1
   

Nuke Iran

 
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 12:02 am
blueflame1 wrote:
U.S. Plan for New Nuclear Weapons Advances

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; A11



The United States took another step yesterday toward building a new stockpile of up to 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons that would last well into the 21st century, announcing the start of a multiyear process to repair and replace facilities where they would be developed and assembled and where older warheads could be more rapidly dismantled.

Thomas P. D'Agostino, head of defense programs for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), told reporters that the "Complex 2030" program would repair or replace "inefficient, old and expensive [to maintain]" facilities at eight sites, including some buildings going back to the 1940s Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bombs. He said the sites -- primarily in California, New Mexico, Texas and Tennessee -- "are not sustainable for the long term."

Yesterday's announcement comes as the Bush administration is pressing its allies to take harsh steps to halt nuclear weapons programs in both North Korea and Iran that it says are violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That same treaty calls for the United States and other members of the nuclear club to eliminate their own stockpiles, but it gives no deadline by which that should take place.

The Bush administration plan would replace the aging Cold War stockpile of about 6,000 warheads with a smaller, more reliable arsenal that would last for decades. It would also consolidate the handling of plutonium, the most dangerous of the nuclear materials, in one center that would be built at a site that already houses similar special materials. Another part of the plan would be to remove all highly enriched uranium from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, D'Agostino said.

Key to the Bush plan is an expected decision in December by the NNSA on a design for the new "Reliable Replacement Warhead" (RRW). The nation's two nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, are competing for the new warhead design. Before going ahead with any new warhead, however, the NNSA would have to get Congress's approval to move into actual engineering development.

A requirement of the new design is that it must be based on nuclear packages tested in the past so that it will not require the United States to break the moratorium on underground tests to make certain the RRW will work.

The process initiated yesterday will provide the public the first chance to give its views on the Bush nuclear program. To carry out the rebuilding of the complex, the agency must prepare updated environmental-impact statements for the eight sites, including public comments, and hold hearings at each location.

Although the administration has decided to go ahead with the Complex 2030 plan and sees the RRW as a way to have a more reliable weapon, the public will also get a chance to comment on two alternative plans for handling the nuclear stockpile -- plans that the administration has rejected.

The Bush option, titled "Transform to a More Modern, Cost-Effective Nuclear Weapons Complex (Complex 2030)," would call for stepped-up dismantling of older warheads, a process that has been slowed by the aging of some facilities and by efforts to refurbish other deployed warheads.

The second option to be placed before the public is called the "No Action Alternative," which is described as "the status quo as it exists today and is presently planned," according to yesterday's notice in the Federal Register about the upcoming environmental-impact hearings. That approach would keep the current programs going and defer decisions on the future of the nuclear stockpile.

The third option, titled "Reduced Operations and Capability-Based Complex Alternative," could draw support from arms control and anti-nuclear activists.

Under this approach, the NNSA would keep its current technologies for manufacturing weapons and its production facilities would not be upgraded. The production of plutonium triggers for current weapons, called pits, would remain limited at about 50 per year. Under the Bush plan, the new plutonium center could produce 125 pits a year, a number D'Agostino said would satisfy current planning for the 2,200 RRW stockpile of the future.


'That same treaty calls for the United States and other members of the nuclear club to eliminate their own stockpiles, but it gives no deadline by which that should take place.'

So, the pot is calling the kettle black, here. Let's see the US honor the treaty by eliminating their stockpiles and quit picking on Iran. Iran has cooperated and they have signed the NPT.

Israel has not signed the NPT, nor have they cooperated when questions arise about their enrichment program. Ditto Pakistan and India.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 12:03 am
blueflame1 wrote:
U.S. Plan for New Nuclear Weapons Advances

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 20, 2006; A11



The United States took another step yesterday toward building a new stockpile of up to 2,200 deployed nuclear weapons that would last well into the 21st century, announcing the start of a multiyear process to repair and replace facilities where they would be developed and assembled and where older warheads could be more rapidly dismantled.

Thomas P. D'Agostino, head of defense programs for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), told reporters that the "Complex 2030" program would repair or replace "inefficient, old and expensive [to maintain]" facilities at eight sites, including some buildings going back to the 1940s Manhattan Project that built the first atomic bombs. He said the sites -- primarily in California, New Mexico, Texas and Tennessee -- "are not sustainable for the long term."

Yesterday's announcement comes as the Bush administration is pressing its allies to take harsh steps to halt nuclear weapons programs in both North Korea and Iran that it says are violations of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That same treaty calls for the United States and other members of the nuclear club to eliminate their own stockpiles, but it gives no deadline by which that should take place.

The Bush administration plan would replace the aging Cold War stockpile of about 6,000 warheads with a smaller, more reliable arsenal that would last for decades. It would also consolidate the handling of plutonium, the most dangerous of the nuclear materials, in one center that would be built at a site that already houses similar special materials. Another part of the plan would be to remove all highly enriched uranium from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, D'Agostino said.

Key to the Bush plan is an expected decision in December by the NNSA on a design for the new "Reliable Replacement Warhead" (RRW). The nation's two nuclear weapons laboratories, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, are competing for the new warhead design. Before going ahead with any new warhead, however, the NNSA would have to get Congress's approval to move into actual engineering development.

A requirement of the new design is that it must be based on nuclear packages tested in the past so that it will not require the United States to break the moratorium on underground tests to make certain the RRW will work.

The process initiated yesterday will provide the public the first chance to give its views on the Bush nuclear program. To carry out the rebuilding of the complex, the agency must prepare updated environmental-impact statements for the eight sites, including public comments, and hold hearings at each location.

Although the administration has decided to go ahead with the Complex 2030 plan and sees the RRW as a way to have a more reliable weapon, the public will also get a chance to comment on two alternative plans for handling the nuclear stockpile -- plans that the administration has rejected.

The Bush option, titled "Transform to a More Modern, Cost-Effective Nuclear Weapons Complex (Complex 2030)," would call for stepped-up dismantling of older warheads, a process that has been slowed by the aging of some facilities and by efforts to refurbish other deployed warheads.

The second option to be placed before the public is called the "No Action Alternative," which is described as "the status quo as it exists today and is presently planned," according to yesterday's notice in the Federal Register about the upcoming environmental-impact hearings. That approach would keep the current programs going and defer decisions on the future of the nuclear stockpile.

The third option, titled "Reduced Operations and Capability-Based Complex Alternative," could draw support from arms control and anti-nuclear activists.

Under this approach, the NNSA would keep its current technologies for manufacturing weapons and its production facilities would not be upgraded. The production of plutonium triggers for current weapons, called pits, would remain limited at about 50 per year. Under the Bush plan, the new plutonium center could produce 125 pits a year, a number D'Agostino said would satisfy current planning for the 2,200 RRW stockpile of the future.


'That same treaty calls for the United States and other members of the nuclear club to eliminate their own stockpiles, but it gives no deadline by which that should take place.'

So, the pot is calling the kettle black, here. Let's see the US honor the treaty by eliminating their stockpiles and quit picking on Iran. Iran has cooperated and they have signed the NPT.

Israel has not signed the NPT, nor have they cooperated when questions arise about their enrichment program. Ditto Pakistan and India.

Who will investigate the US? As usual they think they are above all laws.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 12:24 am
Euro dollar, US dollar and oil wars
SOURCE: www.energybulletin.net

Also: gbr.pepperdine.edu
wikipedia.org
stanford.edu

Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourseby William Clark

RELATED NEWS:
The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse...

Staring down the barrel of a crisis...

How to deceive friends and influence people: Oil crisis lies...

Geopolitics - Oct 20...

Politics: imperial sunset...


"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table."
- President George W. Bush, February 2005
Not surprisingly, this detail has never been mentioned in the five U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for 2003 the Iraq war.

Concerning Iran, recent articles have revealed active Pentagon planning for operations against its suspected nuclear facilities. While the publicly stated reasons for any such overt action will be premised as a consequence of Iran's nuclear ambitions, there are again unspoken macroeconomic drivers underlying the second stage of petrodollar warfare - Iran's upcoming oil bourse. (The word bourse refers to a stock exchange for securities trading, and is derived from the French stock exchange in Paris, the Federation Internationale des Bourses de Valeurs.)
*****************

Some big words here, but I'm sure you've got a dictionary on your farm.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 12:35 am
Re: Wrong again oralloy
pachelbel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Iran HAS signed the NPT.


That is what makes their nuclear weapons program illegal.


Question Signing the agreement is what makes their weapons LEGAL. It is a legal agreement.


Did it ever occur to you to attempt to figure out what you are talking about before you go off and spout gibberish about it?




pachelbel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
However, ISRAEL, Pakistan, and India have refused to sign it.


That's what makes their nuclear weapons programs perfectly legal.


Question

So, following your 'reasoning', since the U.S. SIGNED the NPT that makes them illegal. Laughing


You're pretty goofy, I'll give you that.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 12:39 am
Re: Euro dollar, US dollar and oil wars
pachelbel wrote:
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourseby William Clark


Sorry, I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.




pachelbel wrote:
Some big words here, but I'm sure you've got a dictionary on your farm.


You're not very bright, and you have a habit of accusing smart people of not being very bright.

That's not a charming combination.
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 12:48 am
You can't even understand the article about the Iran Bourse/Petrodollar Warfare, can you? Laughing I thought not.

You cannot intelligently refute anything I said.

You provide NO sources, only more bullsh*t.

Go milk a cow.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 03:44 am
I knew better than to try to talk to you.

My mistake.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 05:49 am
Re: Wrong again oralloy
pachelbel wrote:
oh? YOU have no basis or source to prove your ridiculous claims here. How about the IAEA? That is the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their website is www.iaea.org They have this to say about Iran. Assuming you can read.
Well, you've certainly proven you can... along with an uncanny ability to be selective about what. Perhaps you should consider reading what your sources actually have to say, before talking so completely out of your a$$...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-53.pdf

oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Iran HAS signed the NPT.


That is what makes their nuclear weapons program illegal.


Question Signing the agreement is what makes their weapons LEGAL. It is a legal agreement.


Did it ever occur to you to attempt to figure out what you are talking about before you go off and spout gibberish about it?
Laughing Laughing Laughing (Obviously not)

Ps. Everyone is familiar with your Petro-Dollar fixation... and while it isn't total nonsense, only you and like-minded nutcases consider it the end-all be-all consideration of the United States' Foreign Policy.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 05:51 am
Re: Wrong again oralloy
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Iran HAS signed the NPT.


That is what makes their nuclear weapons program illegal.


pachelbel wrote:
However, ISRAEL, Pakistan, and India have refused to sign it.


That's what makes their nuclear weapons programs perfectly legal.



oralloy, couldn't Iran withdraw from the NPT legally? Would that make an Iranian nuclear weapons program legal?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 06:26 am
Re: Wrong again oralloy
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Iran HAS signed the NPT.


That is what makes their nuclear weapons program illegal.


pachelbel wrote:
However, ISRAEL, Pakistan, and India have refused to sign it.


That's what makes their nuclear weapons programs perfectly legal.


Iran's nuclear weapons program would certainly be illegal under the terms of the npt, if they had such a program. But the Iranians deny they have any, nor have any intent to implement one. Furthermore the Americans have provided no evidence that such a program does indeed exist, and you can bet your last dollar that had they any they would be shouting it from the highest mountain. All Iran is doing is producing UF4 and UF6 gas and enriching uranium in a series of centrifuge cascades which they are perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the npt for the production of nuclear fuel for power generation.

By contrast Israel, which was never interested in power generation, secretly developed and deployed nuclear weapons with the covert help the British and the French. Whilst they cannot be held in breach of contract for a contract they never signed, it does put Israel in that rogue-state class of countries like North Korea and the other non npt signatories. But Israel as usual wants to have its weapons and its dignity too, so of course to this day tries to pretend it has no nuclear weapons.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 05:48 pm
Re: Wrong again oralloy
Steve 41oo wrote:
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Iran HAS signed the NPT.


That is what makes their nuclear weapons program illegal.


pachelbel wrote:
However, ISRAEL, Pakistan, and India have refused to sign it.


That's what makes their nuclear weapons programs perfectly legal.


Iran's nuclear weapons program would certainly be illegal under the terms of the npt, if they had such a program. But the Iranians deny they have any, nor have any intent to implement one. Furthermore the Americans have provided no evidence that such a program does indeed exist, and you can bet your last dollar that had they any they would be shouting it from the highest mountain. All Iran is doing is producing UF4 and UF6 gas and enriching uranium in a series of centrifuge cascades which they are perfectly entitled to do under the terms of the npt for the production of nuclear fuel for power generation.
Iran need only verify their intentions per the agreements they have made and their case would be made. Neither the U.S.'s claim they are attempting to produce weapons nor the Iranian's denial of same have been verified because of the Iranian breech of contract. This is why the IAEA referred them to the Security Council in the first place. Considering the crazy clamering of the Iranian President; choosing to remain out of compliance with their agreements can only be viewed with suspicion. Have you asked yourself: If peaceful energy is all they seek, what possible objection could they have to saving some dough and getting their fuel from Russia? That simply doesn't add up... and the United States is hardly alone in recognizing it. While there is certainly plenty of debate about what to do about it, the world body (Via the UN) has made it abudantly clear that Iran is out of line.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 06:02 pm
It's laughable that Ahmadinejad is labelled "crazy" by the same folks who endorse and participate in a thread titled "Nuke Iran".....and who would, in the same breath, call those who advocate negotiation "crazy".

We need to redefine crazy.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 07:24 pm
Re: Wrong again oralloy
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Iran need only verify their intentions per the agreements they have made and their case would be made.


Why aren't you making the same case against Israel, OB?
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 08:17 pm
Re: Wrong again oralloy
OCCOM BILL wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
oh? YOU have no basis or source to prove your ridiculous claims here. How about the IAEA? That is the International Atomic Energy Agency. Their website is www.iaea.org They have this to say about Iran. Assuming you can read.
Well, you've certainly proven you can... along with an uncanny ability to be selective about what. Perhaps you should consider reading what your sources actually have to say, before talking so completely out of your a$$...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-53.pdf

oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
oralloy wrote:
pachelbel wrote:
Iran HAS signed the NPT.


That is what makes their nuclear weapons program illegal.


Question Signing the agreement is what makes their weapons LEGAL. It is a legal agreement.


Did it ever occur to you to attempt to figure out what you are talking about before you go off and spout gibberish about it?
Laughing Laughing Laughing (Obviously not)

Ps. Everyone is familiar with your Petro-Dollar fixation... and while it isn't total nonsense, only you and like-minded nutcases consider it the end-all be-all consideration of the United States' Foreign Policy.



And everyone-apparently some people on A2K constitutes 'everyone'-Laughing is familiar with your penchant for cheesy rebuttals with no basis in fact.
Check out:
energybulletin.net
gbr.pepperdine.edu (Pepperdine is a University, well respected)
wikipedia.org
stanford.edu (I would assume you've heard of them?)

All are about the petro vs the Euro and the effect on US economy.

If money isn't the 'end all be all' of anything that the US does I'd sure like to know about it. You yanks certainly are not in Iraq to bring them freedom or democracy.

You bet your stinking cheesie self that what is happening in Iraq and what the fixation with BushCo concerning Iran is about Iran wanting to trade with Euros.

I doubt you know what a Bourse is. Laughing It won't bode well with the american economy if the Middle East goes Euro. Your little greenback will shrink. As it is doing....check out past exchange rates between Euro dollar and American dollars.

Oh, and the world wasn't aware that the US HAS a foreign policy. It sure sucks if you do Laughing
0 Replies
 
pachelbel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 Oct, 2006 10:27 pm
candidone1 wrote:
It's laughable that Ahmadinejad is labelled "crazy" by the same folks who endorse and participate in a thread titled "Nuke Iran".....and who would, in the same breath, call those who advocate negotiation "crazy".

We need to redefine crazy.


That's for sure, candidone1. Seems that some people get off on the idea of dropping nukes on other people, for no reason. Ahmadinijad isn't the crazy person; that would be BushCo. Ahmadinijad has repeatedly attempted to get the US to talk. If you read the article posted here, you'll see why Bushie is afraid of Iran. It's a bit to read - maybe a whole page!

perhaps Occum Bill and some other 25 watt light bulbs will read it. It's a bit of history most americans don't know about. Stay with it: it does get into Iraq-Iran, etc. Comments re the article - please use sources if you refute. Bashing me won't change the facts.

www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11613.htm

The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Abstract: the proposed Iranian Oil Bourse will accelerate the fall of the American Empire.

By Krassimir Petrov, Ph.D.

I. Economics of Empires

01/19/06 "Gold Eagle" -- -- A nation-state taxes its own citizens, while an empire taxes other nation-states. The history of empires, from Greek and Roman, to Ottoman and British, teaches that the economic foundation of every single empire is the taxation of other nations. The imperial ability to tax has always rested on a better and stronger economy, and as a consequence, a better and stronger military. One part of the subject taxes went to improve the living standards of the empire; the other part went to strengthen the military dominance necessary to enforce the collection of those taxes.

Historically, taxing the subject state has been in various forms-usually gold and silver, where those were considered money, but also slaves, soldiers, crops, cattle, or other agricultural and natural resources, whatever economic goods the empire demanded and the subject-state could deliver. Historically, imperial taxation has always been direct: the subject state handed over the economic goods directly to the empire.

For the first time in history, in the twentieth century, America was able to tax the world indirectly, through inflation. It did not enforce the direct payment of taxes like all of its predecessor empires did, but distributed instead its own fiat currency, the U.S. Dollar, to other nations in exchange for goods with the intended consequence of inflating and devaluing those dollars and paying back later each dollar with less economic goods-the difference capturing the U.S. imperial tax. Here is how this happened.

Early in the 20th century, the U.S. economy began to dominate the world economy. The U.S. dollar was tied to gold, so that the value of the dollar neither increased, nor decreased, but remained the same amount of gold. The Great Depression, with its preceding inflation from 1921 to 1929 and its subsequent ballooning government deficits, had substantially increased the amount of currency in circulation, and thus rendered the backing of U.S. dollars by gold impossible. This led Roosevelt to decouple the dollar from gold in 1932. Up to this point, the U.S. may have well dominated the world economy, but from an economic point of view, it was not an empire. The fixed value of the dollar did not allow the Americans to extract economic benefits from other countries by supplying them with dollars convertible to gold.

Economically, the American Empire was born with Bretton Woods in 1945. The U.S. dollar was not fully convertible to gold, but was made convertible to gold only to foreign governments. This established the dollar as the reserve currency of the world. It was possible, because during WWII, the United States had supplied its allies with provisions, demanding gold as payment, thus accumulating significant portion of the world's gold. An Empire would not have been possible if, following the Bretton Woods arrangement, the dollar supply was kept limited and within the availability of gold, so as to fully exchange back dollars for gold. However, the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960's was an imperial one: the dollar supply was relentlessly increased to finance Vietnam and LBJ's Great Society. Most of those dollars were handed over to foreigners in exchange for economic goods, without the prospect of buying them back at the same value. The increase in dollar holdings of foreigners via persistent U.S. trade deficits was tantamount to a tax-the classical inflation tax that a country imposes on its own citizens, this time around an inflation tax that U.S. imposed on rest of the world.

When in 1970-1971 foreigners demanded payment for their dollars in gold, The U.S. Government defaulted on its payment on August 15, 1971. While the popular spin told the story of "severing the link between the dollar and gold", in reality the denial to pay back in gold was an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. Essentially, the U.S. declared itself an Empire. It had extracted an enormous amount of economic goods from the rest of the world, with no intention or ability to return those goods, and the world was powerless to respond- the world was taxed and it could not do anything about it.

From that point on, to sustain the American Empire and to continue to tax the rest of the world, the United States had to force the world to continue to accept ever-depreciating dollars in exchange for economic goods and to have the world hold more and more of those depreciating dollars. It had to give the world an economic reason to hold them, and that reason was oil.

In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil. Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil.

The economic essence of this arrangement was that the dollar was now backed by oil. As long as that was the case, the world had to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars, because they needed those dollars to buy oil. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable payment for oil, its dominance in the world was assured, and the American Empire could continue to tax the rest of the world. If, for any reason, the dollar lost its oil backing, the American Empire would cease to exist. Thus, Imperial survival dictated that oil be sold only for dollars. It also dictated that oil reserves were spread around various sovereign states that weren't strong enough, politically or militarily, to demand payment for oil in something else. If someone demanded a different payment, he had to be convinced, either by political pressure or military means, to change his mind.

The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order. Bush's Shock-and-Awe in Iraq was not about Saddam's nuclear capabilities, about defending human rights, about spreading democracy, or even about seizing oil fields; it was about defending the dollar, ergo the American Empire. It was about setting an example that anyone who demanded payment in currencies other than U.S. Dollars would be likewise punished.
Many have criticized Bush for staging the war in Iraq in order to seize Iraqi oil fields. However, those critics can't explain why Bush would want to seize those fields-he could simply print dollars for nothing and use them to get all the oil in the world that he needs. He must have had some other reason to invade Iraq. Cool

History teaches that an empire should go to war for one of two reasons: (1) to defend itself or (2) benefit from war; if not, as Paul Kennedy illustrates in his magisterial The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, a military overstretch will drain its economic resources and precipitate its collapse. Economically speaking, in order for an empire to initiate and conduct a war, its benefits must outweigh its military and social costs. Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost. Instead, Bush must have gone into Iraq to defend his Empire. Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro. Global dollar supremacy was once again restored. Bush descended victoriously from a fighter jet and declared the mission accomplished-he had successfully defended the U.S. dollar, and thus the American Empire.

II. Iranian Oil Bourse

The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro. In economic terms, this represents a much greater threat to the hegemony of the dollar than Saddam's, because it will allow anyone willing either to buy or to sell oil for Euro to transact on the exchange, thus circumventing the U.S. dollar altogether. If so, then it is likely that almost everyone will eagerly adopt this euro oil system:

The Europeans will not have to buy and hold dollars in order to secure their payment for oil, but would instead pay with their own currencies. The adoption of the euro for oil transactions will provide the European currency with a reserve status that will benefit the European at the expense of the Americans.
The Chinese and the Japanese will be especially eager to adopt the new exchange, because it will allow them to drastically lower their enormous dollar reserves and diversify with Euros, thus protecting themselves against the depreciation of the dollar. One portion of their dollars they will still want to hold onto; a second portion of their dollar holdings they may decide to dump outright; a third portion of their dollars they will decide to use up for future payments without replenishing those dollar holdings, but building up instead their euro reserves.
The Russians have inherent economic interest in adopting the Euro - the bulk of their trade is with European countries, with oil-exporting countries, with China, and with Japan. Adoption of the Euro will immediately take care of the first two blocs, and will over time facilitate trade with China and Japan. Also, the Russians seemingly detest holding depreciating dollars, for they have recently found a new religion with gold. Russians have also revived their nationalism, and if embracing the Euro will stab the Americans, they will gladly do it and smugly watch the Americans bleed.
The Arab oil-exporting countries will eagerly adopt the Euro as a means of diversifying against rising mountains of depreciating dollars. Just like the Russians, their trade is mostly with European countries, and therefore will prefer the European currency both for its stability and for avoiding currency risk, not to mention their jihad against the Infidel Enemy.
Only the British will find themselves between a rock and a hard place. They have had a strategic partnership with the U.S. forever, but have also had their natural pull from Europe. So far, they have had many reasons to stick with the winner. However, when they see their century-old partner falling, will they firmly stand behind him or will they deliver the coup de grace? Still, we should not forget that currently the two leading oil exchanges are the New York's NYMEX and the London's International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), even though both of them are effectively owned by the Americans. It seems more likely that the British will have to go down with the sinking ship, for otherwise they will be shooting themselves in the foot by hurting their own London IPE interests. It is here noteworthy that for all the rhetoric about the reasons for the surviving British Pound, the British most likely did not adopt the Euro namely because the Americans must have pressured them not to: otherwise the London IPE would have had to switch to Euros, thus mortally wounding the dollar and their strategic partner.

At any rate, no matter what the British decide, should the Iranian Oil Bourse accelerate, the interests that matter-those of Europeans, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, and Arabs-will eagerly adopt the Euro, thus sealing the fate of the dollar. Americans cannot allow this to happen, and if necessary, will use a vast array of strategies to halt or hobble the operation's exchange:

Sabotaging the Exchange-this could be a computer virus, network, communications, or server attack, various server security breaches, or a 9-11-type attack on main and backup facilities.
Coup d'état-this is by far the best long-term strategy available to the Americans.
Negotiating Acceptable Terms & Limitations-this is another excellent solution to the Americans. Of course, a government coup is clearly the preferred strategy, for it will ensure that the exchange does not operate at all and does not threaten American interests. However, if an attempted sabotage or coup d'etat fails, then negotiation is clearly the second-best available option.
Joint U.N. War Resolution-this will be, no doubt, hard to secure given the interests of all other member-states of the Security Council. Feverish rhetoric about Iranians developing nuclear weapons undoubtedly serves to prepare this course of action.
Unilateral Nuclear Strike-this is a terrible strategic choice for all the reasons associated with the next strategy, the Unilateral Total War. The Americans will likely use Israel to do their dirty nuclear job.
Unilateral Total War-this is obviously the worst strategic choice. First, the U.S. military resources have been already depleted with two wars. Secondly, the Americans will further alienate other powerful nations. Third, major dollar-holding countries may decide to quietly retaliate by dumping their own mountains of dollars, thus preventing the U.S. from further financing its militant ambitions. Finally, Iran has strategic alliances with other powerful nations that may trigger their involvement in war; Iran reputedly has such alliance with China, India, and Russia, known as the Shanghai Cooperative Group, a.k.a. Shanghai Coop and a separate pact with Syria. Cool
Whatever the strategic choice, from a purely economic point of view, should the Iranian Oil Bourse gain momentum, it will be eagerly embraced by major economic powers and will precipitate the demise of the dollar. The collapsing dollar will dramatically accelerate U.S. inflation and will pressure upward U.S. long-term interest rates. At this point, the Fed will find itself between Scylla and Charybdis-between deflation and hyperinflation-it will be forced fast either to take its "classical medicine" by deflating, whereby it raises interest rates, thus inducing a major economic depression, a collapse in real estate, and an implosion in bond, stock, and derivative markets, with a total financial collapse, or alternatively, to take the Weimar way out by inflating, whereby it pegs the long-bond yield, raises the Helicopters and drowns the financial system in liquidity, bailing out numerous LTCMs and hyperinflating the economy.

The Austrian theory of money, credit, and business cycles teaches us that there is no in-between Scylla and Charybdis. Sooner or later, the monetary system must swing one way or the other, forcing the Fed to make its choice. No doubt, Commander-in-Chief Ben Bernanke, a renowned scholar of the Great Depression and an adept Black Hawk pilot, will choose inflation. Helicopter Ben, oblivious to Rothbard's America's Great Depression, has nonetheless mastered the lessons of the Great Depression and the annihilating power of deflations. The Maestro has taught him the panacea of every single financial problem-to inflate, come hell or high water. He has even taught the Japanese his own ingenious unconventional ways to battle the deflationary liquidity trap. Like his mentor, he has dreamed of battling a Kondratieff Winter. To avoid deflation, he will resort to the printing presses; he will recall all helicopters from the 800 overseas U.S. military bases; and, if necessary, he will monetize everything in sight. His ultimate accomplishment will be the hyperinflationary destruction of the American currency and from its ashes will rise the next reserve currency of the world-that barbarous relic called gold.

About the Author: Krassimir Petrov ([email protected]) has received his Ph. D. in economics from the Ohio State University and currently teaches Macroeconomics, International Finance, and Econometrics at the American University in Bulgaria. He is looking for a career in Dubai or the U. A. E.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 03:25 pm
JTT wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Iran need only verify their intentions per the agreements they have made and their case would be made.


Why aren't you making the same case against Israel, OB?
For the same reason I didn't point out that NK was a signatory of the NPT. The thread is about Iran. Further, if Israel does indeed have nukes, they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that they are responsible enough to have them; by not using them despite being attacked almost constantly.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 03:32 pm
If the marker by which the western world determines who should and who should not have nukes is their historical record for responsible use of them, why is the US permitted to have nukes and Iran or the DPRK not?

Yeah, yeah, I know, they are led by madmen.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 03:38 pm
The original point of this thread was because of how the miserable chimps in Iran have responded to our attempts to help them, that it would be much easier to simply nuke Iran, who seems to enjoy threatening the world with unpredictable disaster, than to attempt to liberate even more stupid chimps with ground forces.

I stick by my thread topic - hell, pull out of Iraq and just nuke the whole region, oil and all. We'd be forced to find new technologies and be rid of our oil dependency and a whole lot of backasswards chimps at the same time.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 03:40 pm
I think in the US, and on many levels cj, you'd be considered the assbackward chimp.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 Oct, 2006 03:43 pm
cjhsa wrote:
The original point of this thread was because of how the miserable chimps in Iran have responded to our attempts to help them, that it would be much easier to simply nuke Iran, who seems to enjoy threatening the world with unpredictable disaster, than to attempt to liberate even more stupid chimps with ground forces.

I stick by my thread topic - hell, pull out of Iraq and just nuke the whole region, oil and all. We'd be forced to find new technologies and be rid of our oil dependency and a whole lot of backasswards chimps at the same time.
idiotic
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Nuke Iran
  3. » Page 16
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/11/2025 at 11:53:43