Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before we get too carried away with who is going to attack who - isn't it possible that Iran wants nuclear energy, as they say?
Yes, nuclear energy is the only viable option for Iran.
Iran has two issues related to expanding its economy and reducing the perennial 20%+ unemployment rate.
The first issue is that Iran needs more water to expand its economy, and that can only be done through desalinization plants which are electric-energy intensive.
The second issue is that Iran needs more electrical energy. It's hydro-electric capacity from the Zagros Mountains is maxed out, and it has been building new electric power plants that are either natural gas or oil fired (or both).
The dual-reactors at Bushwher will do two things:
1) one reactor will power a series of desalinization plants along the Persian Gulf coast. Those desalinization plants will allow water to be transported via irrigation to the Iranian Plateau which could then be developed agriculturally, allowing Iran to be a net-exporter of food instead of a net-importer of food. The increased agriculture will go a long way to increasing the international supply of commodities such as corn, rice, wheat, millet, barley, soy, etc. Perhaps even cotton, linen and flaxen (used in clothing/textiles). It will also reduce Iran's 20%+ perennial unemployment rate and make the country more stable politically and socially.
You personally benefit from that as does the whole world.
2) the second reactor will provide sufficient energy to eliminate 9 out of 10 oil and gas fired electrical power plants in most areas of Iran, plus still have surplus electrical energy for future needs. More importantly, Iran will have sufficient electrical energy for more industrial capacity, creating jobs, which will help reduce Iran's 20%+ perennial unemployment rate, create upward mobility, with a stable economy, stable society and stable government.
Because Iran will dramatically decrease its domestic consumption of oil and natural gas (by using nuclear power), it can divert that to the world market to increase world supply and reduce the price of oil and natural gas, plus Iran can also shift some of its domestic oil and natural gas use to petro-chemical production, for example refine natural gas into fertilizer for use in the new agricultural fields in the Iranian Plateau (to make Iran a net-exporter of food instead of a net-importer), and the oil can be refined into base chemical stocks for use in consumer goods for the growing Middle Class that will be created from lower unemployment and upward mobility.
Again, the economic, political and social situation in Iran stabilizes.
You personally benefit from that as does the whole world.
At the last possible moment. From Israel's point of view, the desirability of outcomes is in this order:
1) Israel does not attack Iran, Iran does not develop nukes
2) Israel attacks Iran, Iran does not develop nukes
3) Israel does not attack Iran, Iran develops nukes
4) Israel attacks Iran, Iran develops nukes
Israel will only attack Iran WHEN they believe (1) is not possible and IF they believe (2) rather than (4) will result. So you can expect to see an Israeli attack on Iran only if the Israeli government thinks it will prevent Iran from successfully developing nukes, and only when Iran is almost done doing so and there is no more time/hope for non-war measures to get Iran to drop their nuclear program.
No, there is nothing Israel can do.
Israel cannot attack Iran's uranium mining operations. It is a matter of physics. Such an attack would result in every Israeli pilot either dying or getting captured, because that is a one-way suicide mission. Again, it is a matter of physics, unless Israel can somehow refuel those aircraft inflight -- over Iranian airspace while under attack from air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles.
I gave part of the formula needed to calculate the number of aircraft required just to hit one target and destroy it.
Do the math.
It doesn't matter because Israel does not have the tanker assets to refuel that many aircraft inflight, not to mention that the tankers would have to be protected by aircraft and also refuel those aircraft which are protecting it.
So Israel is going to refuel it strike aircraft and its cover over the Iranian Plateau in a 20 hour air-refueling operation that won't even refuel all of the aircraft.
Brilliant.
And a strike on Iran's uranium mining operations would neither delay nor degrade Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
I'm laughing at the superior intellect.
It's the same sad story with the heavy water plant. Those strike aircraft would have to be refueled in-flight twice, once in-bound and once out-bound or it will be a one-way suicide mission with all Israeli pilots being killed or captured after they eject when they run out of fuel.
It isn't my fault some of you still are grotesquely confused between an aircraft's range and its combat radius. I've explained that ad hoc ad nauseum ad infinitum.
The heavy water plant has no bearing on the dual-reactors at Bushwher and is not necessary for a nuclear weapons program. However, an heavy water plant is necessary for a nuclear medicine program.
A strike on Iran's heavy water plant would neither delay nor degrade Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
Again, I'm laughing at the superior intellect.
The dual-reactors at Bushwher have no bearing on any alleged nuclear weapons program either. A nuclear reactor is only necessary if you intend to produce plutonium for plutonium-based weapons. Those particular reactors are not very good at producing plutonium, and it wouldn't matter since Iran has no way to separate Pu-241 and Pu-242 from Pu-239 and Pu-240.
In order for Israel to attack the dual-reactors, it will have to refuel all strike aircraft in-flight over the Persian Gulf or near it, like in Saudi Arabia near the Persian Gulf.
A strike on Iran's dual-reactors would neither delay nor degrade Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program (so it's a complete waste of time and resources).
Still laughing at the superior intellect.
The only way to affect any alleged nuclear program, an energy or weapons program, would be to attack and destroy the enrichment processing facilities, except those are deep underground, and no one is really sure where they are. If it was me, I'd have them in the Zagros Mountains, where they would be untouchable.
And no, bunker-busting bombs aren't going to do anything. I already showed the math on that.
When you all get with reality and give up the video game fantasy mentality, you'll figure it out.
Japan was dumb enough to build nuclear power plants in the most seizmically active region in the world.
My husband worked on nuclear plants and the way he tells it, they were using outdated technology - plus it wasn't the quakes that did them in, it was the Sunami. I think nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest, and cheapest.
It has been six days since the first post in this thread. The war has not started. I doubt if it will.
The Persians are smart enough to realize that if they industrialize and become self sufficient in food and energy they can eventually buy Saudi Arabia and leave the Israelis to cook in their own mess.
RE: the mathematics of War. According to the masters of this technique the Greeks were supposed to fall to the German Army in two weeks. They kept fighting for six and delayed the start of the southern front of Barbarossa. That four week delay may have cost the Germans the War with Russia.
The mathematical war games should be used with great caution.
1) Iran is indeed building a nuke. You might want to take a peek around the internet for the virus symantec discovered designed to damage industrial equipment like oh....centerfuges. Interesting virus too, incredibly sophisticated and expensive to create yet it was designed to replicate just a bit and then completely erase that it had ever been there.
2) Israel cannot stop them. The UN sanctions haven't stopped them. Basically Iran is GOING to build a nuke. (They've been trading missle and other tech with NK too).
3) I can only hope that once they have thier nuke that Iran realizes that it's almost like an albatross of responsibility. Suddenly, things you say take on an added weight or gravity. Maybe this will help to normalize relations with Israel over the long haul. Nukes are the only thing that prevented WW3 with the Russians.
4) Iran has legitimate and neccessary reasons for a nuclear energy program. This is an entirely different topic than their nuke wheapons program.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
