Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Do you think anyone cares that Iran is violating the treaty, just because its violating the treaty? The only reason a violation of the treaty is of any concern is because it impacts someones security. This is the whole point of the treaty, to increase the signers security. Its only common sense then, that the worst offenders are those whose violations are acctually impacting the security of other nations, otherwise, violations are meaningless.

I would just like to point out that Iran has not invaded any country in the past 50 years.

Wheras the US has invaded 2 in the past 8 alone.

Iran invaded Iraq over the course of the Iran-Iraqi war. Of course the Iranians did not start this war, but its not correct to state they haven't invaded anyone.

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Do countries normally spend lots of money to keep commercial useless things secret on military bases inside a mountain?

Yes, they do.

I mis phrased this, I should have said, do countries normally spend lots of money to keep militarily useless AND commercially useless things secret in military bases inside mountains?

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Do countries normally spend lots of money to keep commercial useless things secret on military bases inside a mountain?

Yes, they do.

I mis phrased this, I should have said, do countries normally spend lots of money to keep militarily useless AND commercially useless things secret in military bases inside mountains?

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I see that you're comfortable describing the hidden facility as a "commercially useless reactor" without any evidence that is what the facility is.

I'm comfortable with accepting the claims of US officials on the subject of nuclear engineering and their intelligence claim that theres only 3000 of the things in there. Of course you are correct they have been horribly wrong in the past, and its possible they are wrong this time. So if we aren't to include their claims, then I agree theres no evidence, or rather that the evidence is less strong, since I still cant think of a benign reason to hide a secret nuclear enrichment plant in a military base in a mountain, since I don't see how its worth spending that much money to defend and keep secret a small civilian enrichment plant intended for peaceful purposes.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
I mis phrased this, I should have said, do countries normally spend lots of money to keep militarily useless AND commercially useless things secret in military bases inside mountains?

The answer is still the same. Yes, they do. I bet plenty of useless things were stored at Cheyenne Mountain.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I see that you're comfortable describing the hidden facility as a "commercially useless reactor" without any evidence that is what the facility is.

I'm comfortable with accepting the claims of US officials on the subject of nuclear engineering and their intelligence claim that theres only 3000 of the things in there. Of course you are correct they have been horribly wrong in the past, and its possible they are wrong this time. So if we aren't to include their claims, then I agree theres no evidence, or rather that the evidence is less strong, since I still cant think of a benign reason to hide a secret nuclear enrichment plant in a military base in a mountain, since I don't see how its worth spending that much money to defend and keep secret a small civilian enrichment plant intended for peaceful purposes.

Their claims imply that because the facility isn't large enough for 50,000 centrifuges it's purpose is to make highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. Are you comfortable accepting that?

Quote: Original post by LessBread

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
I mis phrased this, I should have said, do countries normally spend lots of money to keep militarily useless AND commercially useless things secret in military bases inside mountains?

The answer is still the same. Yes, they do. I bet plenty of useless things were stored at Cheyenne Mountain.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I see that you're comfortable describing the hidden facility as a "commercially useless reactor" without any evidence that is what the facility is.

I'm comfortable with accepting the claims of US officials on the subject of nuclear engineering and their intelligence claim that theres only 3000 of the things in there. Of course you are correct they have been horribly wrong in the past, and its possible they are wrong this time. So if we aren't to include their claims, then I agree theres no evidence, or rather that the evidence is less strong, since I still cant think of a benign reason to hide a secret nuclear enrichment plant in a military base in a mountain, since I don't see how its worth spending that much money to defend and keep secret a small civilian enrichment plant intended for peaceful purposes.

Their claims imply that because the facility isn't large enough for 50,000 centrifuges it's purpose is to make highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon. Are you comfortable accepting that?

I doubt there are many expensive secret projects that are useless both ways stored at Cheyenne Mountain. What would be the point? I suppose there could have been experiments housed there that didn't pan out. Do you think the Iranian military is indulging a taste for basic science in their mountain lab?

In response to your second question, yes, I am, since if the facility isn't large enough for commercial production, it follows that it must be for military use. At least those are the only two options I can think of. As far as I can see you just don't go to great lengths to hide a and protect a small amount of enrichment, unless you have some nefarious use for it.

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Do you think anyone cares that Iran is violating the treaty, just because its violating the treaty? The only reason a violation of the treaty is of any concern is because it impacts someones security. This is the whole point of the treaty, to increase the signers security. Its only common sense then, that the worst offenders are those whose violations are acctually impacting the security of other nations, otherwise, violations are meaningless.

I would just like to point out that Iran has not invaded any country in the past 50 years.

Wheras the US has invaded 2 in the past 8 alone.

Iran invaded Iraq over the course of the Iran-Iraqi war. Of course the Iranians did not start this war, but its not correct to state they haven't invaded anyone.

Ok Iran has not started any wars in the last 50 years. Pardon my laziness in choice of words, but you get my point. It seems to me that Iran has much more to worry about us than we have to worry about them.

Here's how the narrative is shaping up. Just as with Iraq, the New York Times is leading the way.

A Nuclear Debate: Is Iran Designing Warheads? German intelligence officials take an even harder line against Iran. They say the weapons work never stopped, a judgment made public last year in a German court case involving shipments of banned technology to Tehran. Here's a take down of that claim: Does Germany think Iran is building nukes? The BND doesn't say whether Iran is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons -- but if it would take years to develop them, there is at least the possibility that the BND thinks Iran is not, right? And more: Iran Weaponization Intel: A Cautionary Note

Glenn Greenwald sums up:

Quote:
So what we have -- yet again -- is The New York Times passing on fear-inciting, war-fueling claims that are at best highly disputed, yet doing so without any nuance, context, investigation or dissent. Unchecked claims from anonymous "officials" shape virtually every story. And, of course, all of this occurs in the rationality-destroying context in which Saddam's "mushroom cloud" has been replaced by Ahmadinejad's alleged threats to "wipe Israel off the map." -- How similar are the cases against Iran and Iraq?

Report Says Iran Has Data to Make a Nuclear Bomb

Quote:
...
Last month, the agency issued an unusual statement cautioning it “has no concrete proof” that Iran ever sought to make nuclear arms, much less to perfect a warhead. On Saturday in India, Dr. ElBaradei was quoted as saying that “a major question” about the authenticity of the evidence kept his agency from “making any judgment at all” on whether Iran had ever sought to design a nuclear warhead.

Even so, the emerging sense in the intelligence world that Iran has solved the major nuclear design problems poses a new diplomatic challenge for President Obama and his allies.
...

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by laeuchli

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir

Quote: Original post by laeuchli
Do you think anyone cares that Iran is violating the treaty, just because its violating the treaty? The only reason a violation of the treaty is of any concern is because it impacts someones security. This is the whole point of the treaty, to increase the signers security. Its only common sense then, that the worst offenders are those whose violations are acctually impacting the security of other nations, otherwise, violations are meaningless.

I would just like to point out that Iran has not invaded any country in the past 50 years.

Wheras the US has invaded 2 in the past 8 alone.

Iran invaded Iraq over the course of the Iran-Iraqi war. Of course the Iranians did not start this war, but its not correct to state they haven't invaded anyone.

Ok Iran has not started any wars in the last 50 years. Pardon my laziness in choice of words, but you get my point. It seems to me that Iran has much more to worry about us than we have to worry about them.

I don't think the fear is that the Iranians will be able to invade or otherwise attack the United States, since the Iranians will not have missiles capable of reaching North America for many years. Rather, the concern is what they might do to their neighbors. You seem to be more or less suggesting that the local Arab states and the Israelis are wrong to worry about this, which I think is somewhat debatable, as certainly theres much ill will on all sides. At any rate this is a different question then whether or not the US should be afraid of a nuclear Iran.

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
It seems to me that Iran has much more to worry about us than we have to worry about them.

That certainly seems true, but it doesn't mean things cannot improve, that is, we can get to worry a lot less about them and they can get to worry a lot more about us.

Quote: Original post by Diodor

Quote: Original post by Mithrandir
It seems to me that Iran has much more to worry about us than we have to worry about them.

That certainly seems true, but it doesn't mean things cannot improve, that is, we can get to worry a lot less about them and they can get to worry a lot more about us.

Yes of course, because doing things like this has never lead to ill-feelings towards the aggressors.