We all have our beliefs about what is going on in Iran as I write……conservs want us, the American people, to believe that the iranians are on the verge of a nuke bomb…..liberals want us to believe that they are years away or that they do not want a bomb, just nuke energy…..so what is the true perspective?
To answer that question…NO one has any flipping idea apparently….just all conjecture and posturing…..but I did find a piece in my search for information…….
Israel’s intelligence service Mossad has acknowledged, just like their American counterparts, there is no proof Tehran is carrying out a nuclear weapons program, a source in US intelligence told the New York Times.
An unnamed former senior US intelligence official told the paper “Mossad does not disagree with the US on the [Iranian] weapons program.” The consensus among US spy agencies remains that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons research several years ago.
“There is not a lot of dispute between the US and Israeli intelligence communities on the facts,” the official continued.
Such recognition comes in stark contrast with Israeli politicians, who have continually insisted on an immediate military strike on Iran’s nuclear installations to prevent it from evolving into an “existential threat” to the Jewish state.
The assessment of the intelligence available is the key to the ongoing war or peace dilemma with Iran. US spy agencies have been searching around for years, trying to find proof Iran is developing a nuclear warhead and missiles to deliver it. For all of their troubles, this is what they’ve found: the program was shut down way back in 2003.
But while intelligence circles might admit Iran is not close to obtaining nuclear weapons, the sanctions against Iran remain in place. Meanwhile, neither Israeli nor American leaders make any bones of threatening Iran with a military solution to prevent the country’s frustrated nuclear ambitions from seeing the light of day.
So what is the real deal? Do we prepare for war that will claim even more human lives or do we stop all the electioneering and let sanctions work? Should we move forward with a plan to fight, kinda in the vain of WMDs in Iraq? Better safe than sorry, right?
Monday began the largest summit of nations since the creation of the UN…Obama has called the summit in an effect to handle the misuse of nuke material by countries…..
But even the most idealistic internationalists know that the number of nuclear-armed states is likely to grow rather than shrink in coming years, weakening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and increasing the production of dangerous materials around the globe.
Obama began the unprecedented two-day gathering with a series of one-on-one sessions with some of the world leaders gathered for the summit, which is aimed at preventing terrorists from gaining access to nuclear materials.
His talks with Chinese President Hu Jintao were expected to go some way toward determining whether China is prepared to join the United States, Britain, France, Russia and Germany in a new round of U.N. sanctions on Iran. Tehran says its nuclear program is peaceful and it does not intend to build a weapon. (Reuters)
I think it is wonderful that all the nations are talking about the curb of nuke material…however this series of meetings is likely not to produce anything but a wealth of papers on what we need to do to protect the world from nuke terrorism….sorry there needs to be concrete decisions made, not a bunch of hot air that does little to protect the US or for that matter the world…..
Okay Iran and North Korea are problems, but the bigger problem is that of Pakistan…..a country where the unruly terrorists filled areas are no more than 60 miles from the nuclear storage area…..that needs more attention that just about any other problem…..Iran or NK want nukes but are probably bluffing in their rhetoric…..and then there is the AQ they are NOT bluffing and they will use them….so any thoughts on control should be centered on Pakistan….a country with stable nukes and an unstable government…..not a good formula no matter how you look at it…..
International Studies Group
Our president, Barack Obama, is in Prague to meet with the prez of Russia to sign the latest incarnation of the Start treaty……the AP is reporting:
Seeking to end years of rancor, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday signed the biggest nuclear arms pact in a generation and envisioned a day when they can compromise on the divisive issue of missile defense.
The pact will shrink the limit of nuclear warheads to 1,550 per country over seven years. That still allows for mutual destruction several times over. But it is intended to send a strong signal that Russia and the U.S. — which between them own more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons — are serious about disarmament.
We can all sleep better at night knowing that the START Treaty has been signed…or can we?
Before I give my analysis of the latest treaty we need to do a little history lesson…in the beginning were the SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks)…..meetings between the US and USSR over the amounts and elimination of nukes…..SALT I was signed in 1974 by Pres. Ford and Breshnev…it froze the number of missile launchers at the present number and dimantle some of the ICBMs….and we slept better…
SALT II was signed in 1979 by Pres, Carter and Brezhnev….this treaty was NOT ratified by the US Congress so it was a non-player…..why?….six months after the treaty USSR invaded Afghanistan and as they say, the rest is history….
Then came the first START Treaty which was signed by Pres. Reagan and Gorbachov among others….and this treaty expired on 08 April 2010…hence the new signing ceremony……
Now for the analysis of the treaty….after almost 40 years of negotiations and there is still 5000+ nukes somewhere in the world is just plain pathetic…all this signing and all the signings were is just a political game to make the players look more statesman-like…the fact that after such a long time and countless negotiations, NO one is serious about getting rid of any nukes….why?….it is the perfect bargaining tool…..why do you think that Iran and North Korea are busting their butts tryinbg to get a nuke? The device will give them a bargaining position that they did not have in the past….it is just that simple.
The latest signing in Prague was NOTHING more than smoke….both leaders made a speech and looked very statesman-like which, as I have said, is the sole purpose of this political exercise……it also gives the US a shield against criticism that the rest of the world has laid on it….saying that the US can have nukes but no one else can….the US can now say, “look we are doing our part to eliminate the need for nukes”….while actually doing NOTHING…..
Potential threats make it necessary for the United States to maintain a nuclear arsenal for many years to come, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday, and called for steps to ensure the nation has the ability to build such complex weapons.
Gates, in a speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, embraced former President Bill Clinton’s “lead and hedge” nuclear approach. Under this approach, Gates said, the United States should take the lead in seeking to eliminate such weapons while also hedging its bets by maintaining a deterrent nuclear arsenal.
He pointed to the nuclear programs and ambitions of nations like North Korea, Iran, Russia and China as reasons Washington must take steps to ensure the nation’s existing nuclear force is ready for launch, and also make sure industry and government have the technical expertise to build new versions.
He urged Congress to alter its recent practice of stripping money in annual Pentagon budget requests for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program, which he said would “reinvigorate and rebuild our infrastructure and expertise.”
Many skeptics argue pursuing a new program would hurt Washington’s ability to keep other nations from getting “the bomb.” They say because of this, and because the nation’s existing arsenal can be maintained for 50 to 100 years, the RRW program should be delayed for some time. Still other critics simply oppose all nuclear weapons.
But yet Washington is pushing nuclear programs for Egypt, India, and others. Yes, they are nuke power programs, but as with Iran, how long would it be before the bomb is to follow?
When Congress finally approved the U.S.-India nuclear deal this month, it sailed through the body with scarcely a peep. Most analysts in Washington and New Delhi hailed the move. But some observers worry the United States has just helped spark a new arms race.
The agreement admits India into one of the world’s most exclusive clubs: states that openly hold nuclear weapons. Proponents say it will boost cooperation between two of the world’s largest democracies, allow U.S. business to cash in on the lucrative Indian nuclear-energy market and bring New Delhi into the fight against proliferation. But there’s a hitch. India has spurned the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), under which states promise never to build bombs in exchange for access to civilian technology. “By recognizing India’s nuclear status anyway, Washington has undermined the treaty at a moment when it is confronting nuclear crises in North Korea and Iran,” says Peter Scoblic, author of “U.S. vs. Them,” a history of American nuclear strategy. “And for what? To curry favor with a country that is already a friend of the United States.”
There are signs an arms race has already started. In 2007, Pakistan’s president declared his state would increase its deterrent capacity to match India’s offensive capacity. It also opened a new reactor to manufacture weapons-grade plutonium and threatened to penetrate any Indian missile-defense shield.
What part of this agreement is gonna make the world a safer place to live?