Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67P20L20100826

I'd bet good money Kuwait or Saudi Arabia will be next. They have to be and have the means to do so.

I would not say Iran won't use it... Who really knows whether or not a totalitarian regime such as Iran will use their nuclear arsenal.

Well, ive been saying this for months, but im pretty sure we are seriously in the gak.

A mixture of dogmatically sticking to ancient desert scribblings and first world technology (nukes) will seriously feth the world up.

The reason the nuclear deterrant worked so well is because of the fact that if anybody fired one, they would get one stuck right back into them. And there in lies the problem, and why people that are knee deep in mono-theistic dogma will be happy to start flinging them about.

Muslims believe that the whole "life" thing is just the sucky wait till the big party starts. I mean, its only when you die the real party begins. This mentality makes me think that they would be happy to actually drop one, they know they will get nuked right back, but they dont care about that. A day spent while one is fighting in Jihad for Allah's Cause is better than a thousand spent praying and fasting.

So why not fling some nukes about? It doesnt matter if you die yourself, because then you get to go to the eternal party with the virgins!

I am convinced that eventually Islam will cause the deaths of millions. I dont like devout Christians or Jews either, but im sure it will be an Islamic state that shots the first one at somebody, I only have two wishes.

1. Israel or someone else has the bottle to nuke them first.

2. They get 72 mother in laws with those 72 virgins.

Frazzled wrote:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67P20L20100826

I'd bet good money Kuwait or Saudi Arabia will be next. They have to be and have the means to do so.

Iran has enough LEU to refine into an amount of HEU that would be sufficient for two bombs. Your title is inaccurate, unless you would have posted the same thing a decade ago when Iran had enough raw uranium to refine enough LEU to refine enough HEU for the manufacture of 2 bombs.

Regardless, Kuwait has made no attempt to begin its own nuclear program, and actually just agreed to a deal for civilian nuclear technology with France. Basically meaning that the French will supply personnel, fuel, and equipment while the Kuwaiti state supplies the funding.

What might lead to the development of nuclear weapons is the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, and the UAE. However, if that is the case, then all those nations would be likely to obtain nuclear weapons in quick succession, if not simultaneously. However, that type of technology sharing agreement would be essentially unprecedented. The nearest analogue is the Manhattan Project, but that was based on a very close relationship between the US and the UK; the sort of thing that is absent from the GCC.

Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have already stated that if Iran goes nuclear they will quickly have to as well.

Frazzled wrote:Both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have already stated that if Iran goes nuclear they will quickly have to as well.

No, they haven't. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have stated that a nuclear Iran represents a security concern, which isn't the same thing as stating that they will respond with their own nuclear programs aimed at the development of weapons capability.

In Kuwait's case this security risk has been primarily acknowledged as one of nuclear safety, as they possess the closest population centers to the Bushehr plant. In Saudi Arabia's case the matter of concern is related to Iran's freedom to pursue clandestine action in their territory, and also their ability to shift their power grid away from petroleum in order to free up more petroleum for export. The latter example is, of course, informed speculation as the Saudi's are not at all open with respect to their internal development matters.

I'd have to say that its not exactly possible to control and run a country while being so utterly insane as to think you can fling nukes around with wild abandon. Any politician whose managed to gain power (this includes both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah) will want to hold on to their power as tightly as possible for as long as possible.

You don't really have a lot of power when the thing your ruling is a nuclear wasteland. I don't think Iran will go ALLAH ACKBAR and start nuking everything, but I do worry about them potentially supplying radioactive material for dirty bombs for terrorist factions, and that I think is the greatest concern. A nuclear weapon is a next to invaluable military asset, and no intelligent general or leader would waste their nukes giving them to fundamentalists.

I also wonder if instead of developing nuclear weapons, the Arab Community would accept being placed under the American Nuclear umbrella....It would be MUCH cheaper for them to just come to the US and get placed under the umbrella instead of expending the money to develop their own nuclear programs.

ChrisWWII wrote:I'd have to say that its not exactly possible to control and run a country while being so utterly insane as to think you can fling nukes around with wild abandon. Any politician whose managed to gain power (this includes both Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah) will want to hold on to their power as tightly as possible for as long as possible.

There's more to it than even that. The Iranian regime has shown a consistently conservative agenda with regard to its own safety. Some might argue that their nuclear ambitions represent a departure from this, but it also has to be remembered that the Iranian nuclear program has its roots in the the time under the Shah, and was then developed with US aid. This project isn't a new thing, and it hasn't been executed irrationally. There's a reason they waited to make the final, concerted (and overt) push until the US was tied down militarily.

ChrisWWII wrote:
I also wonder if instead of developing nuclear weapons, the Arab Community would accept being placed under the American Nuclear umbrella....It would be MUCH cheaper for them to just come to the US and get placed under the umbrella instead of expending the money to develop their own nuclear programs.

To some extent, that's what has already been assumed. The Arab states may still seek their own civilian nuclear programs through cooperative agreements, but they don't have much of a reason to outright weaponize them; Kuwait is a good example of this.

dogma wrote:
There's more to it than even that. The Iranian regime has shown a consistently conservative agenda with regard to its own safety. Some might argue that their nuclear ambitions represent a departure from this, but it also has to be remembered that the Iranian nuclear program has its roots in the the time under the Shah, and was then developed with US aid. This project isn't a new thing, and it hasn't been executed irrationally. There's a reason they waited to make the final, concerted (and overt) push until the US was tied down militarily.

Exactly, and I think its dangerous for anyone to assume that the Iranian government is an irrational actor on the world stage. The assumption that they may be irrational enough to launch a preemptive nuclear strike is an extremely worrying to make for any nation state, especially by a nuclear nation. I'm almost worried that going off this assumption may lead to someone doing something stupid and launching a strike on Iranian nuclear plants.

The Iranian government is run by intelligent people We need to recognize that and not put them down as insane fundamentalists. I personally think that's just a facade they've put up to justify their actions.

And agreed. They probably will try and seek some kind of cooperative nuclear agreement.....even then I find the concept of spreading nuclear material in the middle East to be worrying. Makes me worry about it becoming easier to acquire nuclear material.

I don't want to place them under the American nucelar umbrella. They should stand or fall on their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Iranian government is run by intelligent people We need to recognize that and not put them down as insane fundamentalists. I personally think that's just a facade they've put up to justify their actions.

Their head calls for the exterimination of Israel. Thats not insane fundmanentalism?

Once they have a nuke they can fully threaten their neighbors and meddle with impugnity. I would.

Frazzled wrote:I don't want to place them under the American nucelar umbrella. They should stand or fall on their own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Iranian government is run by intelligent people We need to recognize that and not put them down as insane fundamentalists. I personally think that's just a facade they've put up to justify their actions.

Their head calls for the exterimination of Israel. Thats not insane fundmanentalism?

Once they have a nuke they can fully threaten their neighbors and meddle with impugnity. I would.

The thing is that nearly every other US ally is under the American nuclear umbrella. Germany, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Japan....any other country that's Allied with the US but lacks its own nuclear weapons is under the US nuclear umbrella. Why should our Middle Eastern allies be forced to stand on their own while we flock to defend or Western and Asian allies?

The things is, I think that that whole 'extermination of Israel' thing is showboating. Putting up a complete fundamentalist facade. Humans are humans and politicians are politicians everywhere on Earth. They don't want to lose their power, and you have much more influence as a nuclear armed power than a smoking post-apocalyptic wasteland. They are intelligent enough to realise that launching nuclear weapons would only hurt them in the long run.

Additionally, they can't meddle without impugnity. They have the equivalent of American puppet states to their east and west, and a well equipped American and Western army to their east at that. They are vulnerable to the American Navy that can stay in the Persian Gulf and off the Iranian coast with ease. They are within striking distance of the Israeli air force, and thus within range of the Israeli's own nuclear weapons. There are tons more factors keeping the Iranians under control the same way that the US and the Soviet Union kept each other under control during the Cold War. They couldn't act with impunity and neither will Iran.

The boats and the new drone launcher are not there for use against other countries. They are there to let the world know they can create havoc in the straits of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman and potentiall Arabian Sea. They already meddle with near impugnity.

Frazzled wrote:The boats and the new drone launcher are not there for use against other countries. They are there to let the world know they can create havoc in the straits of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman and potentiall Arabian Sea. They already meddle with near impugnity.

Well of course they can cause havoc. The straits of hormuz are narrow enough that anyone can cause havoc in it. However, once they TRY to start to cause any havoc or interference, they'll be smashed very quickly. I honestly think the Iranian government underestimate the amount of devastation that could be unleashed on them should they really piss us off.

They are supplying aid that kills US soldiers. How much more ticked off do we have to be?

On the flip side, why should we care if they have nukes? Let 'em, but make it very publicized policy that if a nuke goes off in US territory, although others may have caused it, Iran will be wiped off the face of the earth, forever (aka the pre MAD policy of Massive Retaliation).

Frazzled wrote:They are supplying aid that kills US soldiers. How much more ticked off do we have to be?

Indeed.

And dont forget all the British ones, 14 men from 40 commando RM in the last 3 months as well, if it was down to me id eradictate the entire upper echelons of the current administration with napalm and i would sleep like a baby afterwards.

Meh.... Nearly everybody has the tech and mats to make a substancial EMP device. Only need WWII tech and mats. And one properly place device would cause a chain reaction that could shut down major portions of a power grid, as well as disable most electronic devices nearby.

So Iran joins the nuke club.... No-one, even North Korea, is crazy enough to actually use one..... Well except for the US.

Something for these Tinpot dictators to keep in mind.... We (the US) are the only country PROVEN to have the will to use Nukes against our enemies.

Thing is, we are pretty darn sure they're supplying aid, but it's not an act of war till a big division flying Iranian flags come over the border and start shooting. TIll then it's not enough. Unfortunately.

I would like to obilterate everyone in the Iranian upper governement, but unfortunately, unlike in 40k, the laws of physics still apply so we can't do that....

The problem with pre-MAD massive retaliation is that making nukes your answer to anything is a bit dangerous. Same thing with pre-blaming someone for an attack. It worked back in the 1950s cause the only other people WITH nukes were the Soviets, but now it could easily be a stolen Russian or Pakistani nuke. Maybe a North Korean one. Who knows? Thing is, you can't blame Iran for that.

Frazzled wrote:
I don't want to place them under the American nucelar umbrella. They should stand or fall on their own.

So you would prefer having more nuclear capable states in the world? As with firearms, nuclear deterrence becomes incrementally less forceful upon each state's attainment of nuclear capability.

Frazzled wrote:
Their head calls for the exterimination of Israel. Thats not insane fundmanentalism?

Ahmadinejad isn't the head of the Iranian government.

Also, as had been said, there is no reason for the US to assume it isn't merely a rhetorical facade. Israel has reason to eliminate that possibility, but we don't.

Frazzled wrote:
Once they have a nuke they can fully threaten their neighbors and meddle with impugnity. I would.

They can already do that. Geographic size and popular mass are amazing deterrents.

Frazzled wrote:
On the flip side, why should we care if they have nukes? Let 'em, but make it very publicized policy that if a nuke goes off in US territory, although others may have caused it, Iran will be wiped off the face of the earth, forever (aka the pre MAD policy of Massive Retaliation).

So, your solution to the Iranian problem involves providing an incentive for states and actors opposed to Iran to attempt to detonate a nuclear weapon in a US city? That's utter nonsense.

Wait a Middle Eastern state putting together WMDs thus a need to invade/wipe them off the map?

that sounds eerily familiar...

helgrenze wrote:Meh.... Nearly everybody has the tech and mats to make a substancial EMP device. Only need WWII tech and mats. And one properly place device would cause a chain reaction that could shut down major portions of a power grid, as well as disable most electronic devices nearby.

From what I understand, EMP devices of any reasonable strength are massive, and require massive amounts of power to 'detonate'. I could be wrong though, its been a while since I looked at that material.

helgrenze wrote:
Something for these Tinpot dictators to keep in mind.... We (the US) are the only country PROVEN to have the will to use Nukes against our enemies.

Perhaps we should nuke the moon into a bust of Reagan, then they'll know that we mean business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisWWII wrote:
Exactly, and I think its dangerous for anyone to assume that the Iranian government is an irrational actor on the world stage. The assumption that they may be irrational enough to launch a preemptive nuclear strike is an extremely worrying to make for any nation state, especially by a nuclear nation. I'm almost worried that going off this assumption may lead to someone doing something stupid and launching a strike on Iranian nuclear plants.

Gazing into the abyss and whatnot.

ChrisWWII wrote:
The Iranian government is run by intelligent people We need to recognize that and not put them down as insane fundamentalists. I personally think that's just a facade they've put up to justify their actions.

Well, they are fundamentalists. What we need to do is recognize that fundamentalists are not necessarily idiots.

CT GAMER wrote:Wait a Middle Eastern state putting together WMDs thus a need to invade/wipe them off the map?

that sounds eerily familiar...

This. Honestly MODs, I am dissapointed in you lot. The sort of gak posted here is just disgusting.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Wait a Middle Eastern state putting together WMDs thus a need to invade/wipe them off the map?

that sounds eerily familiar...

This. Honestly MODs, I am dissapointed in you lot. The sort of gak posted here is just disgusting.

But it does seem oddly familiar...

What I have never understood is why the west gets all tight arsed when another country gets the WMDs? Is it 'cos they don't like other countries having the same power that they do?

ghosty wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Wait a Middle Eastern state putting together WMDs thus a need to invade/wipe them off the map?

that sounds eerily familiar...

This. Honestly MODs, I am dissapointed in you lot. The sort of gak posted here is just disgusting.

But it does seem oddly familiar...

What I have never understood is why the west gets all tight arsed when another country gets the WMDs? Is it 'cos they don't like other countries having the same power that they do?

No ghosty, I wasn't dissing CT GAMER's posts. It's some of the other posters here on Dakka that sicken me, especially their stance on Muslims. It's just wrong, and I hate this sort of crap.

Oh! I apologise.

To be fair, I have the means to make Pancakes.

Doesn't mean I'm actually going to.

ghosty wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

CT GAMER wrote:Wait a Middle Eastern state putting together WMDs thus a need to invade/wipe them off the map?

that sounds eerily familiar...

This. Honestly MODs, I am dissapointed in you lot. The sort of gak posted here is just disgusting.

But it does seem oddly familiar...

What I have never understood is why the west gets all tight arsed when another country gets the WMDs? Is it 'cos they don't like other countries having the same power that they do?

'Cause they are not keen on a nuke war occurring? State sponsors of terror getting nukes and giving one to a terrorist organization? Thats why.

Having said that, who's advocating anything? I'm the opposite. A pox on everyone's houses. We need to get the hell out of there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:To be fair, I have the means to make Pancakes.

Doesn't mean I'm actually going to.

Pancakes superior! Waffles inferior!

dogma wrote:

helgrenze wrote:Meh.... Nearly everybody has the tech and mats to make a substancial EMP device. Only need WWII tech and mats. And one properly place device would cause a chain reaction that could shut down major portions of a power grid, as well as disable most electronic devices nearby.

From what I understand, EMP devices of any reasonable strength are massive, and require massive amounts of power to 'detonate'. I could be wrong though, its been a while since I looked at that material.

Popular Mechanics published the basics of one type of E-bomb, flux compression generator bombs (FCGs), back in Sept of 2001. The design was developed in the 50s. Not as massive as a Nuke EMP burst, but detonated in the right place... say near a major electrical substation...... The cascade effect could bring down a major city grid, possibly more.

This is great news. Counter to popular opinion, nuclear proliferation brings stability.

Australia has over 50% of the world's uranium resources. Forget about oil, we're the new middle-east, damn it!

If we ever start utilising nuclear energy, that is.

See. I told you even the soil in Oz was poisonous! There's a reason we shipped our criminals over there