Thread: Russia helping Iran build nukes

Originally Posted by Crocodile

My current understanding is that Iran's government wants Israel off the map. At least that what they say. Until they can work this one out, I doubt they can talk about the "denuclearisation".

Pure populism from their part.

I know only one state which already applied a nuclear bomb. Twice.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

My current understanding is that Iran's government wants Israel off the map. At least that what they say. Until they can work this one out, I doubt they can talk about the "denuclearisation".

Pure populism from their part.

I hope you are a mind-reader so you can say that. They made their intention public, so I wish you know better what the Iranian government wants than they themselves.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

My current understanding is that Iran's government wants Israel off the map. At least that what they say. Until they can work this one out, I doubt they can talk about the "denuclearisation".

Pure populism from their part.

I hope you are a mind-reader so you can say that. They made their intention public, so I wish you know better what the Iranian government wants than they themselves.

Public announcements are one thing..., real politics is another. I seldom see that the words spoken by some politician are confirmed further by deeds.

Originally Posted by BappaBa

I know only one state which already applied a nuclear bomb. Twice.

That's true and is definitely a strong point. So, what's the conclusion? That the US can't tell anyone not to have nukes?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Public announcements are one thing..., real politics is another. I seldom see that the words spoken by some politician are confirmed further by deeds.

I agree with that statement. However (and we might have had different experiences), I found that more often the good deeds are those that aren't being delivered. For some reason, the bad ones work out more often. Speaking of Iran/Israel relations, I think Israel's government is not so naive to realize the nuke might be a perfect weapon to achieve the present openly declared goal of Iranian government.

So you think that the Iranian government would be wiliing to sacrifice themselves, all their country, their people and half of the Middle East just to 'wipe Israel off the map'?

Originally Posted by Ramil

So you think that the Iranian government would be wiliing to sacrifice themselves, all their country, their people and half of the Middle East just to 'wipe Israel off the map'?

I think somewhere deep inside you still think of politicians as someone very responsible. But, politics is funny the way it works. Politicians can use the nuke and than say they were cornered, their enemy left them no choice, etc. So it's the enemy whom is to blame, they are totally innocent. (And many other similar clever gimmicks.)

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

So you think that the Iranian government would be wiliing to sacrifice themselves, all their country, their people and half of the Middle East just to 'wipe Israel off the map'?

I think somewhere deep inside you still think of politicians as someone very responsible. But, politics is funny the way it works. Politicians can use the nuke and than say they were cornered, their enemy left them no choice, etc. So it's the enemy whom is to blame, they are totally innocent. (And many other similar clever gimmicks.)

No, no, no. The time of talks will be over. Nobody would go asking them 'why did you drop a nuke on Israel?' Knowing the vindictivness of Israel the next thing would be a massive counter-attack with all means available at their disposal. Moreover, I think USA will intervene too. Nobody in Iran would risk that. I'm not talking about 'responsibility', I'm talking about self-preservation instinct.

In this, dare I hope, hypothetical conflict the one who moves first would lose everything.
That's why I think that Iran should have nukes. Because Israel starts talking of 'preemptive strikes' etc.

Originally Posted by Ramil

The time of talks will be over. Nobody would go asking them 'why did you drop a nuke on Israel?' [...] I'm not talking about 'responsibility', I'm talking about self-preservation instinct.

Ok, I see the difference in our points of view. I think that only the personal safety is important to a politician of a very high rank. Think about it this way: a leader of a high rank could be assassinated virtually every minute. They don't really have normal lives. They could live in a bunker. And they definitely don't care about their citizens or civilians (e.g. Halabja incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack).

So, let's assume a nuke was used, the Israel is in ruins, whoever survived try to leave the contaminated territory as quick as possible. Israel is a very small country. Havoc is everywhere. Israel is disorganized. Everybody just think about themselves, how to escape; all airports are not functioning; all planes are in a one-way flight out of Israel; all sea vessels had sailed off; all roads out of Israel to the neighboring countries are closed; weak and mortally sick refugees are trying to slip through to Egypt, Jordan, and Syria and are blocked by their armies and police. For the army there is nothing to fight about anymore, no motivation, no command. And all international community begging Israel not to worsen the disastrous ecological situation and not to use nuke against Iran. Who would intervene with the real means to overthrow Iranian government?

1. The US/NATO countries.
2. The EU.
3. The OPEC countries.
4. Russia
5. China/India
6. Japan
7. African countries
8. Antarctic penguins.

And my answer is: NO COUNTRY would risk the nuke being dropped on either of their territory. I'm pretty sure EVERY COUNTRY would try to FORGET AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE and find the WAY TO THE COMMON BRIGHT AND PEACEFUL FUTURE. The only thing that would be left over to win would be the information war. And that's when all the gimmicks in the world would be applied.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Knowing the vindictivness of Israel the next thing would be a massive counter-attack with all means available at their disposal.

I don't really believe it.

1. After the general havoc starts, everyone would only think about saving their lives and how to get out of the contaminated territory.

2. When Mr Hussein dropped 40 Scud missiles on Israel during the Gulf War, 1991 Israel's "vindictiveness" went right down the toilet. Only the shouting of some politicians was heard. The "vindictiveness" if Israel is one of the old myths dated back to the Operation Entebbe, 1976. The modern Israel politicians are very pragmatic.

So, I still think Iran could safely use a nuke against Israel and nothing bad would happen to Iran. So, Israel politicians say they are cornered and have no choice, but not to allow Iran to have a nuke by all means.

Yes, I really think that personal safety and continued well being is the only thing that worries any politician. If one can make some arrangements about personal safety (build a bunker) the continued well being part would be much more difficult.

Well, if their army worth a penny, they would react. They must have some plans for such scenarios. I would if I were them.

A single nuke of 100-150 Kt yield will cover a relatively small area (I don't expect any megatons from Iran in the foreseeable future). There will be fallout of course, but nothing very serious. We have the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (people didn't abandon those cities after the bombardments, these cities are still populated). There was also Chernobyl. With proper treatment the civilian death toll from the fallout can be minimized. So I think you're overdramatizing the afereffects.
Besides, this matter will be settled in hours, minutes maybe, not days or weeks. Even the international mass media might not react in time to create an informational wave strong enough to force Israel not to retaliate. If the army has some kind of a plan of 'what to do if we've just been nuked' (and I'm sure such plans exist) it will be immediately executed (such plans, as I can judge by American or Russian military doctrines, presume that the government is dead and there's nobody to order around, so everything is arranged in such a way that it is carried out automatically if certain conditions are met. I believe a nuclear mushroom over Tel Aviv is one of such conditions). I also think that Iranian intelligence (even if they are inept) is aware of such plans so their government knows what to expect.
The second mushroom will raise over Teheran within the next several hours at the most.

So I still don't think that you can use a nuke and get away with it.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, if their army worth a penny, they would react. They must have some plans for such scenarios. I would if I were them.

Ok, so let's get a bit more tactical here. Every nuke has to be delivered. There are two ways for Israel to deliver their nukes:

1. A stationary silo (a missile).
2. A bomber.

How many stationary silos are in Israel? We don't know, but probably if Iranian intelligence is worth a penny they would. I don't think there would be too many. It also takes some time to activate a silo. The significant amount of special forces could be used to neutralize the small amount of the silos.

A bomber should first be loaded: the nuclear load should first be activated from the conservation and delivered to the bomber. Then the bomber has to take off with the protection of the fighters. Then it should fly over two foreign countries: Syria (or Jordan) and Iraq. And then it should fly over half the territory of Iran. So, if Iranian air force is worth a penny, it would find a way of stopping them. If Iran strikes first, the Iranian air force would have a plenty of time to prepare and coordinate as Israel's reaction could be expected and well-predicted.

But, as I said, I really doubt Israel would react.

Originally Posted by Ramil

A single nuke of 100-150 Kt yield will cover a relatively small area (I don't expect any megatons from Iran in the foreseeable future). [...] So I think you're overdramatizing the afereffects.

I didn't get why that is a strong point. I think if Iranian scientists are smart enough to develop a nuclear weapon, they are definitely capable of calculating how much of that weapon would be enough to achieve the desired effect. If a single nuke is not enough, they would use three or four at the same time to cover the entire area more selectively. So, I think I'm just being realistic here.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Besides, this matter will be settled in hours, minutes maybe, not days or weeks. Even the international mass media might not react in time to create an informational wave strong enough to force Israel not to retaliate.

Alright, I think I made a mistake by just mentioning "begging" so you had the right to misunderstand me. So, suppose you're, say, a Russian government. You just realized what had happen to Israel (or an Iranian government was smart enough to let you know 10 minutes beforehand). Do you want the Israel nuclear reaction to happen near Turkmenistan? Probably not (because you have that special security "obligations" that you mentioned earlier). So, my rhetoric question is: would you give Iranian air force a hand? I think you would "to protect the innocent citizens" or any other valid reason. So, no, not only the mass media would try to preserve the ecology, there would also be more real means. So, there would be no more mushrooms.

So, I still think Iran could potentially safely use their nuke against Israel.

PS. I have a feeling that the experience of the USSR-US nuclear standoff seem to be affecting you a way too much. It's a totally different situation with Iran and Israel.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, if their army worth a penny, they would react. They must have some plans for such scenarios. I would if I were them.

Ok, so let's get a bit more tactical here. Every nuke has to be delivered. There are two ways for Israel to deliver their nukes:

1. A stationary silo (a missile).
2. A bomber.

3. A mobile silo (we're not speaking about Intercontinental missiles here). It takes 3 to 7 minutes to prepare it for launch. They're relatively small and their main tactical advantage is their mobility.

I think if Iranian scientists are smart enough to develop a nuclear weapon, they are definitely capable of calculating how much of that weapon would be enough to achieve the desired effect.

It would take years to enrich enough U-235 or Pu-239 even for one device. Where would they get the material?

Originally Posted by Ramil

3. A mobile silo (we're not speaking about Intercontinental missiles here). It takes 3 to 7 minutes to prepare it for launch. They're relatively small and their main tactical advantage is their mobility.

Any information whether Israel has that? And aren't special forces also useful in the scenario?

Originally Posted by Ramil

It would take years to enrich enough U-235 or Pu-239 even for one device. Where would they get the material?

It's been recently mentioned (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/200 ... visit.html) there is "a newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility under construction in Qom, Iran." So, if you ask me, a simple-minded crocodile, how much time it would take to build the necessary nuclear power, I would be very hesitant to respond responsibly. Do you accurately know the potential nuclear capabilities of Iran? I somewhat doubt. I know that France, Iran, Russia and the United States are meeting on 19 October to discuss something. I can safely assume part of their agenda is Iran's military nuclear capabilities. But, for a simple-minded crocodile, the mere fact of that meeting is enough to conclude some countries have concerns. And if the things would as unreachable as you said "it would take years" no serious government agency would care. So, something serious IS going on.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

3. A mobile silo (we're not speaking about Intercontinental missiles here). It takes 3 to 7 minutes to prepare it for launch. They're relatively small and their main tactical advantage is their mobility.

Any information whether Israel has that? And aren't special forces also useful in the scenario?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-52_Lance
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Fab0EZA6mKYAAQ
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/coun...ssile2005.html

I don't think that special forces are effective because nukes are always under a heavy guard. Even an elite force can find it difficult to neutralize such a target.

Originally Posted by Ramil

It would take years to enrich enough U-235 or Pu-239 even for one device. Where would they get the material?

It's been recently mentioned (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/200 ... visit.html) there is "a newly disclosed uranium enrichment facility under construction in Qom, Iran." So, if you ask me, a simple-minded crocodile, how much time it would take to build the necessary nuclear power,

Years, even with this facility (I was aware of that).

I would be very hesitant to respond responsibly. Do you accurately know the potential nuclear capabilities of Iran? I somewhat doubt.

Currently they have 0 (ZERO) warheards.

I know that France, Iran, Russia and the United States are meeting on 19 October to discuss something. I can safely assume part of their agenda is Iran's military nuclear capabilities. But, for a simple-minded crocodile, the mere fact of that meeting is enough to conclude some countries have concerns. And if the things would as unreachable as you said "it would take years" no serious government agency would care. So, something serious IS going on.

Well, enough with hypotheses. As the title of this article says 'Russia helping Iran build nukes'.
I said that I would believe this information but there's never been any evidence that this is actually so. The reactor Russia is building there is physically incapable of producing weapon grade Uranium. Besides, even if you have enough material you cant just blow it up. Technologies that are involved in building a nuke are very sophisticated, they require a whole industry and you'll never be able to conceal the fact that you're building a nuke considering the number of spies the US and Israel have undoubtedly planted there and a whole armada of satellites photographing every square centimeter of Iranian territory.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Nobody in Iran would risk that. I'm not talking about 'responsibility', I'm talking about self-preservation instinct.

In this, dare I hope, hypothetical conflict the one who moves first would lose everything.
That's why I think that Iran should have nukes. Because Israel starts talking of 'preemptive strikes' etc.

The self-preservation argument doesn't apply to people who want to be martyrs and go to paradise. What if their leaders have the mindset of a suicide bomber? Then they would be quite willing to sacrifice themselves and scores of their own to take out the enemy.

Originally Posted by basurero

Originally Posted by Ramil

Nobody in Iran would risk that. I'm not talking about 'responsibility', I'm talking about self-preservation instinct.

In this, dare I hope, hypothetical conflict the one who moves first would lose everything.
That's why I think that Iran should have nukes. Because Israel starts talking of 'preemptive strikes' etc.

The self-preservation argument doesn't apply to people who want to be martyrs and go to paradise. What if their leaders have the mindset of a suicide bomber? Then they would be quite willing to sacrifice themselves and scores of their own to take out the enemy.

You should have read this entire thread before making such remarks. People that build nukes and control them wouldn't be willing to sacrifice themselves. Suicide bombers are usually young and uneducated men who were thoroughly brainwashed. You don't find such people among the government.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You should have read this entire thread before making such remarks. People that build nukes and control them wouldn't be willing to sacrifice themselves. Suicide bombers are usually young and uneducated men who were thoroughly brainwashed. You don't find such people among the government.

Извиняюсь, но я не читаю всю тему, только проглядываю.
Конечно, этого не скажешь про большинство террористов, но девятнадцать 9/11 саудовцев были богатые, образованные, психически нормальные и семейные. Один, я помню, готовился к свадьбе.

Originally Posted by Lampada

Originally Posted by Ramil

You should have read this entire thread before making such remarks. People that build nukes and control them wouldn't be willing to sacrifice themselves. Suicide bombers are usually young and uneducated men who were thoroughly brainwashed. You don't find such people among the government.

Извиняюсь, но я не читаю всю тему, только проглядываю.
Конечно, этого не скажешь про большинство террористов, но девятнадцать 9/11 саудовцев были богатые, образованные, психически нормальные и женатые. Один, я помню, готовился к свадьбе.

Лампада, а вот я убеждён в причастности ЦРУ и лично Джорджа Буша к тем событиям. Да и вообще, в этом теракте очень много непонятных вещей, чтобы приводить его в пример.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Lampada

Originally Posted by Ramil

You should have read this entire thread before making such remarks. People that build nukes and control them wouldn't be willing to sacrifice themselves. Suicide bombers are usually young and uneducated men who were thoroughly brainwashed. You don't find such people among the government.

Извиняюсь, но я не читаю всю тему, только проглядываю.
Конечно, этого не скажешь про большинство террористов, но девятнадцать 9/11 саудовцев были богатые, образованные, психически нормальные и женатые. Один, я помню, готовился к свадьбе.

Лампада, а вот я убеждён в причастности ЦРУ и лично Джорджа Буша к тем событиям. Да и вообще, в этом теракте очень много непонятных вещей, чтобы приводить его в пример.

Ага, ты не знаешь, что там ещё вроде и Израиль был замешан?