March 30, 2006

UN To Iran: Disarm Or We Will Taunt You A Second Time
— Ace

There will be a war.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran on Thursday the "international community is united" in the dispute over its nuclear program, but a Tehran envoy defiantly rejected a U.N. call to reimpose a freeze on uranium enrichment.

Rice spoke after a meeting in Berlin among diplomats from the five veto-wielding members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany over ways to press Iran to stop enriching uranium, which can be used for weapons. Iran says its program is peaceful.

The meeting follows agreement Wednesday by the 15-member Security Council to ask the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to report back in 30 days on Iran's compliance with demands to stop enriching uranium.

In Vienna, Iran's chief representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, told The Associated Press that "it is impossible to go back to suspension."

"This enrichment matter is not reversible," Soltanieh said.

Reversibility Update: 700 ton bomb to be tested in Nevada.

These words "not reversible" you keep using. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

Update: Mohammad ElBaradei, the UN's chief official in charge of allowing radical Islamic countries to acquire WMD's, sees no reason for sanctions, as there is yet no "imminent threat."

Here's a funny thing about "imminent threat." Coincidentally enough, I'm sure, when threats become imminent, there's usually not enough time left to check them.


Posted by: Ace at 08:56 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

1 You know...I'd have sworn that the bombs would have been falling by now, had I been asked a couple of months ago. And yet, I don't see military action as being imminent at all. That said, I don't see a long run-up to war in the way we did it in Iraq. We'll need some build-up to position our forces (and to put the wind up the Iranians), but I don't think we'll spend a lot of time giving ultimatums or demands. I still think any potential strike package will include gifts for the Syrians as well as the Iranians, though.

Any call I make at this point is sure to be wrong. I'd have said before that war was preordained. Now...I'm not so sure. The magical 8-ball is only showing "Try again later..." in the litttle window.

And finally: is the bomb's yield 700 tons or is the weight of the bomb 700 tons? 'Cause if the weight is 700 tons, how in the hell would you deliver it? You'd need a C5A to deliver the damned thing by air, or a diesel semi by ground! That's gotta be a yield measure, and it would make sense for a deep penetrator. Still, I have trouble believing that a purely conventional warhead could deliver that kind of yield in a manageable package.... A mass-to-energy weapon that does not use fission or fusion?

Posted by: Monty at March 30, 2006 09:22 AM (UdJCa)

2 OT, but they're having some fun at Allah's expense over at Sondra's.

Posted by: CraigC at March 30, 2006 09:25 AM (r7nqq)

3 "700 ton bomb to be tested in Nevada."

Bitchin'.

Posted by: Sobek at March 30, 2006 09:53 AM (6GK9U)

4 Why not "test" the 700 ton bomb closer to iran and syria. Why make Nevada anymore ugly than it already is. Besides, the side benefit would be to see if the assinpajamas in iran is paying attention. Just a thought.

Posted by: Theresa at March 30, 2006 10:02 AM (tN0oi)

5 Re: 700 ton bomb.

I should have RTFA. Basically, the military has packed an underground cavern full of explosives to see how the surrounding granite will react when exposed to this magnitude of a blast. It's not a bomb in any real sense; it's a controlled explosion. They're not testing a weapon, but rather running an experiment which will (apparently) help them design better deep-digging conventional weapons.

That is all.

Posted by: Monty at March 30, 2006 10:02 AM (/V4PN)

6 OT, but they're having some fun at Allah's expense over at Sondra's.

Is Allah man enough to fill Malkin's pumps? Why, I believe he is. And who knew he had such shapely gams, too.

Posted by: shawn at March 30, 2006 10:07 AM (uLve2)

7 Pulled from the front page of my local fishwrap this morning:

The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body had directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons.

Which words are the most hilarious? For me, "powerful body" made me laugh out loud. Any others?

Posted by: kelly at March 30, 2006 10:20 AM (MZmuk)

8 Although we are too sissified to do it, I think a demostration would be in order. Pick a random, unoccupied hunk of desert in Iran and tell the ayatollahs to watch. Drop a relatively small nuke there. Explain to them that, if they continue with their nuclear program, we will place larger bombs like that progressively closer to Iranian population centers. We stop when they agree to end their program.

It would not only help curtail the Iranian enrichment program, but it would also help us get rid of some of those dusty old nukes we have sitting around.

Posted by: Steve L. at March 30, 2006 10:53 AM (YIFeG)

9 Iran will get the bomb.
We won't do a thing about it.
Isreal will either hit first, or lose Tel Aviv or Haifa.
The shit really hits the fan after that.
The democrats will blame Bush (surprise!).
Get ready.

Posted by: Log Cabin at March 30, 2006 11:21 AM (Sc02F)

10 Iran is going to be holding manuevers out in the Gulf soon with their navy and 17,000 troops. How bout we send them a message by sending there fleet to the bottom of the sea? Or we could just tickle their ass with a feather some more while they giggle "Alluha Ahkbar".

Posted by: richj at March 30, 2006 11:31 AM (Qrjpn)

11 Shawn L.,

In a perfect world that might do the trick, but we are dealing with wackos here that make the Imperial Japanese Military leadership in WWII look like a Debating Club..........

AND, a relatively small nuke is REALLY relative! I doubt any of them would seem small after fuzing.....

I heard an old sea-story once that the Marines tested an atomic hand-grenade but gave it up when they could not throw it far enough..........................


Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) at March 30, 2006 11:33 AM (BJYNn)

12 Well, to put it mildly, this is a demonstration of what happens when you leave things up to the UN as the left keeps screaming President Bush should have. What do you get? Well, jack is one of the two things...

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 11:35 AM (1Vbso)

13 I like how the UN "directly urges" Iran to knock it off. Terrifying!

Like when I "directly urge" my kid to stop punting footballs in the kitchen? My tactics may be more effective.

Posted by: kevlarchick at March 30, 2006 11:42 AM (C58DT)

14 Guess when those 700 tons of explosives go off, they'll find out how well they attached all the glass at Wynn's casino....

Posted by: Jeff at March 30, 2006 12:05 PM (yiMNP)

15 Am I the only person who has a problem with a guy named " Mohammad ElBaradei" being in charge of overseeing nukes in the arabic world? Hello?

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 12:42 PM (1Vbso)

16 .7KT is close to the smallest tactical implosion device we have in inventory...which is just a smidge smaller than a grapefruit. Another wonderful nuke toy brought to you by the illustrious bomb designer Ted Taylor.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 30, 2006 01:09 PM (WjdPM)

17 So, given the fact that they will get the bomb, and given that Israel will be the first hit, Do we respond short of nukes? Do we use nukes? Even if the actors are a proxy, such as Hamas?

Posted by: Tom M at March 30, 2006 04:34 PM (CKgL8)

18 "The U.N. Security Council demanded Wednesday that Iran suspend uranium enrichment, the first time the powerful body had directly urged Tehran to clear up suspicions that it is seeking nuclear weapons."

Which words are the most hilarious? For me, "powerful body" made me laugh out loud. Any others?


"UN" and "Security" and "demanded".

Which is almost as funny as "Mike" and "common sense"

Posted by: cheshirecat at March 30, 2006 06:02 PM (mpVkh)

19 Did anyone actually read the 700 ton bomb story? They are using "very large penetrators".

Very. Large. Penetrators.

If this isn't a Cheney lead-in, I don't know what is.

Posted by: richj at March 30, 2006 06:36 PM (Dhoqw)

20 Anyone using UN and "powerful body" in the same sentance is either deluded or being sarcastic. Toothless, powerless, ineffective, and failure come to mind. But not powerful.

One almost gets the feeling this writer is trying to make something come true by writing it. Truth to power baby! Keep saying something enough and it will come true!

Posted by: Canelone at March 30, 2006 08:19 PM (1Vbso)

21 The UN want to disarm americans so we wont harm ourselves while when it comes to IRAN its a paper tiger

Posted by: spurwing plover at March 31, 2006 05:23 AM (Dutrh)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
82kb generated in CPU 0.18, elapsed 1.6622 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.5891 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.