Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (4284)	8/5/2003 2:54:52 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

The price of Poker just went up. This Op-Ed piece in the WSJ this morning is getting heavy media coverage. I sure hope they are reading it carefully in Beijing.

To: LindyBill who wrote (4284)	8/5/2003 6:51:42 AM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793670

The price of Poker just went up Indeed. IDF: Iran can produce nuclear bomb by 2005 GIL HOFFMAN AND TOVAH LAZAROFF Aug. 5, 2003 Iran will have the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb by 2004 and will have an operative nuclear weapons program by 2005, a high-ranking military officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told the committee, "It is clearer than ever that the Iranians are making every effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction." They disclosed their fears about Iran's nuclear capability on the same day that The Los Angles Times published the report on its three-month investigation into the matter, stating that, "Iran appears to be in the late stages of developing the capacity to build a nuclear bomb." The Times said its investigation uncovered "strong evidence that Iran's commercial program masks a plan to become the world's next nuclear power." According to the Times, Iran "has been engaged in a pattern of clandestine activity that has concealed weapons work from international inspectors. Technology and scientists from Russia, China, North Korea, and Pakistan have propelled Iran's nuclear program much closer to producing a bomb than Iraq ever was." The report was less certain of a creation date for a nuclear bomb than Israeli military officials. The paper stated, "No one is certain when Iran might produce its first atomic weapon. Some experts said two or three years; others believe the government has probably not given a final go-ahead. But it is clear that Iran is moving purposefully and rapidly toward acquiring the capability." According to the Times, "A nuclear-armed Iran would present the United States with a difficult political and military equation. Iran would be the first avowed enemy of Israel to possess a nuclear bomb and the first nuclear-armed country labeled by the administration as a state sponsor of international terrorism." The Times also stated that, "Iranian nuclear weapons could shift the balance of power in the region, where Washington is trying to establish pro-American governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of those nations border Iran, and are places where Teheran wants to exert influence that could conflict with US intentions, particularly Iraq. According to the Times, "Foreign intelligence officers said that the Central Intelligence Agency, which has long contended that Iran is building a bomb, has briefed them on a contingency plan for US air and missile attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. 'It would be foolish not to present the commander in chief with all of the options, including that one,' said one of the officials." According to the Times, "A CIA spokeswoman declined to confirm or deny that such a plan has been drafted. 'We wouldn't talk about anything like that,' she said." jpost.com

To: LindyBill who wrote (4284)	8/7/2003 12:05:19 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793670

we see no alternative but for China to use its substantial economic leverage, derived from North Korea's dependence on it for fuel and food, to press, hard and immediately, for a change in regime. China has some leverage over North Korea, though not as much as is sometimes supposed. I do not believe that China has the power to force regime change in N. Korea. Kim Jong Il is not going to step down because the Chinese tell him to go. That’s unfortunate, but true. No point in deluding ourselves on that issue. The U.S. and South Korea must instead come together and begin to assess realistically what it would take to conduct a successful military operation to change the North Korean regime. This comment, and the entire military analysis that follows it, is based on the assumption that the South Koreans are willing to devote their armed forces to an attack on North Korea, and to give the US unfettered access to bases within its territory. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest that any serious support for such a course exists among either the government or the people of South Korea. That’s the flaw to all this talk of munitions and task forces: if the South Koreans don’t want a war, there will be no war, no matter what the Americans want to do. So far, the South Koreans don’t want a war, which makes all the joyful talk of weapons and tactics pretty irrelevant. The U.S. should begin planning immediately to deploy the Patriot tactical ballistic missile defense system plus Aegis ships to South Korea and Japan, and also to reinforce our tactical air forces by moving in several air wings and aircraft carrier battle groups, together with the all-important surveillance aircraft and drones. Much of the military analysis in the essay boils down to two points: the balance of military power on the peninsula now rests with the North Koreans, but could be reversed if the US moves more forces into the theater. Saddam did not attack during our buildup, simply because he had no capacity to do so. The North Koreans do have a first-strike capability, possibly a nuclear one, and what incentive would they have to sit and watch us pile forces into the area? Once we commit to a buildup, the likelihood of preemptive attack from the north becomes very high. I’m surprised that an essay that overlooks such obvious points is getting so much attention. I do hope it doesn’t represent official doctrine.