Iran will have nuclear power
So, I ran across this article, which I think could be fairly serious. Placing it in the Monkeying Around forum is rather oxymoronic, but it has nothing to do with finance, so here it is.
Obviously some people will say this is being blow out of proportion, but I think it deserves some attention. The article basically outlines that Israel has 8 days to launch a military strike against the facility because anytime after that the uranium will be delivered and in place and any sort of strike would be have radiological effects. Now, I doubt Israel will take any sort of military action but I don't think that it is being dismissed on a whim by those in charge. They have to be wondering it their future is in jeopardy.
At the very least, doesn't it seem ironic that a country with the third most known oil reserves on the planet is so dead set on building nuclear power? One would ask (1) why that is even necessary and (2) shouldn't someone like...say, the United States being building more nuclear power plants given our oil reserves stand at just 15% percent of Iran's? Just sayin'.
Did not know about the 8 day
Did not know about the 8 day period regarding Israel you mentioned, very interesting.
For some reason I just don't trust Iran having a nuclear plant, seems like it would be too easy to hide other activity behind it. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds.....
Ok.... #1- Its fucking Fox
Ok....
#1- Its fucking Fox News... seriously? It might as well be al-Jazeera.
#2- I seem to doubt that Russian (or any for that matter) suppliers of uranium provide delivery date and FedEx tracking numbers to public media outlets. So the "8 days" deadline sounds like a bunch of bullshit.
#3-
Bolton warned that once the Bushehr facility is operational it will be too late for a military air strike against Iran because such an attack would spread radiation and harm Iranian civilians.
I somehow doubt this is a real consideration. Especially considering the fact that we're already using depleted uranium rounds all over Iraq. Im not likening using depleted uranium rounds to a nucleur meltdown... but more to the point that "military impact on civilians" is a PR concept.
Financial Modeling Training
Guide to Finance Interviews
Banking Resume
Marcus, I am not sure what
Marcus, I am not sure what your point was with your "#1". Even if it is FOX News, there is certainly some legitimacy to the threat that Iran poses to Israel. They are only separated by about 2,000km, which, ironically, is the distance that most of their long range missiles travel. Whether or not Iran would ever attack Israel remains to be seen. I don't think they would because Israel would annihilate them, plain and simple. If there was some sort of concerted effort/attack on Israeli soil by the Iranian government, I would bet good money there would be missiles flying eastward for days upon days.
Here is a little more info on "#2"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-17/iran-t...
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.as...
Again, I'm not clear on what your point was with "#3". If you are implying that Israel is not likely considering the bad PR that a late strike would cause assuming there was some sort of radiological disaster, that may be true. The thing I think I like most about Israel is that they appear to care more about their safety then their public image...which I think the US could use a little more of. The effects of depleted uranium are minimal when compared to the potential disaster an attack on a nuclear reactor could cause. Obviously you won't catch me rubbing DU shells on my genitals to prove a point, but it is generally believed the harm from DU is most often caused internally, by ingestion of some sort. It's claimed that the "fallout" from DU ammo (not shot yet) is only a few CMs and that radiation at that level wouldn't penetrate a piece of notebook paper. But that is more anecdotal as I'm certainly not a nuclear scientist.
Whether or not the threat is real, we don't know, but I would bet that Israel is taking it under serious consideration and has the power to do a significantly great amount of damage to Iran then Iran could do to it.
Regards
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
I wasn't at all positing that
I wasn't at all positing that Iran doesn't -- with or without, but especially with nuclear power -- pose a very real threat to Israel.
My point in number 3 was that civilian fallout is not a real consideration in these types of decisions. The "they have to act within 8 days or they can't act without serious civilian consequences" is a political stick in the back. No one really cares about the civilian fallout, especially in Iran. There isn't a person in the world that takes them seriously and any civilian consequences incurred inside of Iran will be, for the large part, viewed by the world as a direct result of Amajenidad.
On an aside, while unfired DU shells may not pose a real risk... (obviously we wouldn't be handing them to our soldiers if they did, arguably). The fired DU shells in fact pose a real threat as they incinerate, burn and melt what they hit and the particulate disperses into the air. There is considerable research showing that birth defects and other cancerous instances have increased up to 30 fold... (e.g. from 50 occurrences per 10,000 to 1,500 occurrences per 10,000) in areas where DU shells were pervasively used beginning the in the first gulf war. This phenomena closely tracks areas where DU shells were used vs. any other areas... (so for example, Areas 1: mustard gas and DU shells used, statistically significant increase seen; Area 2: mustard gas used, statistically significant increase not seen; Area 3: DU shells used, statistically significant increase seen). Im using mustard gas as an example, not suggesting the validity of using mustard gas as a control. Similar, albeit not as severe implications are observed in soldiers exposed to fired DU shells (i.e. a vehicle shot up with DU shells).
I can point you to the source if you'd like, Ill have to track down the cites from a paper I wrote back in college. Also, DU cannot be disposed of on US soil unless it is locked in a radiological-sealed canister and buried something like 10,000 feet below sea level. A lot of the numbers above are not exact, but they're in the general vicinity/order of magnitude. Its been a long time since I looked at this stuff.
Financial Modeling Training
Guide to Finance Interviews
Banking Resume
Iran might have a large
Iran might have a large supply of the worlds oil, but they have shit power generation. Interesting write up :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Iran
I would not be opposed to Iran having nuclear power if their little leader wasn't so insane. I think that 8 days crap is bullshit. The Iranian have been building nuclear facilities deep underground. It is debatable whether we can even hit them with current weapon systems. This isn't like the nuclear power plant in Iraq which was an easy strike for the Israeli's.
As for Israel striking Iran, that isn't going to happen. They need the USA to firmly support whatever they do. The Europeans will not lift a finger to help if they bomb Iran and cause a shit storm. The USA is pretty lukewarm with Israel right now.
The nuclear genie has been let out of the bottle.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Thanks for the clarification
Thanks for the clarification Marcus. No need to get the actual data, I trust your numbers. And your right, typically it isn't considered as a big deal due to its classification as collateral damage. As I mentioned, I don't think Israel would ever put its public image before it's safety but a preemptive strike that causes mass destruction and suffering if no tangible threats can be proven is going to force people/countries to choose a side and as was mentioned, the US's support (spoken vs. unspoken) is a bit lackluster at this point.
Anthony, you are right, they have shit power generation. They suck that oil out of the ground like it is nobody's business but they aren't much for refining it and putting it to use.
I am actually a fan of nuclear power and think its a cheap (relatively) way of producing clean energy. I think that the United States should be doing more to get some going here, in an effort to curtail our dependency on foreign oil.
I also agree with support for a nuclear power program in Iran if it wasn't for the instability in the region (in general) and the whack job running the place. Although, I do think Mahmoud is nothing but an Iranian Kim Jong minus the female shades and the DJ Pauly D style blow out. Just a bunch of check thumping and hot air blowing.
Regards
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
Anthony . wrote: Iran might
Iran might have a large supply of the worlds oil, but they have shit power generation. Interesting write up :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Iran
I would not be opposed to Iran having nuclear power if their little leader wasn't so insane. I think that 8 days crap is bullshit. The Iranian have been building nuclear facilities deep underground. It is debatable whether we can even hit them with current weapon systems. This isn't like the nuclear power plant in Iraq which was an easy strike for the Israeli's.
As for Israel striking Iran, that isn't going to happen. They need the USA to firmly support whatever they do. The Europeans will not lift a finger to help if they bomb Iran and cause a shit storm. The USA is pretty lukewarm with Israel right now.
The nuclear genie has been let out of the bottle.
Good points Tone, just gotta tweak you on one. Ahmadinejad is not a factor. He's the equivalent of a press secretary. Ali Khameini is the real Capo di tutti capi (I think this is a very fair assessment if you read up on his gangsteresque rise to power). The issue remains (and has since the Abbassid Caliphate) Shariatic politics and policy, which have no place in a world of nuclear power.
I fear that the stance undertaken by U.S. policy towards the SHARIATIC WORLD is akin to "Hitler at Munich".
But we shall see...
Where I unload on Twits and take verbal S***s
Good Lord, I must have fallen
Good Lord, I must have fallen asleep at my desk...for 5 days, lol.
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.as...
Regards
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
I love the headline "Obama
I love the headline "Obama wont let us hit it"
Kiss the Jewish vote good bye.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
I highly doubt any military
I highly doubt any military intervention will occur. Certainly President Obama is well aware of the crippling effects to the global economy of ridiculously high oil prices caused by the closing of the strait Iran controls. Alot of you here are really undermining what an armed conflict between Iran and Israel can look like, to assume that Iran will take it up the ass and cause little to no damage is truly an outrageous assumption. Lets not forget the Lebanese conflict of 2006, I remember watching it on the news that summer with my war obsessed uncle and it was quite embarrassing for Israel. Not only did they not achieve what they set out to achieve in what they estimated would take a few days, they aimed their efforts at targeting civilian areas to pressure Hezbollah into surrendering. No doubt Israel is probably the better armed, but you can never underestimate the other side. The results of such a war would be catastrophic for the region, especially if Iran fires their missiles everywhere there is a U.S base.
CNB90 wrote: I highly doubt
I highly doubt any military intervention will occur. Certainly President Obama is well aware of the crippling effects to the global economy of ridiculously high oil prices caused by the closing of the strait Iran controls. Alot of you here are really undermining what an armed conflict between Iran and Israel can look like, to assume that Iran will take it up the ass and cause little to no damage is truly an outrageous assumption. Lets not forget the Lebanese conflict of 2006, I remember watching it on the news that summer with my war obsessed uncle and it was quite embarrassing for Israel. Not only did they not achieve what they set out to achieve in what they estimated would take a few days, they aimed their efforts at targeting civilian areas to pressure Hezbollah into surrendering. No doubt Israel is probably the better armed, but you can never underestimate the other side. The results of such a war would be catastrophic for the region, especially if Iran fires their missiles everywhere there is a U.S base.
I don't think you should ever underestimate your opponent, especially when they are nut bags, but the only thing that would make Iran "competitive" against Israel would be if Israel decided to not bomb the shit out of the whole country and make it a more conventional war. Even then the deaths are only going to occur at random and if they attempted to occupy any cities. Their weapons are less accurate and are not capable of striking at a similar distance as those of Israel partly because they are working with technology developed in the 50s and manufactured in the 70s.
Coincidentally:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5...
Regards
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan
USA sucks out twice as much
USA sucks out twice as much oil as Iran... despite having less reserves
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_pro-ener...
Iran imports a lot of gasoline due to limited refinery capacity. Check out some stats here.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Iran/Oil.html
I'm know a little bit about the political situation, but I don't understand why conservatives are so supportive of Israel. (Not trying to start a fight, and I usually lean right, but I never really understood why the US is so supportive of them)
looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
If Hezbollah successfully
If Hezbollah successfully inflicted damage on the once impregnable Israel in 2006 with the low end of Iranian fire power quality then I highly suspect they'd be lacking in possible damage. I sometimes fear the only way to end this Iranian political coup is the same way the German empire was dismantled.
CNB90 wrote: I highly doubt
I highly doubt any military intervention will occur. Certainly President Obama is well aware of the crippling effects to the global economy of ridiculously high oil prices caused by the closing of the strait Iran controls. Alot of you here are really undermining what an armed conflict between Iran and Israel can look like, to assume that Iran will take it up the ass and cause little to no damage is truly an outrageous assumption. Lets not forget the Lebanese conflict of 2006, I remember watching it on the news that summer with my war obsessed uncle and it was quite embarrassing for Israel. Not only did they not achieve what they set out to achieve in what they estimated would take a few days, they aimed their efforts at targeting civilian areas to pressure Hezbollah into surrendering. No doubt Israel is probably the better armed, but you can never underestimate the other side. The results of such a war would be catastrophic for the region, especially if Iran fires their missiles everywhere there is a U.S base.
Dennis Gartman wrote about this in his morning comments once... he doesn't think the Iranians would be able to close the straits... and frankly, I don't either. Never underestimate the power of the US military.
This article is from foreign policy, which tends to lean left. But it compares the US military vs. Iran... take a look at the naval stats... they have no shot (obviously we would have to mobilize but still we would destroy them once the boats got there)
Of course, the price of oil might spike up because of the volatility and uncertainty during a geopolitical event. Then again, the Saudi's hate the Iranians (did you see we sold them 60 billion in defense contracts last week), and if war broke out, I would like to believe the Saudi's would have our backs and pump a bit more to keep us well supplied (of course we always have the SPR to draw from)
looking for that pick-me-up to power through an all-nighter?
The issue is outside of being
The issue is outside of being very outspoken against Israel, Iran does very little else. Sure they imprison westerners going to Iran, but its their fucking country. If you're not supposed to be there, don't go and you won't be shackled to a stone wall and guarded by an Aladin looking dude wielding a huge sword and a cantaloupe eating monkey sitting on his shoulder.
Exactly what would be the basis of the attack? Because they're developing nuclear capabilities and Israel doesn't want them to have them? I just don't see it happening.
Financial Modeling Training
Guide to Finance Interviews
Banking Resume
Marcus_Halberstram
Look Away, It's Now Diamonds
1) I really don't think you
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
Marcus, you can't describe
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan