wrote was destabilizing in regards to Israel. There is a difference. A nuclear Iran would seriously radicalize Israel--not that they aren't radicalized at the moment. It would really radicalize their foreign policy, possibly causing them to be more aggressive than they are now, which is saying a lot.

As for your other comment: look, I think I made it pretty clear I wasn't weighing competing moralities, nor was I discussing the Arab-Israeli issue. So, let's not get off topic here.

^{"All men's gains are the fruit of venturing."}

-Herodotus

He keeps talking about enriched plutonium, saying that this is what we keep hearing about in Iran. The fuel we're currently concerned about in Iran is enriched uranium - U235 - which is separated out from natural uranium. Pu isn't "enriched" - it's manufactured by irradiating U238 in a reactor.

I'm not aware of any good reason why one would be particularly concerned about Pu "degrading" - the half life is around 24K years and unless one was playing it really close to the edge design-wise, I can't see how one could possibly run into a situation where that would cause concern over any relevant time scale. There's a bunch of stuff that can happen to cause issues, but the rectification of those issues doesn't involve manufacturing new Pu.

In terms of Dimona not being operational, I actually have seen speculation that the facility is getting towards the end of its design life - tough to tell given the ambiguity surrounding the plant and its use and design history. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there are also signs indicating that the Israelis have developed alternative means of producing the more volatile stuff that they produce there (chiefly tritium IIUC).

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

...being undertaken is probably the best deterrent - presuming that one can't make some sort of deal to keep the capability latent. I have a very tough time envisioning a scenario where they give one of these things away. For quite some while they would be the most precious thing they have. I could certainly see how one could potentially end up getting snatched, however. A small group of hard assed "apocalyptic Twelver" wingnuts could be extremely problematic - likely have to be damned lucky, but even so.

What are the problematic fission products? (Most of the even remotely technical stuff that I've ever read - and it was remote from technical lemme tell you - involved the production side rather than the "shelf life" side. Not the first time I've wished I devoted some time to university level science classes...) Pu decays to U235 decays to... something else [right?], but surely the pace of all this is such that they'd have to be cutting it awfully close design-wise not to be able to sustain things given the 30 year time frame [and actually constructing a Dimona replacement would be a lot faster than that, if Dimona itself is any indication], is it not? [Or is it not the fuel part of things at all as the fission product source?] In any case, wouldn't one be able to chemically separate any contaminants (as opposed to needing to produce new Pu as under the Madsen scenario) and re-manufacture?

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

here

We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

...issue, for sure - I'd just like to have a better understanding of the physics behind it. Not the calculations - don't have the chops for that - just whatever the equivalent is of the bold type summary.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

or is it that Iranians are just stupid? I think you know better. We don't like this model because it involves an asymmetric threat that is very hard to deal with.

Nuclear weapons have no real value except as a threat. Its all about Iran's threat of use such a weapon just as the US threatens to fire a nuclear armed missile from a submarine. The threat from Iran that you are talking about is to deliver the bomb through a proxy. Its their nuclear triad, missiles, airplanes, and religious zealots. The last one is hardest to mitigate. Iran has been building up these little proxy-jihad-missiles for a long time. Thinking, however, that the Iranians are just going to deliver a warhead into the arms of the first nut-case they find seems a little racist to me. Oh yeah, the first thing the Iranians are going to do is pop one off but there is no second thing they are going to do because Israel and the US would annihilate them; but, as we all know Iranians are suicidal maniacs.

We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

Why we should not be every bit as scared of a theocracy like Israel as we are of Iran? Seems like politics in Israel is delivering a substantial nuclear arsenal into the hands of some religious zealots that make Iran's Mullahs seem like Agnostics.

We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

Israel has no oil; stupid me.

We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

...concerned as with Iran, not least because they have a long track record with these systems. Taking the technical aspect off the table is a significant difference.

Israeli religious extremists are every bit as vocal and do have non-trivial amounts of influence in various components of the national security apparatus, but they are generally more comprehensible to us as observers and the alliances they are important to are somewhat less bewildering and more enduring. Probably the most important aspect is two headed - they're a) familiar looking and b) broadly aligned elements have been successful over an extended period at making sure that their issues are factors in US politics. Although the real wingnuts aren't AIPAC's core constituency, the prominence of groups like AIPAC means that they are better understood and contextualized. The backgrounds of some Israeli Cabinet members don't worry folks as much as the tales that Ahmadinejad is a some sort of apocalyptic Twelver.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

lol, so where have you been burying your bones lately?

Mostly just staying away. I thought I could maintain a flame-free 10 minutes in responding to a technical question I could answer, but I guess I didnt count on being called a racist for daring to venture forth my moderate opinion.

Oh well.

Mad Dog

racist was the appropriate word. I worry more about NK than Iran when it comes to proliferation and maybe AQ Khan. arf ;)

and I certainly don't like the idea of any countries having nuclear bombs but it seems to me that inherent in the current conversation are the following assumptions:
1) It is OK for Israel to have bombs but it is not OK for Iran to have bombs because there is something morally superior about Israel. Both countries have religious zealots of the worst kind in their governments.
2) Iran is going to be different than other countries if they get the bomb in that they will try to use it even though Israel, Pakistan, and India have bombs and have not used them. What does this say about how the Iranians are demonised in the press?
3) That Iran has no right to defend itself with a nuclear deterrent from its arch nemesis who is a nuclear power; namely the United States and that somehow, the past US relationship with Iran is not relevant even though the CIA deposed a Democratic government in Iran in favor of a dictatorship because of a disagreement on how oil profits should be shared between a British oil company and Iran.
4) That Iran is building the bomb for irrational reasons.

I am hearing, here at the Agonist, the same conversations I hear on NPR which are nothing more than propaganda. Twice, on NPR, I've heard "experts" start to comment about CIA operations in Iran during the 1950's and on both occasions the microphone was turned off and deftly switched to a new "expert". Are there people here engaging in propaganda or if not propaganda, what? Moderate comments that use the preceding assumptions are not moderate.

Iran probably sees nuclear weapons as necessary to their economic development. Without nuclear deterrence the US, Europe and China will use every means to continue the region's impoverishment so that domestic oil consumption is minimized until such time as the ground is sucked dry beneath them. With nuclear weapons, Iran could control the rate of depletion of their reserves creating a sustained flow of receipts for five decades instead of one.

We need a NATION WIDE STRIKE for Real healthcare reform

believe there are people here deliberately sprouting propaganda on Iran(other subjects, maybe lol). Peoples opinions are based on what they read, see, hear and experience so I don't think it is as cut and dry as you would like. The only cure for this is education and people learn at their own pace if at all. btw maddog may not post often and racist is not a word I would ever choose to describe him.

If you think someone is using propaganda then question them, in as polite as way as possible ;) Beware tho, sometimes people can look at the same info as you and come up with completely different opinions. Need proof, look at our political parties. :D

is very common because, as you say, people's opinions are based on what they read, see, hear, and experience. I am just pointing that out when I see it happening.

One of the most important components of military propaganda is the dehumanization of the enemy; the ultimate goal of which is to reduce the enemy to the status of bugs. The military does not seem to see racism as a boundary in propaganda. Paul Verhoeven brought Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" to the movies which is an attempt to bring this subject into the popular media. Verhoeven also touched on how dehumanization of this type works on ourselves when we tolerate it in "Soldier of Orange" which, BTW, is one of the finest movies I've ever seen.

Those of us who participate, willingly or unwillingly, in dehumanizing propaganda are dehumanizing not only the enemy, but as Verhoeven pointed out, it damages ourselves in a profound way; so deeply, that it touches our souls.

Point 1 doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with the notion that Israel is morally superior and should be "trusted" with nuclear weapons. Two historical realities go a long way to explaining many factors that could be attributed to your notion. A) Israel already has weapons - Iran does not. B) If history is any guide it's a hell of a lot easier task to discourage weapons development in the first place than it is to reverse it - only SA has taken the latter path,
something on the order of 30 nations have taken the former, to varying degrees. For that reason, there's a lot more effort devoted to discouraging weapons development by anyone than there is to de-nuclearizing existent nuclear powers. Iran gets a lot of the press, but they are far from the only folks in that particular category.

Point 2 - Just because Pakistan, Indian and Israel haven't used the weapons doesn't mean they haven't come very, very close. I would pretty strongly argue that all three of those players have come much closer to deliberate use than have the big five nuclear powers. There's little to suggest that Iran would be substantially different and its relative military weakness compared to the other three powers suggests that it might be a significantly riskier case.

Point 3 - Iran is an NPT signatory - by definition this means that they have specifically signed away their right to develop a nuclear deterrent.

Point 4 - I don't think there are many that would argue that Iran would be developing nuclear weapons for irrational reasons (though I would certainly argue that it's unwise) - quite the contrary, it's the rationality of the approach combined with the indicators that's getting folks so concerned.

“The absence of any US-Iran bilateral channel...may have the perverse effect of reinforcing Iranian interest in progressing in the nuclear realm so that the US will be forced to take it seriously and engage it directly." ~ Richard Haass

You didnt mean to call anyone a racist ? Silly me, I thought this is what you said in response to my concern about an Iranian bomb becoming a terrorist bomb:

Thinking, however, that the Iranians are just going to deliver a warhead into the arms of the first nut-case they find seems a little racist to me.

Funny, it appears the structure of your sentence is quite aimed at my comment, which means that you were labeling me "a little racist".

1) It is OK for Israel to have bombs but it is not OK for Iran to have bombs because there is something morally superior about Israel. Both countries have religious zealots of the worst kind in their governments.

Except for the fact that the Iranian are led by the unelected zealots, while in Israel, the worst ones seem to be out of the offices of power.

2) Iran is going to be different than other countries if they get the bomb in that they will try to use it even though Israel, Pakistan, and India have bombs and have not used them. What does this say about how the Iranians are demonised in the press?

Who is Iran defending themselves from ? Iraq ? Kuwait ? A few bombs is not a military deterrence to a nation that can obliterate Iran a 100 times over.

Iran already uses terrorist proxies. Why not give them a bomb and claim you didnt ?

3) That Iran has no right to defend itself with a nuclear deterrent from its arch nemesis who is a nuclear power; namely the United States and that somehow, the past US relationship with Iran is not relevant even though the CIA deposed a Democratic government in Iran in favor of a dictatorship because of a disagreement on how oil profits should be shared between a British oil company and Iran.

A few bombs is not a deterrence. They werent built to deter the the US. The oil flow in Iran is enough to deter any superpower dependant on oil.

4) That Iran is building the bomb for irrational reasons.

Arent you slightly uncomfortable with the concept of atomic weapons in the hands of unelected religious zealots ? R

Mad Dog