There are three steps required to build nuclear weapons.
- You need to have a missile capable of delivering the bomb to its target.
- You need to process a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium to produce a nuclear bomb.
- You need to assemble a warhead and attach it to the missile.
Iran already has a missile capable of delivering a nuclear bomb. Last month, Iran conducted a successful test of their upgraded three-stage Shahab-3B missile. According to Viktor Yesin, former Chief of Staff of Russia’s Strategic Missile Force, the tests demonstrated Iran’s capacity to produce rocket engines that would give these missiles a range of 2,500 miles or more. With that range, they could easily reach targets in Europe. (With strap-on boosters, they could potentially reach North America.) Iran insists their intentions for this missile are entirely peaceful, referring to it as a “space launch vehicle” for orbiting satellites.
However, evidence presented at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last month revealed detailed designs from Iranian military labs for a nuclear warhead, including how it would fit in a Shahab-3 missile. Other evidence included documentation of experiments with warheads and missile trajectories where “the height of the burst … didn’t make sense for conventional warheads,” according to a senior diplomat who attended the IAEA meeting. IAEA Director General Oli Heinonen commented on an Iranian video showing mock-ups of a missile reentry vehicle that it was “configured in a way that strongly suggests it was meant to carry a nuclear warhead.”
Iran will have sufficient weapons grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb within the next two years. The European Commission Joint Research Center (JRC) recently ran computer simulations that modeled the centrifuges that Iran is currently operating at its Natanz nuclear facility. Based on the simulations, they determined that Iran could produce sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by the end of this year (operating at optimal efficiency) or by 2010 (operating at only 25% efficiency). Iran claims their uranium enrichment program is intended for “purely industrial purposes” to generate electricity.
The U.N. Security Council adopted a new resolution last week, imposing further sanctions on Iran for refusing to cease its uranium enrichment program. Iranian president Ahmadinejad beat them to the punch in making it clear that he doesn’t care. In a televised interview last month, he said “If they want to continue with that path of sanctions, we will not be harmed. They can issue resolutions for 100 years.”
Iran could assemble a nuclear warhead in a matter of months, once they have enough enriched uranium. The National Intelligence Estimate issued in December, which determined that Iran had “halted” its nuclear weapons program in 2003, was focused exclusively on nuclear warhead development. It explicilty ignored the uranium enrichment program, since Iran claimed that was for “industrial purposes.” Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence and primary author of the NIE report, later conceded that developing a nuclear warhead is, in fact, “the least significant part” of a nuclear weapons program. Prior to this NIE report, uranium enrichment has always been used as the key indicator of nuclear weapons development programs. Since the NIE report was made public, Mr. McConnell has expressed concerns about its effect in downplaying the continuing nucelar threat from Iran. On February 26, he said unequivocally “Our estimate is they intend to have a nuclear weapon.”
Iran denies that it has ever engaged in any design or development of nuclear weapons technology. They insist that all of the evidence presented at the IAEA conference last month were forgeries.
But Iran has a proven track record as a world leader in the funding and training of radical Islamic terrorists. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that Israel should (and will) be “wiped off the map.” Ahmadinejad was also a member of the Islamic terrorist organization that took 52 Americans hostage at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979. This blog entry lists a Chronology of Islamic Terrorist Attacks Against the U.S. between 1979 and 2001. A great many of these were perpetrated by Hezbollah, which is funded by Iran. Hezbollah also provided explosives training for Al Qaeda operatives, in Iran, prior to 9/11, as discussed the post Sunni and Shiite Unite Against the West.
Why would anybody be gullible enough to believe that this terrorist nation is amassing all the means to build nuclear weapons “for purely industrial purposes?” Israel knows better. Europe knows better. Russia knows better. The U.N. knows better! Nobody in the world believes Iran has stopped its nuclear development program, except for certain people in the U.S. who, because of their own agenda, were all too eager to latch on to the now discredited NIE report, — and even they don’t believe it anymore.
What could be more menacing than nuclear weapons in the hands of a terrorist nation with a suicide bomber mentaility that has repeatedly characterized the United States “the Great Satan?” Is the reason we’re being so squeamish about acknowledging this threat simply because the left keeps calling Bush a liar on account of not finding any WMDs in Iraq? Could it really be possible that our nation’s leaders are more afraid of name-calling from the left than of an increasingly imminent nuclear threat from Iran? That’s a scary thought.
Government is Not Your Daddy 
I understand what you’re saying, but I wish you wouldn’t put the steps for becoming a nuclear terrorist on your blog where anybody could see it or get inspired by it.
The U.S. has one of three choices here:
1. Ignore it. They are a sovereign country who are we to meddle in another countries affairs.
2. Utterly destroy Iran.
3. Somehow coerce some other country or countries to invade or otherwise deal with the Iran situation.
Consequences:
1. WWIII may bite us in the butt or other countries will no longer be able to deal with the threat and they go to war. The decimation of other countries would be a boon for U.S. economically. Especially if ‘advanced’ countries get decimated like countries in Europe did in WWII.
2. We would again prove that we are the big bad bully because no matter what we do, if we attack Iran preemptively, we will appear evil to the rest of the world.
3. This would is much like the second part of 1, but we would take an active part in coercing other countries to deal with the Iran problem. This is the best scenario by because Americans wouldn’t have to die and we would be the evil monster to the rest of the world.
Perhaps we should just wait a couple of years until Iran has a nuclear bomb, and see what they do with it…
Slacker has a great ides. Let George do it.
Let’s think about this. Who is going to coerce Iran if not the U.S.? China is oil-dependent on Iran. and North Korea who sold Iran nuclear technology is her client state. Not much help there. Russia sold them the missiles for delivery. Not much help there. What is Europe going to do? The Iranian missiles are capable of reaching Europe, hence the urgency for the defense line in Poland. But is Europe going to take definitive action when she too is oil dependent?
Israel perhaps? Only under the Samson option. Iran’s deployment has gone too far. There are 23 known missile sites aimed at Israel. Who in the world could take out all 23 simultaneously?
Canada maybe? Hugo Chavez?
The Russian missiles Notchyourdad referenced have been demonstrated by Iran to be sea-launch capable. Thus, should Iran want to, all she has to do is ship a few to a point off our eastern seaboard.
However, we aren’t going to do anything pre-emptive. Wouldn’t want the world to criticize us and the Democrats would never stand for it. War is not the answer.
Best answer is do not live in any U.S. city having any symbolic value in the Arab world. One of them is going to go away.
Do you guys even consider that other nations have as big of an issue with us having nuclear bombs as we do them?
Do you not think that we are in a huge game with the rest of the world? Everyone who also has issue with Iran is confident that they don’t have to worry about it because ‘we’ will blink first. At some point we have to stop blinking first. The rest of the world isn’t helpless! And if the majority of the world is against us, then maybe we are wrong about something. Oh, no, The U.S. could never ask to be the target of terrorism. Oh, no, never!
Slacker, the difference between Iran and other nuclear powers is that most countries with nuclear capabilities are deterred by the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction. For a radical Islamic government with a suicide bomber mentaility, that is not a deterrent. Their leaders believe, if they die in the cause of defeating the Great Satan, they will be holy martyrs and will be well rewarded in the afterlife.
Once Iran has nuclear capability, there is nothing to deter them from using it. The only question is, assuming they only have enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb, whom will they use it on? The Little Satan (Israel), or the Great Satan (the U.S.)? There’s always the chance they might target some European capital, but why bother with them? If they know they’re going to be going to their final reward within minutes of launching the missile, why not go for broke and smite the Great Satan itself?
Of course, they might decide to just take out Israel. It’s an easier target, and they have repeatedly declared their intention to “wipe Israel off the map.” But we don’t know, do we? Even if some Americans are willing to Sacrifice Israel, we might end up sacrificing ourselves instead if we decide to take a “wait and see” attitude. Is it worth the gamble?
“Oh, no, The U.S. could never ask to be the target of terrorism. Oh, no, never!”
Yeah, slacker, America Sucks, doesn’t it?
Ah. The world doesn’t like us because we have nuclear weapons. Never thought of that. If we would just disarm, the world would jump right up to protect our rights. You can see that happening at the U.N. everyday. The world is committed to righteousness and the big bully U.S. is out of step. Simple solution, make U.S. weakest kid on the block. But make sure you move to the country first.
You ask many pointed questions in America Sucks, but those are just the convenient ones that would support your point.
It baffles me why you don’t ask yourself why the Iraqi’s don’t ALL accept us with open arms. Why don’t you ask yourself why that the majority of the ‘freedom’ loving Iraqi’s don’t squash their own ‘rebellious’ people. They obviously know that the all ‘powerful’ U.S. is in for the long run since we are there YEARS after we invaded. Why did we support Saddam during the Iraq Iran war, but now we think he is so evil? Do you think our government really cares about the same thing you and I care about…good and bad? Same sort of thing with our ‘friend’ Saudi Arabia. Explain that.
The Iraqis are not one people. They’re so busy fighting each other, it’s ridiculously naive to expect them ALL to “accept us with open arms.” Many Iraqis are glad that we’re there, including the newly forming Iraqi government, which has requested us to extend our stay. The freedom loving Iraqis are not yet capable of quashing the ‘rebellious’ ones, who are funded by external sources to keep the county destabilized.
Our ‘friend’ Saudi Arabia is another story. Perhaps when Iraq is stabilized, and we have a more reliable ally in them, we’ll be able to afford to walk away from our dysfunctional relationship with Saudi Arabia. Right now, it seems they have us over a barrel, so to speak… They’re another terrorist nation, but we don’t have the resources to take them all on at once, so we have to pick our battles carefully.
So good and bad to you is dependent on what is best for the U.S. at any particular time. No wonder people in the middle east hate us. At least they are consistent!
I don’t get the derivation of your conclusion from the statements I made. Perhaps you could elucidate.
How is Saudi Arabia different than Iraq in anything other than we call Iraq our enemy and Saudi Arabia our friend? Your second paragraph of your 10:15 comment implied that you are willing to look over the flaws of Saudi Arabia because we are dealing with Iraq and we don’t have enough resources. They have the same flaws as Iraq does. So, my conclusion of your feelings of the U.S.’s relations to other countries in your own words can be summed up by: Good and Bad is defined by who is and is not the U.S.s friend, not who is necessarily ‘bad’ or ‘good’ morally.
It is so convenient you to say that we have a “dysfunctional relationship with Saudi Arabia”. Call it what it is. A sell out on the ‘high morals’ of the U.S..
The government you hold in such high esteem told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Hmmm, Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. Why don’t they(U.S. government) say anything bad about Saudi Arabia? I am sure they have the same aspirations as Iraq or Iran. Oh wait, they are our friends so we don’t really talk about the bad stuff with Saudi Arabia. So why do we target Iran? Maybe it is because they don’t want anything to do with us. Is that a crime? No it is not. I think it is a crime how the U.S. paints a picture of good and bad based on who is willing to be our friend and not actual ‘good’ and ‘evil’.
I don’t think of Iraq as our enemy. The Iraqi government has asked us to stay and help them fight the insurgents and stabilize their country. We are currently at war in Iraq, not with Iraq. We’re fighting alongside the Iraqi army against the same enemy.
IMHO, we will end up fighting this war in every country that funds/harbors terrorists. They can fight alongside us against the terrorists, or they can fight alongside the terrorists against us. Their choice. Saudi Arabia is trying to play both ends against the middle. That tactic won’t work forever.
It isn’t a question of deciding S.A. is good and Iraq is evil. It’s a question of seeking out and destroying the enemy that has declared war on us — the terrorists — no matter where they hide. Obviously, we can’t fight on all fronts at once. When and where we engage will be dictated by what our leaders determine to be the most effective military strategy. That makes sense to me. What about it doesn’t make sense to you?
As for the WMDs, we weren’t the only nation that believed Iraq had them. Saddam Hussein deliberately led everybody to believe that by his refusal to allow U.N. inspections. If we hadn’t gone in, and they had had WMDs and used them, the same people who now call Bush a liar would have been calling him criminally negligent, or worse.
What would you think if lets say the countries of Europe decided that a small % of U.S. citizens were terrorizing them and that they think Bush is not at all an idiot, but plays one so that he can continue his relationship with Europe. Furthermore, lets say Europe musters up enough military force to occupy us. What would we forever think of the countries of Europe?
You may say, but but that is different than the situation in Iraq they wanted us there. Well, that point is by far not proven by the record.
Also, extend the little scenario to have Europe take over Canada after us, then Mexico, etc etc. You know what I think it would do? I think it would do more to unify all peoples of this region of the world against Europe than anything else. How do you think your idea of taking care of a country at a time through military force is going to do in the middle east?
Also, you fail to acknowledge that in your world view, you are willing to accept two different views on countries with very very similar moral views and % of terrorists simply because our government says one is our enemy, one is our friend. Your argument of not hating all Iraqis doest work because we went into there country and tore it apart. We made lives of virtually everyone in the country more difficult. You cannot sift so finely when you are occupying a country.
Are you not aware of what Saddam Hussein did to citizens of his own country?
We’re fighting a war against terrorism. If certain countries choose to align themselves with the terrorists, and support the terrorist organizations that have declared us their enemy, those countries have made a choice. If a country is unintentionally harboring terrorists against the will of the government, we will help to rid them of the terrorists. If they’re harboring terrorists intentionally, and funding and training terrorists to attack us and our allies, they have chosen to be our enemies and will ultimately face the consequences of their decision.
Do you continue to turn a blind eye to our double standards when dealing with countries like Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
As I’ve said repeatedly, Saudi Arabia’s day will come. They can’t play both ends against the middle indefinitely. They are not our friends. But we can’t fight on all fronts at once, and that’s where military strategy comes in.
But I’m repeating myself…
NYD’s 7:26 post:
I strongly believe Iran’s primary and maybe sole target is Israel. Most of the world, but primarily the Islamic world HATES Israel, and it is an ingrained social policy completely ingrained in their education process.
Your view on American seeking to destroy terrorist’s either with or without a particular country’s aid, is correct, IMO.
Further in my opinion, the whole notion that we can withdraw from Iraq at any foreseeable time, is wishful thinking at best, but very dangerous and shortsighted. Even debating that is counter productive and sends the absolute wrong message to the enemy..
[…] more death. NotYourDaddy presents Nuclear Terrorism — Coming Soon posted at Government is not your Daddy., saying, “Iran has a proven track record as a world […]
[…] While we are “giving peace a chance,” Ahmadinejad is building a nuclear arsenal. […]