Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 28 Feb '10 07:14
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention,[1] the Chemical Weapons Convention,[2] and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).[3] Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilians were victims of chemical weapons during the 1980s Iran–Iraq War.[4][5] On ideological grounds, a public and categorical religious decree against the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons has been issued by the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic Ali Khamenei.[6]

    Iran says that its uranium enrichment program is exclusively for peaceful purposes[7][8] and has enriched uranium to "less than 5 percent" consistent with fuel for a nuclear power plant and significantly below the 90%+ purity of HEU needed for a weapons program.[9][10] Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano said in 2009 he had not seen any evidence in IAEA official documents that Iran was seeking the ability to develop nuclear weapons,[11] while a 2009 U.S. congressional research paper says U.S. intelligence believes Iran ended "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work" in 2003. U.S. intelligence believes Iranian intentions are unknown to the U.S., but asserts that if Iran pursues a nuclear weapon it “is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013” and recognizes "the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015".[12][13] Some European intelligence claims Iran has resumed its alleged nuclear weapons design work.[14] Russia claims it has seen no evidence of any nuclear weapons program in Iran.[15] Iran has called for nuclear weapons states to disarm and for the Middle East to be a nuclear weapon free zone.[16] The Non-Aligned Movement,[17] Turkey,[18][19] China,[20] Syria,[21] Afghanistan,[22] the Gulf Cooperation Council,[23] and the Arab League[24][25] have expressed their support for Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear energy.

    After the IAEA voted in a rare non-consensus decision to find Iran in non-compliance with its NPT Safeguards Agreement and to report that non-compliance to the UN Security Council,[26][27] the Council demanded that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment activities[28][29] and imposed sanctions against Iran[30][31][32][33] when Iran refused to do so.[34] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has argued that the sanctions are illegal, imposed by “arrogant powers”, and that Iran has decided to pursue the monitoring of its self-described peaceful nuclear program through "its appropriate legal path”, the International Atomic Energy Agency".[35] The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, but not the absence of undeclared activities.[36] The Non-Aligned Movement has called on both sides to work through the IAEA for a solution.[37]

    In November 2009, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted[38] a resolution against Iran which urged Iran to apply the modified Code 3.1 to its Safeguard Agreement,[39] urged Iran to implement and ratify the Additional Protocol,[39] and expressed “serious concern” that Iran had not cooperated on issues that needed “to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”[40] Iran said the "hasty and undue" resolution would “jeopardize the conducive environment vitally needed” for successful negotiations[40] and lead to cooperation not exceeding its "legal obligations to the body".[41]
  2. 28 Feb '10 07:16
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention,[1] the Chemical Weapons Convention,[2] and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).[3] Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilian ...[text shortened]... lear weapons has been issued by the supreme leader of the Islamic Republic Ali Khamenei.[6]
    ...
    http://www.rferl.org/content/Irans_HardLiners_Are_Looking_To_Justify_A_Nuclear_Arsenal/1969251.html?page=1#relatedInfoContainer

    Iran's Hard-Liners Look To Justify A Nuclear Arsenal

    (photo caption)
    ''Taqiyyeh, anyone?'' Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei (left) and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (center) in Tehran on February 25

    February 26, 2010
    By Hossein Aryan

    During the commissioning ceremony for Iran's first domestically built destroyer earlier this month, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei denied that Iran seeks to possess nuclear weapons. He said that weapons of mass destruction are haram, or forbidden by Islam, in the Islamic republic.

    The comments came just one day after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iran might be working on a nuclear warhead and suggested for the first time that Tehran has either resumed such work or never stopped it, as U.S. intelligence agencies famously concluded it did in 2003.

    Khamenei's latest remarks are not the first time he has used religious precepts to deny that Iran wants nuclear arms. In September 2004, as the IAEA Governing Council was debating Iran's nuclear program, a government spokesman announced that Khamenei had issued a fatwa banning the use of nuclear weapons.
    In a political context, 'taqiyyeh' is the concealment of one's beliefs and actions in potentially hostile situations; under it, a true believer must not allow the "infidel" to know what he is up to at any given time.


    Such a fatwa -- which was never published in any Iranian newspaper -- and similar statements are meant to persuade non-Muslims that Islam forbids the use of such weapons, but they carry no legal weight in Iran. In addition, Shi'ite tradition holds that only sources of emulation (marja) may issue religious rulings -- and Khamenei is not a marja. Although politically he is Iran's supreme leader, religiously he is considered a minor ayatollah.

    Khamenei and many other Iranian officials have repeatedly emphasized the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program. However, in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, these official declarations appear to fall within the old tradition of dissimulation known as taqiyyeh or ketman. In a political context, taqiyyeh is the concealment of one's beliefs and actions in potentially hostile situations; under it, a true believer must not allow the "infidel" to know what he is up to at any given time.

    Some Shi'ite scholars attribute this practice to Imam Hassan, the second Shi'ite imam, who concealed his right to power and ceded the caliphate to the Umayyads in order to save Islam from devastating internal strife. The contrasting practice of tabiyeh (mobilization of forces) is attributed to Iman Hussein, the third iman, who rebelled against the Umayyads to restore to power the Holy House of Ali.

    In addition, Khamenei's purported fatwa and other statements that nuclear weapons are banned by Islamic teachings fly in the face of his own earlier statements as president of Iran. In February 1987, when the country was still locked in a bitter war against Iraq, Khamenei told a gathering of Iranian nuclear scientists: "Regarding atomic energy, we need it now.... Our nation has always been threatened from outside. The least we can do to face this danger is to let our enemies know that we can defend ourselves. Therefore, every step you take here is in defense of your country and your revolution. With this in mind, work hard and quickly."

    In 1988, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- the speaker of the Majlis and commander in chief of Iran's armed forces -- was even more explicit. In a speech to soldiers, he said: "With regard to chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons training, it was made very clear during the [Iran-Iraq] war that these weapons are very decisive. It was also made clear that the moral teachings of the world are not very effective when war reaches a serious stage and the world does not respect its own resolutions and closes its eyes to violations and aggressions that are committed on the battlefield. We should fully equip ourselves both in the offensive and defensive use of chemical, bacteriological, and radiological weapons."

    Making A Case?

    Current official statements that nuclear weapons are haram are also contradicted by arguments put forward by conservatives in state-run, pro-Khamenei newspapers. These commentators are clearly seeking to establish a plausible ideological basis to justify the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.

    ...
  3. 28 Feb '10 07:18
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark

    (disambiguation)
    ...
    The victim in a confidence trick
    ...

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

    A confidence trick or confidence game (also known as a bunko, con, flim flam, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, swindle or bamboozle) is an attempt to defraud a person or group by gaining their confidence. The victim is known as the mark, the trickster is called a confidence man, con man, or con artist, and any accomplices are known as shills. Confidence men exploit human characteristics such as greed and dishonesty, and have victimized individuals from all walks of life.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    28 Feb '10 07:30
    Bearing in mind the history of nuclear weapons, Iran getting their hands on a credible deterrent would probably mean that we'd never see them used in the region. At the moment, we have a superpower threatening a non-nuclear armed Iran with nuclear weapons. This is a dangerous situation. Mutual deterrence would most likely reduce this danger.
  5. 28 Feb '10 07:35
    Originally posted by FMF
    Bearing in mind the history of nuclear weapons, Iran getting their hands on a credible deterrent would probably mean that we'd never see them used in the region. At the moment, we have a superpower threatening a non-nuclear armed Iran with nuclear weapons. This is a dangerous situation. Mutual deterrence would most likely reduce this danger.
    Iran doesn't yet have a quick delivery capability that includes the US in its radius. Slow, maybe.
  6. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    28 Feb '10 07:41
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Iran doesn't yet have a quick delivery capability that includes the US in its radius. Slow, maybe.
    Well then. Iran doesn't have a nuclear deterrent yet.
  7. 28 Feb '10 14:08 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    Iran doesn't yet have a quick delivery capability that includes the US in its radius. Slow, maybe.
    They don't need a missile delivery system just a couple guys carrying a big steamer trunk to the top floor of a hi-rise hotel.

    Then the two martyrs can have their 70 virgins.
  8. Standard member Seitse
    Doug Stanhope
    28 Feb '10 14:26
    And the rednecks can have their gun-craze-&-world-ignorance-fed paranoia justified.

    Yee haaa, pardner! Let's hide our closet homosexuality behind lots of guns!
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    28 Feb '10 14:29 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    They don't need a missile delivery system just a couple guys carrying a big steamer trunk to the top floor of a hi-rise hotel.
    No. zeeblebots is right. They would need to have a quick delivery capability for there to be a credible deterrent. There are no scenarios in which a couple guys carrying big steamer trunks to the top floor of hi-rise hotels would provide that, so such a "threat" is of no use whatsoever to Iran..
  10. 28 Feb '10 16:45
    Originally posted by FMF
    No. zeeblebots is right. They would need to have a quick delivery capability for there to be a credible deterrent. There are no scenarios in which a couple guys carrying big steamer trunks to the top floor of hi-rise hotels would provide that, so such a "threat" is of no use whatsoever to Iran..
    I wonder, wouldn't the following plan dramatically reduce the US's massive spending on missile technology etc:
    The US could secretly plant nuclear bombs under all major cities worldwide which could be set off via a coded signal. The could then announce the plan and use it as a deterrent to their enemies.
    If they are really clever, they only need to hide one bomb, let it be discovered - as proof, and merely pretend all the others exist.
  11. 28 Feb '10 17:46
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

    Iran is not known to possess weapons of mass destruction, and has signed treaties repudiating possession of them, including the Biological Weapons Convention,[1] the Chemical Weapons Convention,[2] and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).[3] Over 100,000 Iranian troops and civilian ...[text shortened]... [40] and lead to cooperation not exceeding its "legal obligations to the body".[41]
    what exactly is your point zeeblebot?

    I thought this had been discussed numerous times in the past, why bring it up again?
  12. 28 Feb '10 19:35 / 6 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I wonder, wouldn't the following plan dramatically reduce the US's massive spending on missile technology etc:
    The US could secretly plant nuclear bombs under all major cities worldwide which could be set off via a coded signal. The could then announce the plan and use it as a deterrent to their enemies.
    If they are really clever, they only need to hide one bomb, let it be discovered - as proof, and merely pretend all the others exist.
    Wow that would be a public relations disaster for the US but judging from how popular America is from the people on this site it's not like it would be a big loss.

    But they'd be found eventually no matter how well hidden so it wouldn't work.
    With the ALCM capability it's hardly necessary to hide them anyway. The Air Force can launch an unstoppable nuke any time it wants anywhere it wants.

    Your final idea about letting a bomb be found is bad because it could be then used against the US.
  13. 01 Mar '10 05:15
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well then. Iran doesn't have a nuclear deterrent yet.
    probably not, or they'd announce it or test it.
  14. 01 Mar '10 05:16
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well then. Iran doesn't have a nuclear deterrent yet.
    on the other hand, South Africa claimed not to have nuclear weapons while hiding four of them under the IAEA's nose.

    once Iran reveals they have nuclear weapons, they can't unreveal them. they may wish to save that disclosure for when it benefits them most.
  15. 01 Mar '10 05:23
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    what exactly is your point zeeblebot?

    I thought this had been discussed numerous times in the past, why bring it up again?
    i don't remember. someone may have brought up in another thread that Iran has only peaceful plans for its nukes (possibly Jason Harrison (sic?). and i may have noticed that the top section of the wikipedia article answered this and relevant claims made by others on other threads. such as 'on what basis do the great powers subject Iran to a stricter nuclear inspection regimen?'