Sunday, March 1, 2009

Iran Has Heavy Metal for Bomb, No Bomb: Yet

First, the good news: Iran (probably) doesn't have a nuclear bomb.

Now, the bad news: The Islamic Republic probably has enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon.

Happily for everybody the Ayatollahs may not approve of, there's more to making a nuclear bomb than packing plutonium or uranium into a drum and sticking a fuse in it. But, there are quite a few smart, educated, and trained people in Iran: I'd say the odds are that, in the not-too-distant future, the Ayatollahs will have a nuclear bomb or two, with missiles to deliver them.

Or, plans to ship them overseas, in mislabeled cargo containers.

Bomb Iran Now? Probably Not the Best Idea: But Hold That Thought

Some anonymous chap in the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) says that a Washington think tank, the Institute for Science and International Security, has it all wrong. Anonymous says that the IAEA's data don't show that, as CNN put it, "Iran has reached 'nuclear weapons breakout capability.' " The Washington think tank says that's just what the IAEA does show.

I'm glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Negotiations: It's Worth a Try

Obama is one of the few people in the world who is in a position to have a shot at stopping Iran's 'peaceful' nuclear program. The Obama administration - like the previous one - is trying to work with the EU, to convince Iran that dropping the 'peaceful' nuclear program is a good idea.

I hope they succeed. If they don't, there will be a rather short - or maybe non-existent - time, during which an attack on Iran's nuclear sites might stop the program. After that time passes, we may see cities vaporized on the evening news.

That's assuming, not unreasonably, that Iran's leaders really do mean that "Death to Israel! Death to the great Satan America!" stuff.

As I said, I'm glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Does Iran Definitely Want Nuclear Weapons?

Just to make things more interesting, I think it's (remotely) possible that Iran's nuclear program really is peaceful - and that Iran's leaders think they need nuclear reactors, but not nuclear weapons.

And, I think it's possible that American leaders don't know where all of Iran's nuclear facilities are.

That brings up a disturbing idea: Let's say that America bombs Iran's known nuclear facilities ("unilaterally," like America unilaterally attacked Iraq). But, that the attack is as successful as the Japanese Empire's attack on Pearl Harbor.

Back in 1941, America lost many sailors and ships. But, the Pacific Fleet still had some ships: including aircraft carriers and submarines. And, a whole lot of fuel oil.

I'd just as soon that America be a bit more careful than that. A sudden, devastating, attack can be effective: provided that it devastates all of an enemy's capacity to strike back.

I'm really glad I don't have President Obama's job.

Related posts: In the news:


Shane Shirley said...

I am ready to kick some butt and I need your help. Please take a look at this and post a comment please!!!

Brian H. Gill said...

OpEdNews is membership-only when it comes to posting comments. My rules dictate that I study the service before committing, which I'll be doing soon.

A few things:

Thanks for leaving a comment.

The AIG / corporate greed / huddled masses matter is a little off-topic for this post (I've discussed related matters in "Obama Wants Caps on Fat Cat Payouts" (February 4, 2009) and "Bank Bailout Scandal? Maybe - But Think Before You Decide" (December 22, 2008), in another blog.)

Finally, although I did not vote for President Obama, this isn't an anti-Obama blog. Think of it more as a pro-common-sense blog. Make of that what you will.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for writing on this issue.
if your a reader of my blog then you know I despise Iran and am currently trying to promote Israel.
I agree with you for the most part.
I don't think we can stop Iran at all without using force, not that I am saying we should use force you know where I stand after the discussion held earlier on your blog. but right now Obama is a key leader in negotiations even though I hate to admit to it. why is he such a key leader? because he is such a softy leader he wants peace but he is too easy to sell out to peace. how much will he compromise to achieve peace in the middle east?

Brian H. Gill said...

Politics and the Future,

I'm very much afraid that force will be needed, to stop Iran from making, and using, nuclear bombs.

I also think that negotiation must be tried, first.

Code Pink would probably feel that I'm a warmonger. Others, that I'm at least as soft as Obama.

I'm not, certainly, 'moderate,' in the sense of not wanting to voice an opinion. However, I also think that there is a time and a place for military action. And, regarding Iran and nukes, given what we know, it's not time.

Besides, there's a (very remote) chance that negotiation will work.

Unique, innovative candles

Visit us online:
Spiral Light CandleFind a Retailer
Spiral Light Candle Store


Note! Although I believe that these websites and blogs are useful resources for understanding the War on Terror, I do not necessarily agree with their opinions. 1 1 Given a recent misunderstanding of the phrase "useful resources," a clarification: I do not limit my reading to resources which support my views, or even to those which appear to be accurate. Reading opinions contrary to what I believed has been very useful at times: sometimes verifying my previous assumptions, sometimes encouraging me to change them.

Even resources which, in my opinion, are simply inaccurate are sometimes useful: these can give valuable insights into why some people or groups believe what they do.

In short, It is my opinion that some of the resources in this blogroll are neither accurate, nor unbiased. I do, however, believe that they are useful in understanding the War on Terror, the many versions of Islam, terrorism, and related topics.