....Could the Iranians be Duping the US?

If I were them, I might be crazy enough to manufacture
an international crisis that would result in oil prices skyrocketing.
Iran would be 'punished' with boatloads of cash as a result, while
our economy would start...sinking.

Ayatollah Khomeini managed to take us to the brink, but
not over it, with the hostages years ago. And this new
President whatshisname of Iran is clearly a disciple of
the old guard.

So what's the next chess move?

I say we bomb 'em with democracy. Push as hard
as we can to promote democracy in Iran, and in
every way we can. It's the only thing the mullahs
in Iran fear.


s

jonathan wrote:
I say we bomb 'em with democracy. Push as hard
as we can to promote democracy in Iran, and in
every way we can. It's the only thing the mullahs
in Iran fear.

"... liberty is the great dissolvent of all fanaticisms. When I claim
liberty for my foe, for the man who would put me down if he had the
power, I really offer him the most fatal of all gifts. I compel him to
drink a strong draught that will turn his head, while I keep sober.
Science presupposes the virile rule of liberty: fanaticism,
superstition cannot bear it. We do more harm to dogmatism by treating
it with inplacable mildness than by persecuting it, for by this
mildness we inculcate the principle which cuts up dogmatism by the
root, -the principle, namely, that all metaphysical controversy is
barren, and that, in this region of thought, truth is for each what he
thinks that he can dimly discern. " (Hibbert Lectures, 1880, p.
205,206, Renan, Earnest, 1823-1892, Williams and Norgate, London)

Perhaps the kingdom-now philosophers, along with the pundit-masters of
the new-world establishment media will recognize that the spirit of God
moves in diverse ways through diverse situations, with those situations
not having anything to do with the situational ethics of the sound-byte
for energy diplomacy, since it is those very same situational ethics
that politicize the 'quick fix' rather than modernize in the long term,
a land of much-needed redistribution of intellectual, as well as
capital, currency.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:03:24 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:


If I were them, I might be crazy enough to manufacture
an international crisis that would result in oil prices skyrocketing.
Iran would be 'punished' with boatloads of cash as a result, while
our economy would start...sinking.

Ayatollah Khomeini managed to take us to the brink, but
not over it, with the hostages years ago. And this new
President whatshisname of Iran is clearly a disciple of
the old guard.

So what's the next chess move?

Wait and let the Israeli's nuke 'em.

Brian

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:03:24 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:


If I were them, I might be crazy enough to manufacture
an international crisis that would result in oil prices skyrocketing.
Iran would be 'punished' with boatloads of cash as a result, while
our economy would start...sinking.

Ayatollah Khomeini managed to take us to the brink, but
not over it, with the hostages years ago. And this new
President whatshisname of Iran is clearly a disciple of
the old guard.

So what's the next chess move?

Wait and let the Israeli's nuke 'em.

Brian

If nuclear war does break out, let it be between Israel and Iran. I don't
see why we need to be part of a nuclear war. Muslims already have nukes in
Pakistan. If we nuke Iran, there is some risk of nuclear retaliation.
Israel is small enough that the entire country can be evacuated -- both into
the ocean and into Palestinian territory.

What would happen if one or more of the nuclear sites have unfortunate
accidents?

It does happen - look at Chernobyl. These accidents would of course be
nothing to do with the USA.

Michael Rhino wrote:
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 18:03:24 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:


If I were them, I might be crazy enough to manufacture
an international crisis that would result in oil prices skyrocketing.
Iran would be 'punished' with boatloads of cash as a result, while
our economy would start...sinking.

Ayatollah Khomeini managed to take us to the brink, but
not over it, with the hostages years ago. And this new
President whatshisname of Iran is clearly a disciple of
the old guard.

So what's the next chess move?

Wait and let the Israeli's nuke 'em.

Brian

If nuclear war does break out, let it be between Israel and Iran. I don't
see why we need to be part of a nuclear war. Muslims already have nukes in
Pakistan. If we nuke Iran, there is some risk of nuclear retaliation.
Israel is small enough that the entire country can be evacuated -- both into
the ocean and into Palestinian territory.


Not sure Isreal is planiing to attack and evacuate, tactic seems based
on believing that Iranian nukes would be accurate. Iranians might end
up hitting the palestinain territories by accident.

Peace
Zonker

http://www.2000ah.blogspot.com

What would happen if one or more of the nuclear sites have unfortunate
accidents?

It does happen - look at Chernobyl. These accidents would of course be
nothing to do with the USA.

Well, I'm not sure what types of reactors they have, would they (be
stupid) to built a Chernobyl type reactor?
Reactors melt down, they don't blow up like in a bad Skiffy movie.

If an accident did happen, on its own with out our help, I bet they
would still blame us, we would deny it and world opinion would be mixed


Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

In article .com,
Space Cadet wrote:
What would happen if one or more of the nuclear sites have unfortunate
accidents?

It does happen - look at Chernobyl. These accidents would of course be
nothing to do with the USA.

Well, I'm not sure what types of reactors they have, would they (be
stupid) to built a Chernobyl type reactor?

The Bushehr reactor is a pressurized light water reactor,
I believe and Arak will be a heavy water moderated nuclear plant.
I think the market for RBMK reactors declined somewhat once the
drawbacks of a flammable reactor with a positive void coefficient
became clear.

Reactors melt down, they don't blow up like in a bad Skiffy movie.

Sensibly designed reactors don't even melt down.

Other designs, and I think we can include any reactor
whose materials can be described as "highly flammable" [1], are
not so safe. The RBMKs are an inherently unsafe design and if
we suppose the existance of a group of poorly trained people
experimenting to see what the limits of its so-called safety
systems are, you can indeed get a nice steam explosion out of
them. A well designed reactor, which is to say, not built by
the Soviets, would have a containment dome to hold things in
but Chernobyl didn't have the same kind of domes decent reactors
do.



1: I guess this means no liquid sodium cooled reactors for me.

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

In article ,
James Nicoll wrote:
In article .com,
Space Cadet wrote:
What would happen if one or more of the nuclear sites have unfortunate
accidents?

It does happen - look at Chernobyl. These accidents would of course be
nothing to do with the USA.

Well, I'm not sure what types of reactors they have, would they (be
stupid) to built a Chernobyl type reactor?

The Bushehr reactor is a pressurized light water reactor,
I believe and Arak will be a heavy water moderated nuclear plant.
I think the market for RBMK reactors declined somewhat once the
drawbacks of a flammable reactor with a positive void coefficient
became clear.

Reactors melt down, they don't blow up like in a bad Skiffy movie.

Sensibly designed reactors don't even melt down.

But it belatedly occurs so me that if you want an explosion
and you want the local nuclear industry to be implicated, you could
do worse than to have a look at how they handle their nuclear waste.

Again, the most spectacular example of how not to handle
waste is Soviet (a mishap in the late 1950s) but even relatively
modern nations like Japan have had deaths from mishandled nuclear
waste.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll

I had in mind a 0.1 Kton yield explosion, but what your saying is that
the explosion would need to be much smaller.

I suppose a very small explosion at the storage tanks, coupled with a
large discharge of radioactity would have a suitable negative impact on
the nuclear weapons program.

The question is, how to make a small explosion appear like an accident.
I liked the missile in Tom Clancy's Clear and Present Danger, where the
casing was made of cellulose so as to leave no evidence. Could a laser
fired from a Stealth plane do some damage?

Alternatively, a leak with no damage at all would be quite credible. No
one would be able to identify the source. Iranian denials might of
course point the finger at them.

As a weapons program, it is obviously more dangerous than a civil
nuclear program.

As America enters more "assymetric" wars, there's plenty of work for
the secret weapons boffins.