothing unless they are backed up by actions. And the actions of Iran in regard to human rights, and given its statements in regard to Israel and the Holocaust, it would be ridiculous and foolish to trust them.

Tell me, in science a theory is shot down if it doesn't pass even one experiment, why should such murderous thugs be given chances after chances?As for Israel, even if it has nuclear weapons (which it likely does), it has demonstrated that it is a responsible rights respecting nation which will not go around nuking other nations at random. Though Israel has not signed the NPT, it is loads better and more reliable than Iran which has signed it.

 

[turbo]

As for Israel, even if it has nuclear weapons (which it likely does), it has demonstrated that it is a responsible rights respecting nation which will not go around nuking other nations at random. Though Israel has not signed the NPT, it is loads better and more reliable than Iran which has signed it.

A responsible and rights respecting nation that established itself through ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and refuses to pay reparations and honor the right of return for the victims as mandated by the UN as a condition for recognition? The same nation that calls all the Palestinian attacks "terrorism" while assassinating Palestinians at will and bulldozing peoples' homes into the ground on the suspicion that a family member might be involved in the defense of the Palestinian territory? That's funny...not. As Noam Chomsky says, for Israel to consider giving back the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is like a violent home-invader, who after 60 years of occupying your house and torturing your family offers to let you live in the cellar and the attic, but is torn about the decision because he has grown fond of the attic.

 

[Astronuc]

Not even if it is run by murderers who kill their own countrymen on a daily basis and are now threatening to destroy other countries (Israel) and are intent on getting their hands on the most destructive weapon in human history?

The US has tolerated killings of citizens by many countries, particularly dictatorships supported by the US in South and Central America. Yes, the 'hardliners' in Iran have been calling for the destruction of Israel and perhaps now the US.

Iran is not in imminent possession of a nuclear warhead (while N. Korea may have several), and even so, that is still far away from the most destructive weapons, which are thermonuclear warheads.

When does it become reasonable to attack them? When they have annhilated us and killed millions more? The world is going the way of Neville Chamberlain here.

It is only reasonable to attack, when there is incontravertible evidence that an attack is imminent. Ummm, Iran is not going to annihilate us.

For the moment, I prefer political/diplomatic solutions - not war. Unfortunately, the present administration does not seem competent with such a process.

Certainly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed some rather hostile statements in regard to Israel and the US. Nevertheless, this is not a reason to go to war. The US and the rest of the world need to use every diplomatic method possible to achieve peaceful cooperation with Iran - and where possible, support moderates and reformers in Iran.

Shalom - Salaam - Peace

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No way this will happen. Were this an issue three years ago, maybe, but Bush has made such as mess that he has no real power now.

 

[SOS2008]

No way this will happen. Were this an issue three years ago, maybe, but Bush has made such as mess that he has no real power now.

Too bad BushCo used Powell and ruined his career, resulting in his resignation. The only member of the Bush administration that can even speak intelligently is Rice, but unfortunately she drank the Wolfowitz/Perle neocon Kool-Aid.

In the meantime, BushCo (pressured by Israel) has fallen into Ahmadinejad's trap and have made him a world renowned figure for the extremists. We need to stop fueling his fire. Regime change in Iran? We need new leadership in the U.S. first, and ASAP.

Too bad Bush was reelected in 2004 with the primary goal of destroying the Judicial Branch (anyone see the interview with Sandra Day O'Connor?). I wonder, are all the Christo-Fascists happy now?

 

[sid_galt]

The US has tolerated killings of citizens by many countries, particularly dictatorships supported by the US in South and Central America.

And the US was wrong about that. But because it was wrong before does not mean it should continue that policy.

Iran is not in imminent possession of a nuclear warhead (while N. Korea may have several), and even so, that is still far away from the most destructive weapons, which are thermonuclear warheads.

So why not destroy them right now when the resulting destruction and deaths will be minimum? Why wait for a threat to grow before attacking it? That is what happened in the 1930s. And look what happened!

It is only reasonable to attack, when there is incontravertible evidence that an attack is imminent.

What more evidence could there be when Iran is almost openly threatening the free world and freedom itself?

For the moment, I prefer political/diplomatic solutions - not war.

When they have never been successful before, why do you think they would be successful now? Tell me, would you support the ether theory even though it has failed experimentation?
Why is there a different standard for Iran?

Unfortunately, the present administration does not seem competent with such a process.

The present administration is worse than incompetent in handling a war. But attacking Iran is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

The US and the rest of the world need to use every diplomatic method possible to achieve peaceful cooperation with Iran

The same methods by which we let the North Koreans acquire the bomb?

Shalom - Salaam - Peace

I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.

 

[Gokul43201]

I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.

...or convinced by reason, that being an enemy is not in their best self-interest.

 

[Cyrus]

And the US was wrong about that. But because it was wrong before does not mean it should continue that policy.

Explain to me exactly how Iran is a dictatorship, or killing its citizens?

So why not destroy them right now when the resulting destruction and deaths will be minimum? Why wait for a threat to grow before attacking it? That is what happened in the 1930s. And look what happened!

Eh, what? Why not destory a country? No, this is not what happened in the 1930's sid. Maybe you should go read a history book. You will find that Iran has never once attacked another country in some 230+ years. Sid, turn off Fox news, and get yourself some real news sources.

What more evidence could there be when Iran is almost openly threatening the free world and freedom itself?

Really? When did Iran threaten freedom or the free world? They made statements against Israel, but Israel is not the entire free world. Get your facts straight, man.

When they have never been successful before, why do you think they would be successful now? Tell me, would you support the ether theory even though it has failed experimentation?
Why is there a different standard for Iran?

That was a totally useless and pointless comparison.

The present administration is worse than incompetent in handling a war. But attacking Iran is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

Obviously not. At least Iraq was contained before the war, now it's a freaking mess. Sitting on our hands was working just fine. More wrong information sid...tisk tisk tisk...

The same methods by which we let the North Koreans acquire the bomb?

Wrong again, we never let the north koreans build a bomb. They announced they had one to our surprise.

I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.

If that is true then, no. You have no clue what peace is.

 

[Art]

Iran defiant ahead of UN report

Mr Ahmedinejad said Iranians should not be denied their rights
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country "does not give a damn" about UN resolutions seeking to curb Tehran's nuclear programme.
He was speaking as the Security Council prepared to receive a report from the UN nuclear watchdog on whether Iran had met demands to halt uranium enrichment.

Iran insists it will not abandon its right to enrich nuclear fuel for what it says are wholly peaceful purposes.

The US says the UN must take action if Iran is found not to have complied.

The US secretary of state says the Security Council's credibility is on the line over its handling of the issue.

Speaking at a meeting of Nato foreign ministers in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the council's credibility would be tested over how it dealt with Iran.

"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state," she said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4952984.stm

lol such irony!

The UN Security Council is only an important institution so long as it supports US policies. In the immediate pre-Iraqi invasion period the Bush administration called this same institution irrelevant!

The U.S. is not concerned with the integrity of the United Nations in general or of the Security Council's resolutions specifically. The Bush administration is only concerned with whether the U.N. dutifully follows its every wish. If they don't, then they are "irrelevant"; if they do, then they are "meeting a great challenge."

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/0218istheun.htm

Where was the US insistance on security council resolutions being adhered to in respect to resolutions 242, 248, 256, 267, 298, 347, 515, 573, 672, 1322 and 1435?

The current US stance would be almost laughable were it not for the fact that this hypocrisy leads directly to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

 

[Gokul43201]

I guess I haven't really followed the news here carefully enough to resolve many questions I have :

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !")

2. Does the NPT prevent a signatory from developing civilian nuclear technology ?

3. Is Iran allowing free access to IAEA inspectors ?

 

[Art]

I guess I haven't really followed the news here carefully enough to resolve many questions I have :

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !")

Nope, no evidence at all. The former ruler of Iran, the Shah, did have a covert nuclear weapons program with (unwitting??) assistance from West Germany (who built the Bushehr reactor in the 70s) and the US (who provided a research reactor in 1967) but this program was halted by Ayatollah Khomeini immediately upon his taking control of the country in 1979 as he believed WMD were immoral. The current crisis stems from a 1995 agreement between Iran and Russia for Russia to complete the unfinished Bushehr reactor.

Despite full monitoring of the work at Bushehr by the IAEA accusations of covert weapons production was raised in 2002 by an Iranian exile group, the NCRI. These accusations were jumped on by Bush leading him to include Iran in his 'axis of evil' speech in 2002. However it is worth bearing in mind that it was Iraqi exile groups who falsely claimed Sadam still possessed secret WMD stores in order to persuade the west to exercise 'regime change'.

2. Does the NPT prevent a signatory from developing civilian nuclear technology ?

Nope, in fact it expressly allows signatories of the treaty to develop civilian nuclear technologies including enrichment.

3. Is Iran allowing free access to IAEA inspectors ?

After initial recalitrance (Iran did not declare it's heavy water production site at Arak but claims it had no obligation to do so until the project was completed at which time it would become subject to IAEA scrutiny) Iran came into full compliance with the IAEA but have stepped back following their referral to the security council. They have said they will once again offer full access to IAEA inspectors if they are not threatened with action through the security council. Understandable really as otherwise the IAEA will be compiling targeting information for a possible US led attack.

 

[Astronuc]

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !")

Well, Iran apparently does have centrifuges to enrich uranium, and they have claimed to enriched uranium to 3.6% U-235. This is suitable for light water reactors, but not nuclear weapons. They would have to continue the enrichment process about 25-fold to achieve 90%. That would also mean that they need 25 kg's at 3.6% to get 1 kg at 90%.

The concern is that Iran would continue the enrichment program to achieve the necessary quantites of 90% U-235 or better, in which case they would have nuclear weapons, and the missiles to deliver them.

As for 2, as Art mentioned, peaceful uses of atomic energy are permissible under the NPT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty#Iran

 

[Astronuc]

Iran 'attacks Iraq Kurdish area'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4960478.stm

They seem to trying real hard to give someone justification to use military force.

 

[laurelelizabeth]

Kind of like how bombing terrorists deters them from bombing us back. How is that going again?

Brilliantly concise!