Michael Laudahn
2006-04-19 15:48:18 UTC
http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/utrikes/did_12409511.asp
President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.
US president George Bush considers an attack on Iran's nuclear power
installations as an alternative if diplomatic negotiations fail. He
made this very clear in the course of the preparations for the talks
with China's president Hu Jintao. At the same time, France's president
Jacques Chirac has stated that the international community will never
accept an Iran with access to atomic weapons.
The question of a direct attack against Iran is however very
complicated. Such an attack would require the use of atomic weapons.
'Conventional weapons can never reach so deep that they could hit
installations which are located deep under the surface. Is the target
sufficiently deeply located, maybe 50 metres below the surface, then
there is no other way for solving this taks than nuclear weapons', says
Jens Wirstam, nuclear weapons expert with FOI, Totalförsvaret's
research institution. 'Is the installation situated in an inhabited
region, then inevitably people will be affected', says he. 'This is
clear for everybody. They call them bunker busters, but their use can
never be sparing. That their effect reaches far deep doesn't mean its
surface effect will be reduced. Thus, the pressure wave along the
surface will be equally powerful, and a large area will be
contaminated.'
Iran's big enrichment facility is situated below the earth, but the
pilote installation - where the tests in question are supposed to take
place - is on the surface. 'If you want to knock this one out, you
don't need nuclear weapons. But then, it is possible that the USA know
things that we don't know', says Jens Wirstam. He sees no real reason
why the US should refrain from using certain military weapons that the
country is disposing of. 'This would be counter-productive. Their
purpose is to use them, or at least threating to use them.' It is not
trustworthy either, that Iran were planning to use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes only. 'One must ask why Iran in such a case, in this
exposed situation, continues to drive forcefully forward, thereby
putting itself in opposition against the security council.'
Can the whole matter develop into a lengthy war of words? 'I think it
will be very difficult to reach a multi-lateral solution. Up to now,
the security council has only issued a vague so-called presidential
statement which Iran hasn't taken notice of. They seem to continue
trusting in China and Russia to continue standing on the brake. But to
what extent the world is ready to live with a nuclear-armed Iran will
also be a question for Sweden', says Jens Wirstam. At the same time, he
has problems imaging that the US will engage more in that region.
You don't think then that Bush is aiming at a grand finale for his
presidency? 'No. But to straighten out the situation in Irak would also
be a grand finale.' The development in Irak has until now played
directly into Iran's hands. Its biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein, has been
removed, and Iran's allies have simultaneously come to power.
--
http://worldimprover.net/
WICHTIG / IMPORTANT: islam-info:
http://historyofjihad.org/ - http://apostatesofislam.com/
President George Bush refuses to exlude an attack against Iran if
diplomacy leads nowhere, in relation to the country's nuclear weapon's
programme. Swedish experts do not think, however, that Bush would use
the atomic weapons necessary in such a case, but hint at the
possibility of a long-winded conflict.
US president George Bush considers an attack on Iran's nuclear power
installations as an alternative if diplomatic negotiations fail. He
made this very clear in the course of the preparations for the talks
with China's president Hu Jintao. At the same time, France's president
Jacques Chirac has stated that the international community will never
accept an Iran with access to atomic weapons.
The question of a direct attack against Iran is however very
complicated. Such an attack would require the use of atomic weapons.
'Conventional weapons can never reach so deep that they could hit
installations which are located deep under the surface. Is the target
sufficiently deeply located, maybe 50 metres below the surface, then
there is no other way for solving this taks than nuclear weapons', says
Jens Wirstam, nuclear weapons expert with FOI, Totalförsvaret's
research institution. 'Is the installation situated in an inhabited
region, then inevitably people will be affected', says he. 'This is
clear for everybody. They call them bunker busters, but their use can
never be sparing. That their effect reaches far deep doesn't mean its
surface effect will be reduced. Thus, the pressure wave along the
surface will be equally powerful, and a large area will be
contaminated.'
Iran's big enrichment facility is situated below the earth, but the
pilote installation - where the tests in question are supposed to take
place - is on the surface. 'If you want to knock this one out, you
don't need nuclear weapons. But then, it is possible that the USA know
things that we don't know', says Jens Wirstam. He sees no real reason
why the US should refrain from using certain military weapons that the
country is disposing of. 'This would be counter-productive. Their
purpose is to use them, or at least threating to use them.' It is not
trustworthy either, that Iran were planning to use nuclear power for
peaceful purposes only. 'One must ask why Iran in such a case, in this
exposed situation, continues to drive forcefully forward, thereby
putting itself in opposition against the security council.'
Can the whole matter develop into a lengthy war of words? 'I think it
will be very difficult to reach a multi-lateral solution. Up to now,
the security council has only issued a vague so-called presidential
statement which Iran hasn't taken notice of. They seem to continue
trusting in China and Russia to continue standing on the brake. But to
what extent the world is ready to live with a nuclear-armed Iran will
also be a question for Sweden', says Jens Wirstam. At the same time, he
has problems imaging that the US will engage more in that region.
You don't think then that Bush is aiming at a grand finale for his
presidency? 'No. But to straighten out the situation in Irak would also
be a grand finale.' The development in Irak has until now played
directly into Iran's hands. Its biggest enemy, Saddam Hussein, has been
removed, and Iran's allies have simultaneously come to power.
--
.)
Unter blinden ist der einäugige könig.http://worldimprover.net/
WICHTIG / IMPORTANT: islam-info:
http://historyofjihad.org/ - http://apostatesofislam.com/