# Iranian Nucear Enrichment Faciity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022 "2009-09-29T19:29:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/61 "2009-10-01T13:44:47Z")
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your argument, **xtisme** , but are you saying that since a keen eyed Iranian would notice some differences between their situation and for example Iraq, and the fact that you haven’t yet invaded them, they shouldn’t feel threatened? I don’t think the fact that they haven’t been directly invaded _yet_ counts as a strong argument that it won’t happen. The Bush regime was quite overt with their hostility towards Iran, and if your armed forces were not already tied down in some other conflicts, it’s not that unlikely that some strike might have taken place against Iran. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/62 "2009-10-01T13:45:55Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I missed that last part there. Why would it be worse if Iran was invaded than if Israel was nuked(!!)?? Who would it ‘be worse’ for, exactly?? I’m trying not to jump to conclusions here, but what did you mean by that, YogSosoth? > > -XT Probably there’d be fewer casualties. Note for e.g. the consequences in Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/63 "2009-10-01T15:46:58Z")
Iran was put on the evil empire list. That puts them on the defensive. They are as aware as we of stories that Israel is going to blow up their nuclear research . You would build an expensive facility underground to protect it if you were them. It is logical and not necessarily nefarious. Most countries have underground facilities. We sure do. We have lots of them. Is that because we are doing illegal things there? It must be ,because it is a sign of guilt to many people. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/64 "2009-10-01T18:13:11Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > That said it is a dangerous game. If the US has good reason to suppose they are near to acquiring nukes there is a good chance we will start blowing shit up. If not us the Israelis. > > I seriously doubt we’d full-on invade however. More likely a flights of B2 Bombers to dig a crater to their underground facilities (makes me wish [Rods from God](http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/rods-god) was a reality…those would be perfect) with Nighthawk strikes on other infrastructure. I seriously doubt there’d be US boots on the ground at all. I would rather chance living in a world with a nuclear Iran than start wars and invade countries on the mere hint of that possibility. Ultimately, I believe that countries want to choose how they want to live and be able to defend themselves against attack. A nuke allows Iran to do that. There’s a lot to be said that no nukes have ever been used in a terrorist attack, despite North Korea and Pakistan having them. The knock on Iran is that its been developing nuclear material for years, but despite the annual flare up of tensions in the Mid-East, no nukes have been used on Israel at all. > [@xtisme](#): > > Even if I agreed with you (and I sort of do, considering who was President in the previous administration), the thing is, Iran didn’t start trying to build a nuclear weapon in the last 8 years…they have been trying in an on again, off again manner, for significantly longer than that. Then I think the best thing to do is to figure out what we did during those off years and do that, instead of this talk about bombing or invading. We have to start treating people as we would like to be treated, and that is not threatening bombs if they don’t do what we say. As far as I’m concerned, Obama should make an unequivocal announcement that military options are off the table (lets face it, political talk holds about as much water as a net). Doing this would show the Iranians that we are at least willing to save them face and give something up in exchange for disarmament talks. If it is true that Iran really fears invasion, this should placate some of those who are yelling the loudest. > [@xtisme](#): > > Iran doesn’t have nukes and it wasn’t invaded. And there are many other countries that were on Bush’s non-favorites list as well (say, Venezuela, for example)…they also weren’t invaded. Afghanistan, which wasn’t on the list, was. But in both Iraq and Afghanistan, there were pretty special circumstances that lead to US action there. In both cases those ‘special circumstances’ would be relatively easy to avoid…and thus, relatively easy to avoid any chance of a US strike. Iran COULD put the possibility of a US strike completely into the realm of fantasy if they opened up, did everything above board and joined the rest of the international community. By doing what they are doing they have put the possibility of a US strike against them into the ‘low but possible’ category, instead of the ‘it’s more likely we’ll attack Belgium’ one. But you are proposing that idea as if the Iranians are Americans. Basically, they should give up every advantage and card at the table to assure the US that they’re not bad, and give in to our demands without us giving anything in return other than we’re not going to attack them. Its a pretty sorry bet for Iran. We have to treat them as equals and consider their motivation equally valid. They should not give us any access or anything until we give them assurances that we won’t invade them, and as far as I’m know, that hasn’t happened yet. Lets face it, so far all we’ve caught them doing is building secret nuclear plants. It is not logical to assume they are absolutely going to turn them into nuke factories. What capabilities they have are completely capable of being a simple civilian nuclear power plant; its just that 1) they were doing it in secret and 2) they could use those plants to also make bombs With the outcry over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it is no wonder they did it in secret. We don’t believe them when they said its for civilian use, so why shouldn’t they have done it in secret? Nobody would believe them either way, so might as well hide it. There is no avenue that they could have followed in which the US would say “Ok, its for civilian purposes, carry on”. Why should they have inspectors crawling around in a perfectly normal nuclear plant if its not for weapons? We are assuming guilt before there is evidence for it and that is wrong At some point, we have to stand back and realize we cant police everyone, and a 1% chance of some terrorists getting their hands on nukes is better than the 100% chance of the US or Israel attacking a country developing it. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/65 "2009-10-01T18:15:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I missed that last part there. Why would it be worse if Iran was invaded than if Israel was nuked(!!)?? Who would it ‘be worse’ for, exactly?? I’m trying not to jump to conclusions here, but what did you mean by that, YogSosoth? > > -XT Excuse the language, the phrasing was a bit off. I wanted to ask why we treat the high possibility of an Iranian invasion as ok but the small possibility of Israel attacked as worse. Of course the answer is obvious: the US is friends with Israel and not Iran. Personally, if Iran is invaded, I would feel just as bad for their people as I would if Israel was attacked. Innocent people being caught up in international politics and war is bad no matter if they were our ally or not ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/66 "2009-10-01T18:29:57Z")
Iran said they will allow inspectors in to the new plant. Sounds pretty suspicious. Of course if they asked to inspect our nuclear facilities we would be horribly offended at the slight to our sovereignty. We not only make nuclear weapons but have used them . ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/67 "2009-10-01T21:23:21Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Iran said they will allow inspectors in to the new plant. Sounds pretty suspicious. Of course if they asked to inspect our nuclear facilities we would be horribly offended at the slight to our sovereignty. We not only make nuclear weapons but have used them . What sounds suspicious, and why? They have allowed inspectors into their other facilities as well. Their current sites are inspected and their processed uranium is under observation of the IAEA. Of course the double standards are obvious, but they have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is inherently unfair in that way, and it requires inspections as part of the safeguards for non-nuclear countries not to obtain nukes. Nonetheless they have signed the treaty and should follow it, or else revoke it. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/68 "2009-10-01T22:10:44Z")
How is this different than what was going on 2-3 years ago? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/69 "2009-10-01T22:24:28Z")
> [@Henrichek](#): > > What sounds suspicious, and why? > > They have allowed inspectors into their other facilities as well. Their current sites are inspected and their processed uranium is under observation of the IAEA. > > Of course the double standards are obvious, but they have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty which is inherently unfair in that way, and it requires inspections as part of the safeguards for non-nuclear countries not to obtain nukes. Nonetheless they have signed the treaty and should follow it, or else revoke it. A little humor there. There are people who will not be satisfied whether they allow inspectors on their homeland or not. Being open and saying they will let them in should remove suspicion. it will not. Some will think. hmm if they are allowing inspectors this must be a dummy plant and the real one if still hidden. You can not win. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/70 "2009-10-01T22:29:12Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > A little humor there. There are people who will not be satisfied whether they allow inspectors on their homeland or not. Being open and saying they will let them in should remove suspicion. it will not. Some will think. hmm if they are allowing inspectors this must be a dummy plant and the real one if still hidden. You can not win. :smack: Sorry, I didn’t catch that. It’s so obvious when I read your post again. ---
**Author:** ![Henrichek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5daacb/32.png) [@Henrichek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Henrichek)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 12:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/71 "2009-10-04T12:10:38Z")
[UN nuclear watchdog sees turning point over Iran](http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ixeFBxfLzaSjs8Mb8cuFmtPOT6-wD9B48AVO0) So, the inspections are agreed to start on the 25th of October. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2009, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/72 "2009-10-04T16:40:12Z")
[US sees signs Iran is moving in right direction](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091004/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_iran_1) [Iran promise to send nuclear fuel abroad: A major concession?](http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/10/02/iran-promise-to-send-nuclear-fuel-abroad-a-major-concession/) > [@](#): > > the country promised at the end of the meeting to send “most” of its existing stockpile of LEU – reportedly about 2,600 pounds of the 3,200-pound total – for processing abroad, according to European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana. > > The fuel would be enriched further in Russia, sent on to France for further technical modifications and then be returned to Iran enriched to a level sufficient to help run its small reactor for producing medical isotopes but well below the level required to make a nuclear bomb. > > Iran has agreed ‘in principle’ > The agreement for now is “in principle” and there are no guarantees that Iran will follow through. But if it does, it will mark the first significant step in at least a decade that the country will have taken away from the capacity to make a bomb. Finally, Bush diplomacy _worked_. 😉 Heckuva job all. Now let’s see if Iran carries through, or someone launches an airstrike to prevent the deal. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022/73 "2009-10-05T17:11:03Z")
That’s good news but given all the starts and stops we’ve encountered over the last few years, I want to wait until inspections are done before declaring any kind of moral victory. It won’t matter to the conservatives though. Like they did to Hans Blix in Iraq, they will simply refuse to believe any inspections that doesn’t have discovery of nukes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iranian-nucear-enrichment-faciity/512022.md?page=3)