Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours.

by Colman Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 03:49:03 AM EST

We were wondering how long this would take. From the Guardian:

The west's confrontation with Iran over its nuclear activities intensified yesterday after Britain claimed that Tehran could acquire the technological capability to build a bomb by the end of the year.

A day after the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the dispute to the United Nations security council, British officials also indicated that London would back Washington's efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran's compliance with international demands.

So now the concern that triggers action is not nuclear weapons but nuclear technology. Obviously the previous talking points weren't working for them. A five to ten-year window doesn't sound scary enough, does it?
A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it might gain the technical knowhow within months. "By the end of the year is a ... realistic period," said the official. "It would be really damaging to regional security if Iran even acquired the technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon."

Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to 10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the level of Iran's technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

"Roll over Tony. Now, sit and beg. Good boy."
Britain maintains that military action to destroy Iran's suspect facilities is not under discussion. But the Bush administration, backed by Israel, has refused to rule out the use of force.
This is not about convincing the UN. This is about convincing the US public. Same pattern as Iraq: when the mild propaganda doesn't work, ramp it up and make the threat sound more imminent. It's the same channel as well as far as I recall.

I can't believe that the US administration is insane enough to want to go to war in Iran but I can't avoid the parallels between the build-up to Iraq and now.

Display:
Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. | 97 comments (97 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Typo in title intentional?
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:06:30 AM EST
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Same question here... Is this some bitter form of irony?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:20:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
<oblig obscure joke> (none / 0)
Ah, but Colman, like the Murphy's, he's not bitter...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:23:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
I was going with the bitter irony. I can deal with these guys just being nuts and wanting another war. What I have more problems with is that there seems to be no way to stop them. They are crazy and they are dangerous. Average people will be locked up in locked psychiatric ward - but they are free. Thats the sickening part to me.
by Fran on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:25:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
Oh yea, sorry about that. Thought I was in 2003 for some reason.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:54:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Do you mind if I use this story for my dKos diary today?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:10:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
Of course not.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:12:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
DailyKos crosspost (none / 0)
Now done: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/10/75939/6075

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:05:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
I like this bit from the BBC as well:

US Ambassador John Bolton told the BBC he could not predict whether there would be any consensus at the Security Council which faced, he said, a test as to its ability to deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation.

"The president [George W Bush] has said repeatedly that no options are off the table," he said.

But Washington's preference was to deal with Iran through the Security Council, he added.

Mr Bolton said that while much of what Iran did was bluff, its level of irresponsibility illustrated why Tehran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:14:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
the Security Council which faced, he said, a test as to its ability to deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation.
Here we go again. It's the winter of 2002/3 all over again.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:44:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
This is rich first we have this:
the Bush administration's policy relied on making loud threats with little substance, in the hope that Iran would capitulate. If the Islamic regime did not retreat, then the US had not worked out how it would proceed,
and then we have Bolton's virulent case of projection:
while much of what Iran did was bluff, its level of irresponsibility illustrated why Tehran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 08:40:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
Déjà vu is a force that gives us meaning.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:42:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
thanks for that link. Powerful text.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:55:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 2)
My emphasis:
At the end of the Vienna talks this week, a statement by Britain and European negotiating partners said: "Indicators of a possible military dimension to Iran's programme continue to be a legitimate source of intense concern.
You comments show you obviously conclude that the Americans are orchestrating this.  So the Guardian, which is left leaning and not particularly friendly to the US, is covering for the US, saying that it's the Europeans that are saying this,,,,when it's really the Americans?

And you obviously have the insight to see

I can't believe that the US administration is insane enough to want to go to war in Iran.

So let me understand this--a left leaning newspaper with no love for the US, reports that Europeans think some of Iran's actions are cause for concern,,,and the potential outcome is something that you think (and I agree) is clearly not in America's interests,,,,,,,and you blame America?

So if something is playing out in the world that is in America's interests, you conclude it's the Americans manipulating the situation.

If something is playing out in the world that is not in America's interests, you conclude it's the Americans manipulating the situation.

Huh?

by wchurchill on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:43:28 AM EST
Re: Huh? (4.00 / 4)
No, that's not what I meant: I find it incredible (in the sense that I do not find it credible) that the US administration could want to attack Iran.

You are assuming, and I'm desperately trying to assume, that the people in charge in the US are acting the best interests of the US. I'm not sure they are.

There is a great difference between legitimate concern and digging up justifications as to why this must be solved immediately.

I'm being pro-American, not anti-American: I think this would be a greater mistake for US interests than Iraq. But I cannot avoid the sinking feeling that someone, somewhere is playing exactly the same scenario of driving the US towards military action by fixing the facts around their policy.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:50:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (none / 1)

So if something is playing out in the world that is in America's interests, you conclude it's the Americans manipulating the situation.

If something is playing out in the world that is not in America's interests, you conclude it's the Americans manipulating the situation.

And if we think it's not the Americans, it's just our delusions of grandeur and wishful thinking that we still matter...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:51:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now, now... (4.00 / 2)
Don't be bitter...
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:07:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Now, now... (none / 0)
I know a good shrink,,,,,
by wchurchill on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 03:26:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Now, now... (none / 1)
Good, is it working?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 03:32:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (4.00 / 3)
I was very careful to say the US administration, not the US.

I had exactly this feeling in the run-up to Iraq: "They can't be that stupid." They were.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:52:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (none / 1)
Yes you have made that distinction.  I should write a diary sometime on this, because it's a little philosophical, and my own thoughts are not yet complete.  What I mean is, we Americans have consistently elected both houses of Congress in an increasing Conservative and Republican direction for six straight election cycles (two year cycles, '94--2004).  Over that period we have also elected a Conservative president 2 out of 3 elections--close elections, but that's what happened.  I think one has to conclude that the country is turning more conservative, and that the liberals and Democrats have not come forward with effective messages that win the hearts and minds of America.

So my point is, we, in America, are all responsible for our government.  None of us (or at least not many of us) totally agree with everything our leaders do.  But somehow it seems to me we shirk responsibility in a democracy, if we don't accept responsibility for what our government does.

I know this is kind of flawed logic,,,in some ways. But it just seems to me that you let us off the hook when you draw that distinction.  For example, and IMHO, the Democrats still have not recognized and acknowledged key reasons why Kerry lost in '04.  When you don't understand that, it's likely to get you again, and again--so they are responsible in the sense of lack of credible opposition.

These thoughts need a diary, or maybe a good shrink.

by wchurchill on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 03:44:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (4.00 / 4)
You're mangling the text in an effort to support your point.

There is nothing in what you have quoted to suggest that the Vienna talks produced anything different to a 5-10 year threat.

As for this:

So let me understand this--a left leaning newspaper with no love for the US, reports that Europeans think some of Iran's actions are cause for concern,,,and the potential outcome is something that you think (and I agree) is clearly not in America's interests,,,,,,,and you blame America?

Nice try at changing the issue! (And I might ask why you feel compelled to do so?) This is not what the article is about. It is not a general report on the outcome of Vienna talks and the actions it discusses on behalf of the British government are not attributed as a result of the Vienna talks. The article is clearly talking about an escalation of threat, not by Europe as a whole, but by the same elegant British sources that brought us the Niger propaganda fluff.

The article exists to inform us about the British justification for this action:

British officials also indicated that London would back Washington's efforts to impose a UN deadline of about 30 days for Iran's compliance with international demands.

So, the US is attempting to impose an artificial deadline on the process. The British are backing them, using a bait and switch of intelligence priorities and evidence, frighteningly reminiscent of the run up to the invasion of Iraq.

Now why on earth would I read this article and suggest that the US is angling for war?

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (none / 0)
You are misunderstanding my point.

I am criticizing Colman's reaction to the article, not the article itself.  I said: "Your comments show you obviously conclude that the Americans are orchestrating this."

Comments like "Roll over Tony. Now, sit and beg. Good boy."

As I pointed out in my comments, it seems that America is manipulating events always, in the eyes of some.  It's a focus on interpretting America's motivations, rather than a focus on the policy issues.  If every event is going to be analyzed through someone's lens that sees America as the villian, how does that make sense?  Your lens is different from my lens which is differnt than someone else's lens.  And what is wrong with discussing the objective facts and the differences on policy?

You bring up the legitimate policy issue, IMHO--what is the appropriate negotiation strategy with Iran, and the appropriate timetable?

And, does this comment make any sense?

A senior Foreign Office official said that while it could take Iran several years to build a serviceable nuclear weapon, it might gain the technical knowhow within months. "By the end of the year is a ... realistic period," said the official. "It would be really damaging to regional security if Iran even acquired the technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon."

Until now, European diplomats have referred to a period of five to 10 years during which Iran might potentially build a bomb, while conceding that hard evidence is lacking. By publicly focusing on the level of Iran's technical capabilities, Britain may have shortened the timeframe for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Is it true Iran could gain the technical knowledge in a few months, and even if it is true, is it relevant?

Postulating one's interpretation of other's motivations, rather than discussing the facts and the policies, just defocuses the debate, and excludes those who don't share those same interpretations of motivations--IMHO

by wchurchill on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 03:24:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (none / 1)
Ok, you've made yourself clear. You're unwilling to acknowledge that events can be shaped by motivations. Fair enough, there's little to discuss here then.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Sat Mar 11th, 2006 at 10:03:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (none / 0)
The Guardian is not a single entity, Ward. The left of the Guardian is antiwar, the right of the Guardian (which controls the news end of the operation) is in bed with the Blairites.  Its the mirror image of the Wall street journal situation.

On defence and security matters, the Guardian has often been remarkable supine about whatever is "leaked" to them by the government.

by Aruac on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 01:08:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Huh? (none / 0)
It's a straight news story reporting what was said. It's actually not a bad story that way.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 01:09:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
At times like this, I am very glad I live at the arse end of the world, with a government that absolutely Will Not Get Involved with this lunacy.
by IdiotSavant on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:58:06 AM EST
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 3)
In the event of nuclear war in the Northern hemisphere, it takes about a year for soot to make its way to the southern hemisphere, so you'll even have advance warning of nuclear winter.

After all, your skies are cleaner for star-gazing because most of the pollution originates in the north.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:49:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now look here Jerome... (none / 0)
Migeru is making this wonderfully upbeat. That's the spirit.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:10:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Now look here Jerome... (none / 0)
Sorry, I got very little sleep last night. Uncontrolled bouts of sneezing...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:33:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So let me get this straight... (4.00 / 2)
You had little sleep and you're making upbeat (if not downright funny) comments? I love it... Here's to more sleep deprivation.

Funny, I've had a good sleep and feeling far too punny than is good for this forum...

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:38:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: So let me get this straight... (none / 0)
I thought you were being snarky and you meant the opposite of what you said, as I was talking about nuclear winter in the northern hemisphere and how our (your and mine) night skies suck... But to each his own...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah. (none / 0)
So you are your gloomy self after all, but it's just my upbeatism (?) that mistook it.... To my mind, you were cheering up IS for living Down Under and missing out on the nuclear winter while the northern hemisphere indulges. Always looking on the bright side of life, and all that.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:13:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 3)

UN unlikely to make Iranian nuclear deal easier

Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, on Thursday said a nuclear-armed Iran would be hundreds of times more threatening to US interests, a day after Tehran's nuclear dispute was sent to the UN Security Council.

As officials in the US and Europe considered action against Tehran, Ms Rice indicated that Iran was already the US's biggest challenge because of its alleged meddling in the Middle East.

Heh. Meddling is ok. Alleged meddling is bad, bad, bad.


"If you can take that and multiply it by several hundred, you can imagine Iran with a nuclear weapon and the threat they would then pose to that region," she told a congressional hearing.

(...)

US and European officials say that Tehran could, within one year, master the uranium enrichment technology that could be used for an atomic bomb. So, although diplomats in Europe speak of incremental pressure at the UN, stopping Iran's quest for the technology will, in practice, require an accelerated approach.

Something needs to be done before November!


The first action, expected next week, is the easiest part: a presidential statement at the Security Council urging Iran to cease enrichment activities, with a deadline of weeks rather than months, according to diplomats. If Tehran failed to respond, the Council would consider targeted sanctions.

But it is at this point that the international front against Iran is likely to start unravelling, with Russia and China, two permanent members of the Security Council with veto power, resisting sanctions.

Nicholas Burns, US undersecretary for state, outlined this week how the US had few options at its disposal because of the lack of international support for significant sanctions. The US had no illusions about being able to resolve this crisis through the Security Council and was in the process of seeking to put together an ad hoc coalition of "concerned countries", he told a Washington think-tank.

"Coalition of the Concerned". They don't even need to be willing...


From Mr Burns' briefing, analysts said it was apparent that the Bush administration's policy relied on making loud threats with little substance, in the hope that Iran would capitulate. If the Islamic regime did not retreat, then the US had not worked out how it would proceed, analysts said.

"hope" "not worked out what do do it if". Now THAT sounds familiar.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:08:25 AM EST
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
From Mr Burns' briefing, analysts said it was apparent that the Bush administration's policy relied on making loud threats with little substance, in the hope that Iran would capitulate. If the Islamic regime did not retreat, then the US had not worked out how it would proceed, analysts said.
And nobody in Iran cares about what the US says. Rep. John Murtha explained why last Tuesday on MSNBC:
In other words, when Cheney makes a threat like that, it falls on deaf ears because they know darn well we couldn't accept it. But the big thing is, as much money as we spend on intelligence, we don't know where the targets are, we don't know exactly what we need to do. So there's no use in even talking about the military strikes.
A polite way of saying that Cheney is shooting his mouth off. The US doesn't have any army left to use and go to war.

Video here and transcript there
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
A counter-productive, symbolic air-war is all the US can do. But it can do that.

It'd kill lots of Arabs, but who cares about that?

(and yes, I do know that most Iranians aren't Arab)

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:09:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Nice spin from the FO.

Actually Iran probably already has the know-how.

And it would be impossible to destroy it without nuking the entire Internet, and also taking out a few academic book stores.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:44:07 AM EST
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
Take out the bookstores?

How long do you think a few smart nuclear physicists and industrial engineers would take to duplicate the work of the Manhattan project? It's not like it's not part of folk science already.

Stuff cannot be disinvented.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Take out the schools, then. Stuff cannot be disinvented but it can be forgotten, or not learnt...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:49:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Yeah, just nuk'em back to the pre-Cambrian.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:51:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's not that far... (4.00 / 2)
Half of those people think that's only some 8000 years ago...
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:13:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: That's not that far... (4.00 / 3)
For the most strict, until some 4500 years ago. (The Antedeluvian.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:18:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right... (4.00 / 3)
... And you give the reason why I open up a bottle of good wine on October 23th and have a toast, to celebrate the birthday of the Earth, according to Archbisshop Ussher.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:34:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (none / 0)
You just made my day.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:36:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (4.00 / 3)
Put it in the diary (i.e. calendar for those of us not awake) and we'll have an official ET festival to celebrate.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:37:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (none / 0)
Where is the calendar?

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (none / 0)
I meant your calendar. Although.... maybe an ET events calendar isn't a bad idea.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:42:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (none / 0)
Call it an Open Thread calendar.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:45:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (none / 0)
I cannot help myself...

http://www.eurotribwiki.com/pmwiki.php/Calendar/Main

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:18:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (none / 0)
Make that http://www.eurotribwiki.com/pmwiki.php/Calendar/Calendar
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:25:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: You're right... (none / 0)
Great work Colman. Can we have link to this off the main page?
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:40:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Shades of Pol Pot and also the current Myanmar regime.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:27:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
It's not the first time I compare the neo-cons to Pol-Pot on that basis. (link)

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:38:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 4)
And don't forget to burn Wikipedia and the Internets ...

Since last month, the Iranians are reported to have been feeding uranium gas into a small rig of 20 centrifuges at Natanz. That can yield little useful fissile material, but plenty of knowhow for a later, more ambitious project, said a senior official close to the IAEA investigation.

It's depressing to read that stuff. It is so stupid and dishonest. Such bullshit, it's unbelievable.

The basic know-how for fission weapons is indeed very basic and within the comprehension of any scientifically inclined individual (fusion weapons are a very different story). I'm ready to bet that it would take at most 6 months to a group of 10 scientists and a good machineshop to demonstrate at laboratory scale every single step of building a uranium-based nuclear weapon, from yellowcake conversion to UF6 to building the fast detonators for the implosions lenses...

The actual difficulty is doing it at real scale with all the reproducibility and the quality necessary to get real weapons. Building and running 20 centrifuges? Big deal! I'm shaking in my boots. Now, go do that with 50,000 of them. That's a very different story...

As I argued before, Iran does want nuclear weapons, but claiming they are anywhere close based on what is publicly known so far is bullshit, plain unadulterated bullshit of the highest, stinkiest grade.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 3)
I think they have a cascade of 20 centrifugues to enrich their bullshit.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:35:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dong! (none / 0)
Jackpot comment. Extra cookie.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:39:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
Indeedy

They need to spin it fast.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:05:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
I was being snarky.

But given Bush's record on promoting science, I'd be a little, but not totally, surprised to start seeing book burnings of unpopular information about evolution and other controversial ideas. (Controversial if you're a fundie, anyway.)

But - it's an interesting question just how long it really would take. I'd guess anyone with a physics or engineering degree knows the principles. But as I understand it there are still some nasty issues involved in (e.g.) designing compression wavefronts in the explosives surrounding an implosion bomb if you want a reasonable yield.

Does anyone know the yields of the weapons that Israel, India and Pakistan have built?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:41:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Forget about implosion bombs, the Hiroshima bomb was simpler and impressive enough. The yield doesn't matter, what matters is the mushroom cloud.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:46:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 3)
Little boy was indeed a simple gun assembly but it was not little at all (4 tons, says the Wiki), not suitable for a missile or a normal jet fighter. It was also awfully inefficient with the enriched uranium (64 kg HEU and 15kt yield, says the Wiki). The same amount of HEU could be used to make 4 or 5 more powerful bombs (~50kt yield each) using an implosion assembly.

A gun assembly would make only sense if Iran wants a scarecrow weapon, just to do a test and for bragging rights. And I really don't think this is what Iran wants. It would militarily unusable and it would give a great excuse for Israel to preemptively test its own weapons on Iranian cities.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:21:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
Good point.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:23:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 3)
Regular shipping containers can carry four tons easily.
by asdf on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 08:59:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
No, really, I don't think this is Iran's goal by any means.

Nuclear terrorism is not an option for state actors. How do you want to use this type of threats at a strategic level?

Container bombs can only be used for unprovoqued offensive action, not for retaliations. Any nuclear country that would use this kind of threats on or off the record would be essentially broadcasting that it is considering an out-of-the-blue first strike as part of its policies. It would be suicidal, puddle-of-molten-glass suicidal.

Iran is seeking nukes as a tool for its regional ambitions. Iran is not North Korea (and even North Korea has its own kind of rationality).
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:10:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
How do you know they are seeking nukes? I've missed that.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:14:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
He argued it in the first instalment of Gnomem00t 0:
Iran is full of shit when it proclaims that its nuclear program is all nice and peacefull. It's plain false (or the Iranians have really no clue what they are putting their money into). Their program is for military use.


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:17:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
Because, what we know of their program is diametrically opposed to what I would do if I was 1) in their shoes and 2) trying to develop a pragmatic civilian program for extensive nuclear electricity generation. In 180° phase opposition. The money and resources are flowing exactly where they should not go.

The one extra bonus point is their heavy water program which screams of natural uranium conversion to plutonium (and tritium), the ideal fallback plan is enrichment doesn't work.

So ok, may be it's just a misguided effort out of national pride (and Iranians are very proud :) but, there, they are blasting through every records of misguided national pride, en route for the top spot in all categories of the Guinness Book.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:46:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Grrrr, typo.
... the ideal fallback plan if enrichment doesn't work.
Sorry
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:49:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
They very well could be pursuing nuclear weapons and their programme is designed to make that possible. However, that's not the same as knowing they are.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:57:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
I know = I am convinced based on the available evidence.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 10:58:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Colman! Come on!

They have a nifty and well run nuclear program that has 1) all the potential to diverge on military applications and 2) remove resources and clearly impede cooperation for actual work on energy production technology. Add on top of that Iran's regional context and clearly stated strategic ambitions and tell me with a straight face that they are clean?

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, so yeah, may be it's not a duck after all. It could be a swan that just happens to look very ducky :>

There is one piece missing though for the plutonium option: confirmed, substantial reports of PUREX technology. I've seen noises here and there but nothing definitive. Colman, if I find something from a serious source, like the IAEA, you owe me a 6 courses lunch at l'Ambroisie (Bernard Pacaud) :)

The funny thing is that I'm rather, mmm no, not cool but let's say, not totally ballistic with a nuclear Iran. If there is to be a top dog in the region, I'd far prefer it to be Iran rather than the Saudis. We should aim to 1) slow them down as much as possible without aggravating the Iranian population and 2) help as much as possible a peaceful democratic take-over.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 11:19:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
If the IAEA had that they wouldn't be foostering around as they are. And I probably wouldn't be hedging statements like this.

Like you, I'd rather not have a nuclear Iran. It's not directly the end of the world though.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 11:25:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Actually, PUREX has legit applications for fuel reprocessing and waste disposal. So it could be consistent with Iran's public goal of controlling the full fuel cycle.

So by your standards, it could be OK. By mine, err, not so.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 11:38:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
BTW, what's your expert's comment on the official Iranian version on the use of the zero-yield heavy water reactor at Isfahan?

Use of HWZPR for Simulation of Critical Assembly This project is going to perform several dynamic and static experiments (neutron spectrum measurement, reactivity, flux, etc) with different lattice pitch of HWZPR.

Also, do you see significant differences between the Arab reactor and the heavy-water reactor China supplied to Algeria which is used for the same purposes Iran claims for Arak?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 03:40:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
I have no problem with zero power reactors.

And I have the same reaction for both IR-40 and the Ain Oussera reactor. Funny you bring the parallel between those two. The Salam reactor was purchased clandestinely before Algeria signed the NPT and while Algeria was seeking nuclear weapons... QED?
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:23:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
And I don't pretend to be an expert, btw. Nukes are just a hobby for me, along with fishing, sailing, amateur rocketry, reading, cooking and the rest :)

I should take "rocketry" off the list to be honest. I haven't launch one in a long while (sigh).
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:29:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
they are blasting through every records of misguided national pride

Hm. Great Leap Forward, Soviet agriculture, Eocene Program in Hungary, Milosevic's falling-apart empire, the construction projects of the first emperor of China - competition hard to beat. Methinks you're ballistic.

Regarding the previous discussion, one point not clear to me in your position: why do you think that having to import enriched uranium would be significant foreign dependence (one that could be stopped at political pressure)?

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 01:57:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
By the way, two different groups brought forth an interesting proposal in line with what the Iranian President proposed a month back - to let an international consortium take over the Iranian enrichment facilities, with the added points that (a) Iran would have to accept additional much more intrusive inspections, (b) in return the international consortium would bring more advanced centrifuges, with self-destruct mechanisms. (The latter, if I got right what's written here, would be possible because some parts of the centrifuge are normally left spinning permanently but would have to be stopped for rebuilding into cascade mode.)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 02:52:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well now (none / 0)
That's stuff that's interesting enough for a diary in itself. Good reports.
by Nomad (Bjinse) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:47:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Ehhh?!? Self-destructing rotor lubrification so you can't stop the machines? So what?

What would prevent the operators from messing with the feed while keeping the machines running?

The same cascade to used to generate 3.6% U235 from 0.711% feed to 0.3% tail will get you at 95% U235 in two recirculation passes while keeping the same exact feed/output/tail ratios.

Typical ICG...
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:31:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
why do you think that having to import enriched uranium would be significant foreign dependence

wouldn't

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 04:53:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Uh, missed your correction. See below for reply.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:17:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
Very good point, Dodo. Recent history has many examples of harebrained grand schemes. So it's still an option.

Yet, I'm not convinced it is applicable to Iran as the power structure over there seems much more diffuse and complex than traditional totalitarianisms. There is no Great Leader to follow blindly since Khomeini death.

Regarding the previous discussion, one point not clear to me in your position: why do you think that having to import enriched uranium would be significant foreign dependence (one that could be stopped at political pressure)?
Now, I'm not sure I'm reading you correctly because my position is actually opposite so forgive me if I go off-track. This is Iran's justification for their centrifuge program. They claim that owning the full fuel cycle is an independence issue. But, I, like many people, think it is bullshit.

Right now, there are very few sources for LEU with significant capacity:

(Commercial capacity in 2002 - Source OECD NEA)

Country Capacity (in tSWU/yr)
Russia 20,000
France 10,800
USA 8,000
Urenco (DE/NL/UK) 5,850
China ~1,300
Japan 900

If you are a country like Iran which has very rocky foreign relations (largely self-inflicted, btw), you would want to invest in fuel enrichment capacity at the same time you invest in nuclear power plants so you don't depend on the good will of Europe, Russia or the US of A for your fuel supply. So far, Iran's arguments seem to make sense.

The issue is that Iran's centrifuges are rather low tech and there is no serious prospect to radically improve their performances in the foreseeable future. I haven't found hard numbers for the separation capacity of their centrifuge (such as from IAEA) - so it's somewhat speculative - but the more or less reputable Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reports unit capacities of 2 to 3 kgSWU/year for the current Iranian design (to compare to more than 300 kgSWU/yr per unit for USEC AGC machines, using advanced composite rotors).

Iran wants to build a plant with 50,000 of those centrifuges so using the higher bound of the estimate, that's 150 tSWU/yr total capacity, not even enough to refuel two 1000 MWe reactor a year (annual reload for 1 reactor = ~25t of 3.6% LEU -> 125 tSWU for 0.25% tail assay, 100 tSWU at 0.35% tail assay) and that's not even factoring any margin for machine failures. Also, it would take them at least 2 to 3 years to produce the initial load of a single reactor (~100t LEU).

Mmm, ok. So far only Bushehr-I is nearing completion so why not? But that's a huge investment in completely obsolete and uncompetitive technology for little value and an awful lot of troubles and it doesn't square with current expansion plan (up to 20 plants). Are they going to build 1 million centrifuges in the next 20 years ?

Iran's interests would be much better served by adopting a clearly civilian profile (in particular, investing in power plant manufacturing through joint-ventures, the way the Chinese do) and bargaining that profile against the acquisition upfront of a large stockpile of ready-to-use fuel rods to give them a cushion against embargoes.

On a different tack, 150 tSWU/year is enough capacity to produce 750 kg of 98.5% HEU with 0.35% tail assay, enough, for 30 to 45 nukes each year, using implosion assembly...
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:14:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
I get your argument. However, this could explain why Iran experiemented with two types of centrifuges: the currently used P1 and the more advanced P2, the latter presumably giving a much higher amount if built in the planned 50,000-centrifuge industrial plant.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
P2 is said to top at 5 kgSWU/yr, a bit better, not greater.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 07:25:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
I'm actually interested to see what plan they'll have to prevent Iran getting the technological knowledge. Do they just mean practical experience of operating centrifuge cascades and casting uranium?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 05:47:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Well, this is all part of the shenanigans. As we noted in earlier discussions, there's not really a clear line between military and civil applications. Drawing a line about "knowledge" seems even mroe tenuous.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 06:12:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
BBC: Students held on terror charges (9 March 2006)
Two teenage students have been remanded in custody on terrorism charges at Bow Street Magistrates Court in London.

Irfan Raja, 18, from Ilford, Essex, and 19-year-old Awaab Iqbal are accused of making a record of information likely to be useful to a terrorist.

(my emphasis)

Did I get the accusation right? Get the populace used to jailing people for "making a record of information likely to be useful for nefarious purposes" and soon they'll be able to arrest biochemists, microbiologists and physicists for keeping their course notes.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 08:47:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 2)
Next they'll be locking up trainspotters for spying.

That's an old charge from Northern Ireland I think. All part of the delightful arsenal of the anti-terrorism laws.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 08:55:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
I mean, it's not likely to be used but likely to be useful. Google Earth should prominently post a disclaimer that using it can get you arrestedin some jurisdictions.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:01:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (4.00 / 5)
You do realise that all this researching and discussion on uranium refinement is going to come back to haunt us one day in the current climate?

<Wish I really believed I was snarking>

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 08:58:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's scary (none / 1)
and too close for comfort.

To be front paged later.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: That's scary (none / 0)
I read it in London's Metro newspaper during yesterday;s commute, but forgot to flag it in the breakfast. It fits here so much more snugly, though.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:20:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
I'm still trying to see how statements by the British FO translate into evidence of American pressure. The original post is jarring in its focus shift: "FO this, European diplomats that, therefore America is screwing things up again."

The EU-3 have been trying to work this out with Iran by negotiations for a long time. The UN security council, even Russia and China, agreed to move towards more open condemnation of Iran. Iran continues to make belligerant (probably unsupportable by their ability to do anything) comments.

All these things are very troubling. But the assumption that the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, etc. are all U.S. stooges sure does seem like a stretch...

by asdf on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:05:33 AM EST
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
There is general agreement that Iran getting nukes would be bad. There is also general agreement that they are at least keeping their options open by constituting the civilian programme in the way they have. This much everyone agrees on.

Now, the US and the UK want this moved forward quickly. The other EU states seem to want to work more slowly but are (I believe) mindful that directly opposing US/UK demands led to disastrous unilateral action last time. So this time they're trying to get Iran into line without giving the US and it's "Coalition of the Concerned™" to take unilateral military aciton. They're mediating between two groups of hard-liners. Does that make sense?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:10:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
Indeedy from this article, some non-'consensus' opinions:

VIENNA: An escalation in the Iranian nuclear crisis is certain now that the issue is before the UN Security Council, diplomats in Vienna said on Thursday. "This will escalate the situation. It was meant to produce a crisis. Why else would it go to New York (where the Security Council is)? That's the purpose of it," a European diplomat affiliated to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency said.

...Diplomats said the Iranian crisis could be going down the same route as North Korea, which reduced cooperation with the IAEA and cut links completely in 2003 by withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Others said they hoped the parallel would not be to Iraq, where escalation led to invasion.



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 03:07:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 1)
Your post is jarring in its focus shift. "EU-3 this, Russia and China at that, therefore:

But the assumption that the governments of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, China, etc. are all U.S. stooges sure does seem like a stretch...

Where was this suggested? Hyperbole is fun, I agree, but it ill befits your attempts to play the "concerned sceptic."

No-one at a governmental level is denying that Iran represents a problem (as indeed, no-one denied that Iraq was a problem.) The degree of debate exists around how the problem should be addressed.

The article addresses a Washington proposal to speed up the timeline of this case. The only support for this proposal reported comes from the British government, in an eerie deja vu of the way things were done over Iraq.

You can pretend it's all a tinfoil conspiracy theory and I'll hope you're right, but I'm tired of this petty  pretence that the US is not a major mover in this debate. The historical record of the Bush administration, going back to the invasion of Iraq is that "Iran is next." It is thus wholly appropriate to suspect that the US is the driving force in this action.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:30:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Re: Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. (none / 0)
From a PhillyGal comment on dKos:

in early February; interesting results:

"Two-thirds or more of those polled said they think that if Iran develops nuclear weapons, it is likely to attack Israel, Europe or the United States. Even more, 82 percent, say it's likely that a nuclear-armed Iran would provide nuclear weapons to terrorists.

Questions about Iran's nuclear program have been referred to the United Nations Security Council. U.S. officials have said that all options should be considered to deal with Iran's refusal to slow down its nuclear program -- including military options.

More than three-fourths say the United Nations should take the lead in dealing with Iran on the nuclear issue, while 17 percent said the U.S. should take the lead role." link

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Mar 10th, 2006 at 09:39:49 AM EST
Iraq could deploy WMD within 48 hours. | 97 comments (97 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]