Iran's Smart Concrete Can Cope With Earthquakes and Bombs 609
PolygamousRanchKid writes "Iran is an earthquake zone, so its engineers have developed some of the toughest building materials in the world. Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) could also be used to protect hidden nuclear installations from the artificial equivalent of small earthquakes, namely bunker-busting bombs. UHPC is based—like its quotidian cousins—on sand and cement. In addition, though, it is doped with powdered quartz (the pure stuff, rather than the tainted variety that makes up most sand) and various reinforcing metals and fibers. UHPC can withstand more compression than other forms of concrete. UHPC is also more flexible and durable than conventional concrete. It can therefore be used to make lighter and more slender structures. All of which is fine and dandy for safer dams and better sewers, which threaten no one. But UHPC's potential military applications are more intriguing—and for many, more worrying. Deep bunkers can be tackled in other ways. America's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has looked at what is known in the jargon as functional defeat, in other words bombing their entrances shut or destroying their electrical systems with electromagnetic pulses. They are also working on active penetrators—bombs which can tunnel through hundreds of meters of earth, rock and concrete. Development work is also under way on esoteric devices such as robot snakes, carrying warheads, which can infiltrate via air ducts and cable runs."
Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
...brought to you by "the department of give-us-more-tax-dollars."
Dear americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
In breaking news, man confronted with baseball bat puts his hands up to fend himself. This is a clear indicator that proves the man was intent on violence.
Seriously? these old wankers feeding us this bullshit don't understand that the internet never forgets their lies and many of us have clued into wtf is going on?
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, a country run by a theocracy that has announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors and is busy getting nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong?
Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just because this "high performance" concrete was developed in Iran, it has dangerous military applications? Dangerous as in able to withstand US bombs? Should we start banning defensive technologies in order to make it easier for the US to invade?
If this was developed in any other nation, "military applications" would never have been mentioned.
Please don't fall for the fearmongering, Iran is not going to attack anyone, they know very well they would be instantly overrun. This is Iraq all over again.
As an aside, while I very much object to anyone including the US having nuclear weapons, I can't really see why Iran having them - if they indeed do - is a problem while Israel having them is not, a country that has constantly refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty and employs an Apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians.
McCarthy would be proud of you guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran is a very religious country, so is the US. Muslims want to kill Christians, Christians want to kill Muslims. Iran has corrupt leaders, that allow their people to suffer hunger, poor health care and bad education in order to spend millions in armament, this is also true about the US. It's also true that Iran is a fairly small country with few resources, while the US is a huge country and the most resourceful on the planet, and while Iran has failed in most military operations it has attempted, the US has succeeded. Iran is trying to get some nuclear weapons, the US is the only country to have ever used them on a civilian population. Currently Iran has no nuclear weapons, while the US has thousands. Iran is not currently at war, while the US has been consistently starting wars every year for 200 years.
And yet, when the US develops a new weapon, a new fighter, a new bomb, a new droid, or any other military advancement and clearly plans to use it soon at war, it's praised for its technological achievement. But when Iran develops a new construction technology, that has tens of applications, one of them, defense, then it's something we should be worried about and it makes Iran evil, and we should ask the glorious united states of america to destroy them real soon.
Fuck that bullshit, your western christian theocracy is no better than the eastern muslim theocracies, and just as crazy, delusional and violent.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Israel truly believes that it's existence is threatened then they can do something about it themselves.
...themselves being a US ground invasion.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vs. a Country which is trying to become a Theocracy which already has hundreds of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them at a distance.. how could that be bad?
Smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside the obvious political flamebait, are we really now at a point where anything that's been at all updated since the 1950s is considered "smart"? The term makes sense for things that have a microcontroller added to them, but that's not the case here. This concrete isn't any smarter than my toothbrush.
Re:McCarthy would be proud of you guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
I sincerely don't think it's about the oil anymore. I think the war industry is even bigger than the oil industry, and the owners of the US have as much interests in Lockheed as they do in Exxon.
Re:Defense? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean they wouldn't be able to put a nuke in a shipping container? Or perhaps hand a few over to Hezbolla and or Hamas? There is more than one way to "touch" America and missiles would probably be the last method used.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which has what to do with the United States? If Israel truly believes that it's existence is threatened then they can do something about it themselves.
The US is Israel's bitch. They say jump and the US gladly jumps off the cliff.
You just watch, some absurd casus belli will come up (invented by Israel) and its lackey will start dropping bombs on Tehran.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dear americans (Score:5, Insightful)
I got out right after 9/11, but before the wars kicked in. I knew that the rationale for the wars was bullshit(WMD? we sold Saddam that WMD!), but by that time I was happy enough being the fuck out of the military. And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.
So the short answer is, no, I'm not a hypocrite.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
And Iraq, 1981, when they destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor, and then did the same in Syria in 2007. You can argue those aren't "invasions", I suppose, since they were targeted attacks rather than ground forces moving in and leading to occupation, but they were unprovoked military attacks that would be considered casus belli by the victims.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there was the invasion of Lebanon again in 2006.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Defense? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing. You don't need ICBMs to attack another country.
Stop, please stop with the rhetoric. What happened on 9/11 were terrorists acts. It was not a declaration of war, it was not an invasion. It was not an attack in any meaningful way.
Otherwise any criminal enterprise is an attack that warrants some kind of military response.
And by the way, using airplanes to carry out a series of terrorist acts in the US is nothing out of the ordinary. They just used the most common means of transportation. Using the airplane in the US is like using a train in most smaller countries. The reason being obviously a difference in scale.
This is what is wrong with the US way of thinking. Everything has to be reduced to an "attack on something" so we can justify using our shiny new toys (aircraft carriers, tanks, F-22, drones, bunker busters, you name it) on the stupid poor guy standing on the other side of the street.
Seriously if Iran is any kind of menace (and it isn't) the world should be going apeshit on India, Pakistan, Cina, North Korea and Israel. You want to know the real menace ? The US and its tradition of starting wars for fucked up reasons (and half the western countries going along for the ride because of corrupt politicians say hello to Tony Blair!! ).
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States is not a theocracy, despite attempts by a minority to make us one. The United States most certainly does not "regularly annihilate" countries.
I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated. Now care to name some more examples of this "unending warfare" you claim?
I know its trendy to scream and holler about how the US is some dystopian super-villain, but saying something boldly and loudly does not make it true.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it comes down to nukes Amman, Damascus and Cairo (along with any other Arab city a F-16 with drop tanks and one bomb can reach) will be destroyed, no matter who shoots first.
The chances of those nukes coming out if it means that Israel will also become a glowing ember are much smaller. The only thing that held back nukes during the cold war was mutually assured destruction [wikipedia.org]. At the moment with Israel being surrounded by countries without the bomb it has a big advantage. When it knows that their "big red button" may as well be connected to the opposing sides "big red button" I am sure that there will be even more locks and keys put on it.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lebanon, 1982?
and 2006 [wikipedia.org]? You might argue that it was retaliation, but there aren't too many people who can honestly they don't think it was a massive over-retalliation. Lebanon was doing very well in terms of economy and was quite stable. The last thing that Israel needed was another much larger state in nearby proximity that was starting to have solid relation with the west, a growing economy and starting to weild some clout at the international table. It is much more convenient to have the surrounding states clawing to fix the most basic of infrastructure.
Re:Dear americans (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.
I would be more content if the people who wanted to force others to believe what they believe at the end of a rifle or sword were singled out. Peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the problem.
LK
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet you get to rot for years for carry a bit of weed.
Say, we can play you get to go to jail for stupid shit game too!
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:2, Insightful)
announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors and is busy getting nuclear weapons
Ahh, No and No.
Iran has never stated it is trying to build nuclear weapons.
I hope [you're] not [referring] to the [speech] that has been proven long ago to be [an] "accidental" mistranslation.
Reading comprehension fail. Quoted poster said Iran announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors. Iran has said, many times (e.g. last month http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=44676), that they want and intend to cause "the death of all Jews and the destruction of Israel".
Iran hasn't stated they are building nuclear weapons, but the quoted poster didn't say that, either; the quoted poster said Iran is "busy getting" nuclear weapons. So while Iran has repeatedly stated their nuclear work is definitely not for building nuclear weapons, the IAEA (who may be impartial, and may be an expert group in these sorts of things) states this year it "continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program" (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0224/IAEA-report-on-Iran-serious-concerns-about-nuclear-program), after last year it said Iran had carried "out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device" (http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house-iaea-report-doesn-t-change-assessment-of-iran-s-nuclear-ambitions-20111108).
I believe the quoted poster was making an assumption many of us have: that when Iran says its larger-than-necessary and more-enriched-than-necessary uranium enrichment operations (as compared to the claimed purposes of isotope research and power generation, respectively) are entirely for peaceful purposes, they're full of shit.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to add that Israel contains the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, two very sacred Islamic sites. How likely do you think a religious fundamentalist government would nuke their own sacred sites? We can argue about nut cases etc. but seriously its very unlikely. I think all people that have seriously looked into the events happening in the middle east realize that many nations, including Iran, want to return the lands occupied by Israel to the Palestinians. . Israel has nukes, tons of UN resolutions it regularly ignores, chemical and possibly biological weapons. When will it be hit with sanctions, inspections, etc.? Israel has used banned weapons on opponents, most recently of which were the phosphorous bombs it dropped on people in Lebanon. Israel even acknowledged it used them. Why no outrage? Where was all the media?
I definitely agree about the hypocrisy part. Its foolish that people either can't see it or are wrapped in denial.
Shipping Container? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, they could put a nuke in a train, and drive the train right into the middle of the white house; then detonate it.
Maybe they could get Bruce Lee to drive the train, jump out right before it hit, and rip the pres' heart right out of his chest and show it to him before he dies.
Once you take that little step into insane, there is no point in coming up short.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel does not need absurd casus belli. Unlike many other countries out there, it is perfectly straightforward in how it goes about war. It's not shy about calling it "war", either.
If and when they will believe that Iran's nuclear capability is approaching the point where it's a threat to Israel, they will just strike - same as what they did about Osirak.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
it's actually kinda offensive you put Iran in with the rest of the middle east, as if there's no difference between all those countries, and even regions within (and across the borders of) those countries.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
here's one. name a few days since 1945 where the USA has not been at war.
and yes, the war on drugs counts - look at what happened to a big chunk of central america.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, making earthquake surviving concrete is obviously an offensive move, whereas making weapons designed to destroy such concrete is merely self-defense.
Iran vs. US (Score:5, Insightful)
As some comments above have pointed out, the media as of late (well, probably always) has taken a really bias view of this Iran vs. US thing, to the point that.. I don't really know what to think.
In my quest to find less bias opinions, I turned to al-jazeera and other arab news sources to view comments from those who refer to Isreal as the "evil zionist regime." While many comments were ludicrous (but perhaps no more ludicrous than pro-US comments on CNN or something), there were many who pointed out that the US and Isreal have been known to carry out assassinations in Iran and other countries with basic impunity.
The question posed was, if Iran assassinated a scientist or politician in the United States, what kind of blow-back would there be? Why is the US/Isreal allowed to carry these out events without any world condemnation?
It's a difficult topic, because as much as I believe the US is going about things in the wrong way, if there's going to be someone who is the "world police" and the global power, I would prefer the US to any other country. Yet, it is clearly shielding the public from the double-standards it holds. Why does nobody else (general public) notice this? It's weird.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I'll give you a minute to collate that data. Done? So, Theocracy? If not, then how would you define it?
Don't kid yourself, you life in a theocracy, run by people that believe ultimate judgement will be at the hands of their fairy god father or his evil counterpart. You can believe whatever you want, the facts are clear.
Re:Disturbing (Score:0, Insightful)
The problem is when a leader states "The Holocaust never occured" You have to pay attention to loons like that.
Yeah the U.S. is in bed with Israel and will be to the end of time. They know that having a nuclear ability is the start of black mailing other countires and don't let those Muslims fool you. Sunis and Shia hate each other like cats and Dogs.
Ever had a dog that gets all excited and wants to kill another dog and so you go to try and restrain him and he bites you instead? That's what will happen in Iraq. They care nothing about life and when the afterlife offers so much hope than life on Earth they have nothing to lose.
They live in the 16th century and thier thinking or rather thier religous theology brainwashes the population into a frenzy over a burned book. The ones in power know exactly how to rile up the poor people and whip them into a frenzy of mindless suicide bombers. They have posters plastered all over the place worshipping Martyrs. The point of the bomber isn't suicide - it is to kill infidels in battle. This is not just permitted by Muhammad, but encouraged with liberal promises of earthy rewards in heaven, including food and sex.
Martyrdom is what they are after and a nuclear weapon gives them the glorious death to kill millions of infidels.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
we have also come to the aid of the defenseless more than anyone else too.
How's that kool-aid? Tasty? An empire does not wage war to "aid the defenseless", but to give itself more power (of course in the specific case of the USA there's also the military-industrial complex problem). Why doesn't the USA aid the "defenseless" in friendly regimes like Saudi Arabia, which although a rich country (and by no means the worst one out there) still considers women as second-class citizens? How come the USA is always first in line to criticize Cuba for not being democratic, while the same USA brings down democratically elected governments all around the world? I'll tell you why: the guys who make the rules don't give a shit about helping others, they don't care about freedom or democracy, they just do whatever is necessary to further their goals. They do, however, lie about everything and you, my friend, believe every word of it.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Off the top of my head:
World War I
World War II
Korean War (North Korea invaded South Korea)
Iraq, 1992 (when Saddam invaded Kuwait)
Somalia, 1993
Bosnia, 1995
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, much of the American military technology has been developed in Israel.
Israeli technology keeps American soldiers safe.
Moreover, the 'gifts' to which you refer had to be spent on American companies. So the Israelis can't go and buy better equipment elsewhere much as they might like.
The state of Israel is perfectly viable given its massive contribution to global technology, agriculture and health. Have a look at how their GDP went during the GFC.
I very much doubt I'll change your obviously closed mind on the subject, but you might want to consider instead how much value for money the Americans get sending trillions of dollars into the Arab world. It certainly isn't any Israelis shouting "Death to America"...
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated.
Okay, he exaggerated, but let's look at Iraq. Went in on a lie and against the wishes of our own citizens (at least in the UK) and a significant proportion of Iraqis. 200,000+ civilians dead, far worse carnage than Saddam caused for the majority of people. Appalling behaviour by our troops, many of whom can't even pronounce "Iraq".
Iran is right next door, the US and Israel are talking openly about an invasion and regime change and waging a cold war of assassinations and overt spying against them.
On top of all that the US's democracy leaves a lot to be desired, being apparently based on money and corporations with only the rich allowed to have any power. Yet the US is convinced that this is the only acceptable system of government and will force it on other countries, even if the result is an absolute joke like it is in Afghanistan.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:2, Insightful)
World War II?
Are you fucking kidding me?
You acted only when it was in your own economic interest.
You mean like when Japan attacked the United States, followed about a week later by a declaration of war against the United States by Germany?
Of course that sort of glosses over the assistance the US provided the UK prior to entering the war as well.
You don't really seem to have a firm grasp on this subject.
Fucking douchenozzle.
Easily explained [go.com], I suspect.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
SOME has, but let's not go overboard. No matter how advanced you may think they are, we're talking about a very small population here. They CAN'T possibly have a very big impact.
The total is actually estimated at 75%. And it's not as if that makes it cease to exist. These are still very real gifts to support Israel.
Try this one:
"There has been [US] economic aid to Israel every year since 1949"
For the past several years, these grants have totaled about 2.5 billion. That's not an insignificant percentage of their GDP. They can't just up and do without it. They've got significant debt and trade deficits already. And that's just the obvious, most overt aid the US provides.
Your statement means absolutely nothing. It doesn't change the fact that they'd be bankrupt without US aid. And it's not as if this is MY personal opinion... This fact has been stated by a large number of analysts and officials.
The fact that you don't like the facts I've listed, doesn't make me closed-minded. In fact all indications are that I am vastly better informed about the subject than you are.
First of all, our support of Israel is the #1 reason there are so many Arabs that hate the US, so your claim is incredibly empty.
Additionally, Palestine is in Israel. I'm sure there's plenty of people there who hate the US. Worst of all, I can't say they're reasons are invalid, unlike most.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it's just a simple translation which you are welcome to verify
The literal translation was to wipe the nation of Israel off the map. You can interpret that in several ways. One is to believe that it means killing everyone there. This is the spin that you are reporting. The other is to realise that Iran has never accepted the legitimacy of Israel as a state and wishes to see the state of Israel eliminated as a legal entity. This is the interpretation promoted by Iran.
It's also important to consider the context of the speech. Iran is a Persian country surrounded by Arabic countries. There is a couple of thousand years of history of conflict between the two groups (and not just distant history - remember Iraq invading Iran?). The only way Iran survives in the region is by reminding everyone else that Israel is a more important enemy than them, and that they're on everyone else's side. Picture the scrawny kid that hangs around with the bullies and shouts insults at other people to show how much they are a part of the group. That's Iran's international political status, but what about internally? They have a complex political structure, where the fundamentalist muslims are not a majority, but are influential. The leadership has to, at least publicly, appear to be acceptable to this group or lose power, in much the same way that the US President has to pander to the Christian right in America.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran wont let the IAEA confirm that it's compliant, make of that what you will, but I suspect if a country was in compliance there'd be absolutely no reason to not let the IAEA confirm that to be the case.
Of course there would be a reason: to bluff having a weapon. Whether that would be a good reason, or indeed a good idea, is debatable but not the point.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"IAEA don't have the right to go anywhere they want anytime they want"
Of course they don't, but similarly if they aren't given access to what they need access to to determine compliance then they can't determine compliance.
The effects of that can be quite wide ranging, and that's the choice Iran has to deal with - whether any supposed fears of spying are outweighed by the benefits of being deemed not compliant.
It's unlikely spying is a real rational concern for Iran, their nuclear programme has been fed by the Russians and long before that, the Germans anyway, so none of their technology is really top secret home grown stuff - it's stuff the rest of the world already long figured out.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah to an extent it is, there are differences though but even if there weren't it's false logic to assume that they were wrong last time, so they must be wrong this time.
In terms of the differences the inspectors on the ground for the most part were given a lot more access than is granted in Iran, and many, as well as people like Hans Blix were saying "There just aren't any WMDs here". It was somewhat hard for their voices to be heard because WMDs can be quite wide ranging in features, things like chlorine factories can be pretty dual purpose for example.
In the case of Iran inspectors have much less freedom, but they're fairly unanimous in the view that they don't have access to confirm that there isn't a nuclear weapons programme. Because the focus is much smaller than the broad nature of WMDs in general there's also far less ambiguity as to what they are looking for - features of a nuclear weapons programme stand out from the rest of a civilian programme and when elements of such a programme have been spotted by the IAEA or Iran can't or wont give a reason for their existence then the IAEAs claim that they can't determine that such elements are not for a weapons programme is quite valid, and obviously not in dispute.
Again, this doesn't mean Iran does have a nuclear weapons programme, but whilst there are parallels with Iraq it's still quite different. An underground fortified militiarised nuclear site that was kept secret until exposed by foreign nations and which has a number of pieces of evidence suggesting at least some kind of weapons research at some point has gone on is a lot more suspicious than an unguarded chlorine factory that has a comprehensive paper trail demonstrating legitimate customers with legitimate uses. Whether that suspicion alone is enough for varying types of action is a fair question, and precisely what the international community is at odds over. Much of the world felt Iraq didn't have WMDs based on the evidence but America and Britain went ahead as if it did anyway, in contrast the number of nations who believe Iran probably has a nuclear weapons programme is much larger and sanctions over the issue have been agreed by such classically Western opponents as Russia and China to boot - countries that wont even agree to a response over Syria despite it's blatant murder of civilians right now.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
A theocracy is one that has a state religion with laws to back it up. Last I checked, the U.S. had laws to allow you to have any religion you like or none at all.
Learn the difference, it might make your arguments more persuasive.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, making earthquake surviving concrete is obviously an offensive move, whereas making weapons designed to destroy such concrete is merely self-defense.
Just like the missile defense system was merely for defense, one could argue that the bomb itself was a very good deterrent, as long as both sides fear MAD. Iran's real problem is that with it's fanatical rhetoric MAD appears not to be a deterrent, then again they could be acting that way because they feel cornered. Iran's true intentions are very hard to read, there have been signs that they are trying to build a nuclear weapons but no concrete evidence. New intelligence has shown they have paused their weapons program but this might be because they have hit a hurdle and need to buy some more research or they could have realized Israel will do whatever it takes to ensure Iran does not get nuclear weapons. There is way too much going on to say simply building hardened bunkers are merely for defense, if those bunkers are hiding a real threat, then they are more like an offensive line, protecting an offensive threat.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran wont let the IAEA confirm that it's compliant, make of that what you will, but I suspect if a country was in compliance there'd be absolutely no reason to not let the IAEA confirm that to be the case.
Not defending Iran... but...
If you're doing nothing wrong- you wouldn't mind the police routinely searching your home without a warrant. Or you Sig Other going through your cell phone call list/web history routinely.
Iran may or may not be doing anything wrong- but not letting inspectors have full access is not a sign of guilt. I wouldn't want the police randomly searching my house- I'm not breaking any laws (that I know of) but it's the kind of violation that you don't want occurring without necessity.
Again, I'm not defending Iran- they're clearly not "squeaky clean"- but the fact that they do have so many enemies may make them less wanting to endure being investigated and spied on. You say you're going to make sure we're not making nukes- they say, you're coming to spy on our infrastructure to build an attack plan on how to disable us.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are dishonestly minimizing the action of the Suez Canal nationalization. It wasn't "just" nationalization, as in nothing changed but the revenue recipient. From wikipedia:
Nasser's response was the nationalization of the Suez Canal. On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser gave a riposte to Dulles. During his speech he deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal and implement its nationalization.[53] He announced that the Nationalization Law had been published, that all assets of the Suez Canal Company had been frozen, and that stockholders would be paid the price of their shares according to the day's closing price on the Paris Stock Exchange.[54] That same day, Egypt closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[55] Egypt also closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[56][57]
Yeah, breaking treaties and cutting off waterways to another country IS an act of war. Israel wasn't just mad that revenue was going to a new government, or transit rates were increasing.. they were being directly attacked by Egypt.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone dealt with 1956 already I'll handle 1973:
Syria and Egypt had begun massing forces on the border with Israel, Egypt had already implemented a Naval Blockade of their port (an internationally recognized act of war) and at the time everyone and their dog knew that these nations intended to strike Israel. Rather than waiting for the hammer to fall they expertly initiated the fighting before perpetrations were finalized thus taking the surprise attack away from their enemies. It should also be noted that in the '73 conflict the Egyptian tank forces were widely considered the victors by inflicting severe Israeli casualties (10,000+) and that the US intervention in the form of the camp David accords was to prevent the Israeli's from nuking Cairo as US intelligence had reported that the Israeli's were preparing Nuclear weapons for delivery because had the Egyptians continued they likely could have seized much of Israel proper. This is also why the camp David accords contain a provision that Egypt isn't allowed to station troops in the Sinai (to prevent just this scenario, it's also why Israel refused to hand the Golan back to Syria (it was used as a staging ground).
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, those are the facts. The U.S. didn't put NORAD under Cheyenne Mountain, inside 2,000 feet of granite, because they were worried about earthquakes. They did that because they were worried about getting hit by a nuclear bomb. Similarly the design of the Fordow site indicates that the Iranians are worried about airstrikes. In particular, the design of the Fordow site seems specifically aimed at hardening the target against a U.S. airstrike using advanced bunker-busters.
So the question is, why would Iran do this for a peaceful nuclear program? If Iran's real aim is nuclear power, it would be a lot easier to just do everything out in the open, and let the U.N. weapons inspectors have free reign and allay everybody's fears. On the other hand, if you want the capability to build a nuclear bomb, and don't want the Israelis or the U.S. to stop you, then you do precisely what the Iranians are currently doing: build multiple enrichment facilities (so they can't be taken out by a single airstrike), build them deep underground, and harden them with advanced concrete and blast doors. Watching Ahmadinejad you could be forgiven for thinking that the Iranian government is run by irrational idiots, but this is really a very clever, well-thought-out approach to developing a nuclear bomb.
And the thing is, developing a nuclear bomb is not an irrational move here. Saddam Hussein's mistake wasn't pursuing WMD, it was that he didn't go far enough. If he'd had the ability to inflict mass civilian casualties with WMD, nobody would have bothered him. North Korea has two deterrent weapons- a nuclear bomb, and heavy artillery and missiles that can hit Seoul, causing large scale civilian casualties. There's a reason that Bush never screwed with Kim Jong Il. This isn't lost on the mullahs who run Iran. They realize that without any allies, they are vulnerable to regime change. But with a nuclear bomb, they will have a deterrent weapon.