A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of backing 
off support to the jew state.
Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more 
... Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which it 
very easily can do.
I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration 
appear cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do not 
favor armed intervention in Iran.
In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
leaving office.
Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret are 
two different matters.

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````


The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern that 
it might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, Channel 10 
reported on Wednesday evening.

During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 
767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not 
prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran's 
nuclear facilities, the report, which could not be confirmed by The 
Jerusalem Post, stated.

The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by 
the air force are extremely old.

Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.

However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that 
Washington had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence 
information for fear Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.

"The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an action 
against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our position, 
and formally their position as well, is that no options should be taken 
off the table. When we say that, we mean it."

Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would 
not comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a 
possible strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential discussions.

He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's security" 
and that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran."

http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of backing off 
>support to the jew state.
> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more ... 
> Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which it very 
> easily can do.
> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration appear 
> cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do not favor 
> armed intervention in Iran.
> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
> going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
> leaving office.
> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret are 
> two different matters.
>
> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>
>
> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern that it 
> might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, Channel 10 
> reported on Wednesday evening.
>
> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 767 
> refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not prepared 
> to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran's nuclear 
> facilities, the report, which could not be confirmed by The Jerusalem 
> Post, stated.
>
> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by the 
> air force are extremely old.
>
> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
> opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>
> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that Washington 
> had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence information for fear 
> Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>
> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an action 
> against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our position, 
> and formally their position as well, is that no options should be taken 
> off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>
> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would not 
> comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a possible 
> strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential discussions.
>
> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's security" and 
> that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7


What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
already are.

I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional 
weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your 
nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?  Personally 
I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel could have fun 
with it while I plotted to take over the world with the real one.

TWP

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>> A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of backing off 
>> support to the jew state.
>> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more ... 
>> Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which it very 
>> easily can do.
>> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration appear 
>> cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do not favor 
>> armed intervention in Iran.
>> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
>> going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
>> leaving office.
>> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret are 
>> two different matters.
>>
>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>
>>
>> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern that it 
>> might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, Channel 10 
>> reported on Wednesday evening.
>>
>> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
>> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 767 
>> refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not prepared 
>> to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran's nuclear 
>> facilities, the report, which could not be confirmed by The Jerusalem 
>> Post, stated.
>>
>> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by the 
>> air force are extremely old.
>>
>> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
>> opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>>
>> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that Washington 
>> had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence information for fear 
>> Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>>
>> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an action 
>> against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our position, 
>> and formally their position as well, is that no options should be taken 
>> off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>>
>> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would not 
>> comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a possible 
>> strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential discussions.
>>
>> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's security" and 
>> that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran."
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7
> 
> 
> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
> already are.

I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced penetrating 
conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.

> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional 
> weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your 
> nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?

No doubt, early on, he had what happened to Saddams fledgling nuclear 
program [courtesy of the French] in mind.
Dispersal, hardening, redundancy and defense would be their key watchwords.

> Personally 
> I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel could have fun 
> with it while I plotted to take over the world with the real one.

With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the effort 
would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would take 
nearly as much effort as the real thing.
Seems to me very likely they will be acquiring advanced Soviet designed 
air defense systems in the near future, which is their best hope.
That will force Israel to increase the scope and intensity of any 
possible raids, as these defenses will have to be neutralized/destroyed 
before the actual strike[s] can begin - Which, in turn, will strain 
Israeli resources, increase the chances of losses & failure, and also 
increase possible negative world wide reaction - It will also almost 
insure that the IAF alone could not carry out the mission, which would 
put more pressure on the hawks in the USA to act in concert with the jews.
Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a 
defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.

In message <sM6rk.315595$0O3.182181@fe02.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>>   What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities 
>>in mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of 
>>them already are.
>
>I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced penetrating 
>conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
>Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.

If it becomes necessary to remove the installations they will blow up 
"on their own" courtesy of the French (again)

>> Personally  I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so 
>>Israel could have fun  with it while I plotted to take over the world 
>>with the real one.
>
>With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the effort 
>would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would take 
>nearly as much effort as the real thing.

SO if the satellite photography is that good where are Iraq's WMD?

>Seems to me very likely they will be acquiring advanced Soviet designed 
>air defense systems in the near future, which is their best hope.

Not at all TIME is their best hope. They only have three months before 
the mad man is out of the white house

>Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a 
>defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.


:-)  Poor sweet Jesse.... a giant in the world of politics, economics 
and current military history.

The "soviets" disappears in 1991
Russia does have a defence pact with Russia already

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:sM6rk.315595$0O3.182181@fe02.news.easynews.com...
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>>> A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of backing 
>>> off support to the jew state.
>>> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more 
>>> ... Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which it 
>>> very easily can do.
>>> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration 
>>> appear cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do not 
>>> favor armed intervention in Iran.
>>> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
>>> going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
>>> leaving office.
>>> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret are 
>>> two different matters.
>>>
>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>
>>>
>>> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern that 
>>> it might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, Channel 10 
>>> reported on Wednesday evening.
>>>
>>> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
>>> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 
>>> 767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not 
>>> prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran's 
>>> nuclear facilities, the report, which could not be confirmed by The 
>>> Jerusalem Post, stated.
>>>
>>> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by 
>>> the air force are extremely old.
>>>
>>> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
>>> opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>>>
>>> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that 
>>> Washington had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence 
>>> information for fear Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>>>
>>> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an action 
>>> against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our position, 
>>> and formally their position as well, is that no options should be taken 
>>> off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>>>
>>> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would 
>>> not comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a 
>>> possible strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential 
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's security" 
>>> and that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran."
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7
>>
>>
>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
>> already are.
>
> I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced penetrating 
> conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
> Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.
>
>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional 
>> weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your 
>> nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?
>
> No doubt, early on, he had what happened to Saddams fledgling nuclear 
> program [courtesy of the French] in mind.
> Dispersal, hardening, redundancy and defense would be their key 
> watchwords.
>
>> Personally I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel 
>> could have fun with it while I plotted to take over the world with the 
>> real one.
>
> With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the effort 
> would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would take 
> nearly as much effort as the real thing.
> Seems to me very likely they will be acquiring advanced Soviet designed 
> air defense systems in the near future, which is their best hope.
> That will force Israel to increase the scope and intensity of any possible 
> raids, as these defenses will have to be neutralized/destroyed before the 
> actual strike[s] can begin - Which, in turn, will strain Israeli 
> resources, increase the chances of losses & failure, and also increase 
> possible negative world wide reaction - It will also almost insure that 
> the IAF alone could not carry out the mission, which would put more 
> pressure on the hawks in the USA to act in concert with the jews.
> Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a 
> defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.
>
>


I don't know... I think it would be worth some effort - in fact it's all 
part of the same effort really, and even satellite imagery can only tell you 
so much.  If Iran is seeking a nuclear capability it only needs to keep 
people guessing, undecided and hopefully talking until it can arm itself. 
That's the jackpot, no-one can really do anything about it at that point, 
and if blowing a few million on providing something for people to find 
somewhere far away from where you want their eyes to be is what it takes, 
what the hell, right?   I'm sure they can afford it, and I don't 
underestimate humans when it comes to sneakyness! :-)

I doubt the link below will survive, but it's "Three Mile Island, 
Pennsylvania, US" in Google Maps.  Could you _absolutely_ tell that this is 
an operational facility with nuclear material inside just looking at it? 
Parts of this complex are actually disused, and essentially like any 
replicas in Iran would be - can you tell which parts, other than the cooling 
towers?

http://tiny.cc/1LCra

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=three+mile+island,+pennsylvania,+us&ie=UTF8&ll=40.154277,-76.725426&spn=0.010627,0.017853&t=h&z=15




Here is a power station (hydro-electric) in the UK that has been built in a 
cavern underground (see "Electric Mountain" somewhere on the net).  If this 
was nuclear, how would you get at it?

http://tiny.cc/EGtzr

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=electric+mountain,LLANBERIS&ie=UTF8&ll=53.120534,-4.122405&spn=0.007366,0.013003&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A


Obviously it would be a continuum for Iran between effort and effectiveness, 
but if Israel is planning on destroying the facility I expect they plan to 
do so before it becomes operational, so any replica station wouldn't 
necessarily have to be complete or have to work.

TWP

Sorry, that second link didn't work.  I think it needs ", UK" at the end so 
google doesn't search the US.

Anyway, Electric Mountain is a hydro-electric station partly built inside a 
hollowed-out mountain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_mountain

In message , TWP 
 writes
>
>> Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a
>> defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.

The Soviets are long gone. Russia DOES have an agreement with Iran

>I don't know... I think it would be worth some effort - in fact it's all
>part of the same effort really, and even satellite imagery can only tell you
>so much.

In Iraq it could tell with complete certainty where all the WMD were. 
Look at the long list they found after the invasion....  oh... they 
didn't despite all that satellite "proof"

>If Iran is seeking a nuclear capability
Weapons  or civil power generation and who do you tell the difference? 
They are quite entitled to a civil program and most of the world would 
say they are entitled to a military program as well as there are  TWO 
belligerent nuclear powers currently threatening them and massing on 
their borders.

> it only needs to keep
>people guessing, undecided and hopefully talking until it can arm itself.

Yes. And the Arabs and Persians are good at that sort of game.

>That's the jackpot, no-one can really do anything about it at that point,
>and if blowing a few million on providing something for people to find
>somewhere far away from where you want their eyes to be is what it takes,
>what the hell, right?   I'm sure they can afford it, and I don't
>underestimate humans when it comes to sneakyness! :-)

Quite. They are masters of the game.

>I doubt the link below will survive, but it's "Three Mile Island,
>Pennsylvania, US" in Google Maps.

Is that the one that leaked radioactivity all over the place?

>  Could you _absolutely_ tell that this is
>an operational facility with nuclear material inside just looking at it?

No. Not really. You need the MK1 eyeball. Also you use things other than 
normal pictures. Heat, false colour etc.

>Parts of this complex are actually disused, and essentially like any
>replicas in Iran would be - can you tell which parts, other than the cooling
>towers?

Not from google. Ask the DGSE for better information.... Oh wait.. The 
US don't talk to them.

>Here is a power station (hydro-electric) in the UK that has been built in a
>cavern underground (see "Electric Mountain" somewhere on the net).  If this
>was nuclear, how would you get at it?

Mosquitoes?  Worked last time :-)   It would need to be ground based. 
Best people for that are the French or the Brits.

>Obviously it would be a continuum for Iran between effort and effectiveness,
Quite.

>but if Israel is planning on destroying the facility I expect they plan to
>do so before it becomes operational, so any replica station wouldn't
>necessarily have to be complete or have to work.

True.

Also  how do you know it is operational?  3MI is as you say partly 
disused. All you do it build a plant twice the size you need and never 
get the "building site" finished whilst the much smaller real plan t is 
working in the middle.

Israel can't strike Iran after December 2008 unless McCain wins.  If he 
doesn't  win the US will not back Israel in attacking people. The rest 
of the ME will finish of Israel.

If Israel is going to threaten Nukes/chemical./ better Arab casualties 
are inside Israel than outside.  The Arabs have less to loose by 
obliterating Israel  if Israel escalates.

Messy.
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:$3G57kGgXUrIFAW$@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP 
>  writes
>>
>>> Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a
>>> defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.
>
> The Soviets are long gone. Russia DOES have an agreement with Iran
>
>>I don't know... I think it would be worth some effort - in fact it's all
>>part of the same effort really, and even satellite imagery can only tell 
>>you
>>so much.
>
> In Iraq it could tell with complete certainty where all the WMD were. Look 
> at the long list they found after the invasion....  oh... they didn't 
> despite all that satellite "proof"
>
>>If Iran is seeking a nuclear capability
> Weapons  or civil power generation and who do you tell the difference? 
> They are quite entitled to a civil program and most of the world would say 
> they are entitled to a military program as well as there are  TWO 
> belligerent nuclear powers currently threatening them and massing on their 
> borders.
>
>> it only needs to keep
>>people guessing, undecided and hopefully talking until it can arm itself.
>
> Yes. And the Arabs and Persians are good at that sort of game.
>
>>That's the jackpot, no-one can really do anything about it at that point,
>>and if blowing a few million on providing something for people to find
>>somewhere far away from where you want their eyes to be is what it takes,
>>what the hell, right?   I'm sure they can afford it, and I don't
>>underestimate humans when it comes to sneakyness! :-)
>
> Quite. They are masters of the game.

It's a high-stakes game IF Iran is attempting to arm itself.  Myself I would 
fall on the side of believing that they are simply because it's a natural 
progression in a world where regime change has become part of statecraft, 
especially when facing potentially nuclear-armed rivals like the US and 
Israel.  In a game like this, where you could have your entire country taken 
over by another power at some time in the future, it stands to reason that 
you do whatever it takes to make sure it doesn't happen to you!



>
>>I doubt the link below will survive, but it's "Three Mile Island,
>>Pennsylvania, US" in Google Maps.
>
> Is that the one that leaked radioactivity all over the place?

A small amount.  I think it wasn't dissimilar to the type of reactor damage 
suffered by the Chernobyl reactor except Three Mile Island had better 
containment.  Plus of course Chernobyl started with quite a large explosion 
which damaged what containment they did have, which wasn't spectacular. 
Aparently Chernobyl's containment roof, weighing severeal tonnes, was just 
flipped off, and a spout of "blood-red" material shot out into the sky. 
Nice.  Imagine how happy everyone would be if that had been the result of a 
military strike!


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> It's a high-stakes game IF Iran is attempting to arm itself.  Myself I
would
> fall on the side of believing that they are simply because it's a natural
> progression in a world where regime change has become part of statecraft,
> especially when facing potentially nuclear-armed rivals like the US and
> Israel.  In a game like this, where you could have your entire country
taken
> over by another power at some time in the future, it stands to reason that
> you do whatever it takes to make sure it doesn't happen to you!

That's the crux isn't it. America has decided pre-emptive action is
perfectly acceptable and legitimate, created pretexts and excuses to carry
such attacks out and refuses to apologise when it gets it wrong ( not that
it would excuse the damage done ). It has also said it will use nukes
against those states it doesn't like and that nukes are part of the
pre-emptive arsenal, and it's pretty clear who the US sees as those states
it doesn't like.

One cannot blame any country threatened with annihilation from a nuclear
armed country with a belief in pre-emptive attack on the flimsiest of
pretexts for wanting to join the nuclear club nor doing so.

The US and Israel are more than happy to threaten Iran and others but
complain and threaten when others want to have a level playing field.
Typical bullying and hypocrisy from the US and Israel. Sheer arrogance to
believe they have a right to some weapon while others do not, and Israel are
so spineless they won't even admit to having nukes.

If America took the moral high ground and agreed to reject nuclear weapons
it can insist others do likewise. America won't but laughably says others
should and not strive towards joining the club. America's a sick joke, an
experiment gone badly wrong.

Chris H wrote:

> Russia does have a defence pact with Russia already

An all time Chris classic.
Well fancy that, a defense pact with itself !

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:sM6rk.315595$0O3.182181@fe02.news.easynews.com...
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>> news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>>>> A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of backing 
>>>> off support to the jew state.
>>>> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more 
>>>> ... Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which it 
>>>> very easily can do.
>>>> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration 
>>>> appear cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do not 
>>>> favor armed intervention in Iran.
>>>> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
>>>> going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
>>>> leaving office.
>>>> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret are 
>>>> two different matters.
>>>>
>>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern that 
>>>> it might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, Channel 10 
>>>> reported on Wednesday evening.
>>>>
>>>> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
>>>> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 
>>>> 767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not 
>>>> prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran's 
>>>> nuclear facilities, the report, which could not be confirmed by The 
>>>> Jerusalem Post, stated.
>>>>
>>>> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by 
>>>> the air force are extremely old.
>>>>
>>>> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
>>>> opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>>>>
>>>> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that 
>>>> Washington had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence 
>>>> information for fear Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>>>>
>>>> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an action 
>>>> against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our position, 
>>>> and formally their position as well, is that no options should be taken 
>>>> off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>>>>
>>>> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would 
>>>> not comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a 
>>>> possible strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential 
>>>> discussions.
>>>>
>>>> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's security" 
>>>> and that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran."
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7
>>>
>>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
>>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
>>> already are.
>> I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced penetrating 
>> conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
>> Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.
>>
>>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional 
>>> weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your 
>>> nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?
>> No doubt, early on, he had what happened to Saddams fledgling nuclear 
>> program [courtesy of the French] in mind.
>> Dispersal, hardening, redundancy and defense would be their key 
>> watchwords.
>>
>>> Personally I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel 
>>> could have fun with it while I plotted to take over the world with the 
>>> real one.
>> With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the effort 
>> would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would take 
>> nearly as much effort as the real thing.
>> Seems to me very likely they will be acquiring advanced Soviet designed 
>> air defense systems in the near future, which is their best hope.
>> That will force Israel to increase the scope and intensity of any possible 
>> raids, as these defenses will have to be neutralized/destroyed before the 
>> actual strike[s] can begin - Which, in turn, will strain Israeli 
>> resources, increase the chances of losses & failure, and also increase 
>> possible negative world wide reaction - It will also almost insure that 
>> the IAF alone could not carry out the mission, which would put more 
>> pressure on the hawks in the USA to act in concert with the jews.
>> Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a 
>> defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> I don't know... I think it would be worth some effort - in fact it's all 
> part of the same effort really, and even satellite imagery can only tell you 
> so much.  If Iran is seeking a nuclear capability it only needs to keep 
> people guessing, undecided and hopefully talking until it can arm itself. 
> That's the jackpot, no-one can really do anything about it at that point, 
> and if blowing a few million on providing something for people to find 
> somewhere far away from where you want their eyes to be is what it takes, 
> what the hell, right?   I'm sure they can afford it, and I don't 
> underestimate humans when it comes to sneakyness! :-)
> 
> I doubt the link below will survive, but it's "Three Mile Island, 
> Pennsylvania, US" in Google Maps.  Could you _absolutely_ tell that this is 
> an operational facility with nuclear material inside just looking at it? 
> Parts of this complex are actually disused, and essentially like any 
> replicas in Iran would be - can you tell which parts, other than the cooling 
> towers?
> 
> http://tiny.cc/1LCra
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=three+mile+island,+pennsylvania,+us&ie=UTF8&ll=40.154277,-76.725426&spn=0.010627,0.017853&t=h&z=15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a power station (hydro-electric) in the UK that has been built in a 
> cavern underground (see "Electric Mountain" somewhere on the net).  If this 
> was nuclear, how would you get at it?
> 
> http://tiny.cc/EGtzr
> 
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=electric+mountain,LLANBERIS&ie=UTF8&ll=53.120534,-4.122405&spn=0.007366,0.013003&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A
> 
> 
> Obviously it would be a continuum for Iran between effort and effectiveness, 
> but if Israel is planning on destroying the facility I expect they plan to 
> do so before it becomes operational, so any replica station wouldn't 
> necessarily have to be complete or have to work.
> 
> TWP

If you are telling me that building something like this strictly for the 
purposes of deception would not require nearly as much effort as the 
real thing, I disagree.
Cooling towers are immense projects, I have in fact worked years 
building them - Even someone with 0 construction experience should be 
able to imagine the extensive preparations and actual labor involved.
A massive displacement of earth, and the associated machinery and 
man-power needed to do it ... Endless tons of cement, mountains of 
forms, wood and rebar. Dozens of earth moving machines, cranes, 
tractors, cement trucks ... And an army of men, working around the clock.
Do you suppose that they would just throw up some cardboard cooling 
towers, hoping intelligence wouldn't catch on ?

The necessarily hardened reactor buildings require scarcely less effort, 
as their walls are 12-18 ft thick.
If they tried to build a sham one for purposes of deception it would be 
instantly recognizable for what it is, a sham.
In Irans case, they would also need to build complete cities to maintain 
the construction crew on site for months at a time, years even ,,,, 
Without which their ploy would become transparent.

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:4_irk.530258$I42.117393@fe04.news.easynews.com...
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:sM6rk.315595$0O3.182181@fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>> TWP wrote:
>>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>>>>> A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of backing 
>>>>> off support to the jew state.
>>>>> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more 
>>>>> ... Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which 
>>>>> it very easily can do.
>>>>> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration 
>>>>> appear cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do 
>>>>> not favor armed intervention in Iran.
>>>>> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
>>>>> going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
>>>>> leaving office.
>>>>> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret 
>>>>> are two different matters.
>>>>>
>>>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern 
>>>>> that it might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, 
>>>>> Channel 10 reported on Wednesday evening.
>>>>>
>>>>> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
>>>>> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 
>>>>> 767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not 
>>>>> prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran's 
>>>>> nuclear facilities, the report, which could not be confirmed by The 
>>>>> Jerusalem Post, stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by 
>>>>> the air force are extremely old.
>>>>>
>>>>> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
>>>>> opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that 
>>>>> Washington had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence 
>>>>> information for fear Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an 
>>>>> action against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our 
>>>>> position, and formally their position as well, is that no options 
>>>>> should be taken off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>>>>>
>>>>> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would 
>>>>> not comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a 
>>>>> possible strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential 
>>>>> discussions.
>>>>>
>>>>> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's security" 
>>>>> and that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7
>>>>
>>>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
>>>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
>>>> already are.
>>> I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced penetrating 
>>> conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
>>> Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.
>>>
>>>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with 
>>>> conventional weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would 
>>>> you leave your nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow 
>>>> them up?
>>> No doubt, early on, he had what happened to Saddams fledgling nuclear 
>>> program [courtesy of the French] in mind.
>>> Dispersal, hardening, redundancy and defense would be their key 
>>> watchwords.
>>>
>>>> Personally I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel 
>>>> could have fun with it while I plotted to take over the world with the 
>>>> real one.
>>> With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the effort 
>>> would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would take 
>>> nearly as much effort as the real thing.
>>> Seems to me very likely they will be acquiring advanced Soviet designed 
>>> air defense systems in the near future, which is their best hope.
>>> That will force Israel to increase the scope and intensity of any 
>>> possible raids, as these defenses will have to be neutralized/destroyed 
>>> before the actual strike[s] can begin - Which, in turn, will strain 
>>> Israeli resources, increase the chances of losses & failure, and also 
>>> increase possible negative world wide reaction - It will also almost 
>>> insure that the IAF alone could not carry out the mission, which would 
>>> put more pressure on the hawks in the USA to act in concert with the 
>>> jews.
>>> Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a 
>>> defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know... I think it would be worth some effort - in fact it's all 
>> part of the same effort really, and even satellite imagery can only tell 
>> you so much.  If Iran is seeking a nuclear capability it only needs to 
>> keep people guessing, undecided and hopefully talking until it can arm 
>> itself. That's the jackpot, no-one can really do anything about it at 
>> that point, and if blowing a few million on providing something for 
>> people to find somewhere far away from where you want their eyes to be is 
>> what it takes, what the hell, right?   I'm sure they can afford it, and I 
>> don't underestimate humans when it comes to sneakyness! :-)
>>
>> I doubt the link below will survive, but it's "Three Mile Island, 
>> Pennsylvania, US" in Google Maps.  Could you _absolutely_ tell that this 
>> is an operational facility with nuclear material inside just looking at 
>> it? Parts of this complex are actually disused, and essentially like any 
>> replicas in Iran would be - can you tell which parts, other than the 
>> cooling towers?
>>
>> http://tiny.cc/1LCra
>>
>> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=three+mile+island,+pennsylvania,+us&ie=UTF8&ll=40.154277,-76.725426&spn=0.010627,0.017853&t=h&z=15
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is a power station (hydro-electric) in the UK that has been built in 
>> a cavern underground (see "Electric Mountain" somewhere on the net).  If 
>> this was nuclear, how would you get at it?
>>
>> http://tiny.cc/EGtzr
>>
>> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=electric+mountain,LLANBERIS&ie=UTF8&ll=53.120534,-4.122405&spn=0.007366,0.013003&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A
>>
>>
>> Obviously it would be a continuum for Iran between effort and 
>> effectiveness, but if Israel is planning on destroying the facility I 
>> expect they plan to do so before it becomes operational, so any replica 
>> station wouldn't necessarily have to be complete or have to work.
>>
>> TWP
>
> If you are telling me that building something like this strictly for the 
> purposes of deception would not require nearly as much effort as the real 
> thing, I disagree.
> Cooling towers are immense projects, I have in fact worked years building 
> them - Even someone with 0 construction experience should be able to 
> imagine the extensive preparations and actual labor involved.
> A massive displacement of earth, and the associated machinery and 
> man-power needed to do it ... Endless tons of cement, mountains of forms, 
> wood and rebar. Dozens of earth moving machines, cranes, tractors, cement 
> trucks ... And an army of men, working around the clock.
> Do you suppose that they would just throw up some cardboard cooling 
> towers, hoping intelligence wouldn't catch on ?
>
> The necessarily hardened reactor buildings require scarcely less effort, 
> as their walls are 12-18 ft thick.
> If they tried to build a sham one for purposes of deception it would be 
> instantly recognizable for what it is, a sham.
> In Irans case, they would also need to build complete cities to maintain 
> the construction crew on site for months at a time, years even ,,,, 
> Without which their ploy would become transparent.


No, I'm not suggesting that they build a plaster or cardboard replica - I'm 
suggesting that they build pretty much the real thing... trucks going in and 
out, power lines, everything.  I can well imagine the effort and expense 
involved, but if it all ends with an atomic bomb it's been worth it from 
Iran's point of view.  If they had to build a dozen plants to become a 
nuclear power, safe forever from regime change, it would be worth it from 
Iran's point of view.  I expect many leaders in the world could imagine 
Saddam's rope around their own necks.

If Iran is developing nuclear weapons the effort to obtain them is 
effectively a wartime project.  If building a complete nuclear complex to 
sacrifice to the enemy would win the war to obtain nuclear weapons, why not? 
Once the weapons are developed Iran can build as many reactors as it likes.

I don't know that this is what's going to happen - it quite possibly isn't, 
I'm just saying that it's a possibility given how important any nuclear 
weapons project would be to Iran.  Think of the effort that the US went to 
in order to develop atomic weapons.  Nothing stood in it's way, and I have 
my doubts that anything will ultimately stand in Iran's way if they're 
completely committed to the idea.

TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in
> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them
> already are.
>
> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional
> weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your
> nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?
Personally
> I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel could have fun
> with it while I plotted to take over the world with the real one.

Probably not as hard as one would imagine nor anywhere near as complicated
or costly as some may think.

Paranoia plays a good part in deception; absence of evidence doean't prove
it's not what they want to believe it is. Lack of people going in or out
would simply prove they've built some massive railway complex to move people
around underground. That it doesn't look like a nuclear facility is because
it's intended not to look like a nuclear facility, not that it isn't.

One could probably lay a concrete slab of large enough size and the US would
be convinced there was something under it, something nasty, something
breeding nukes. Powell can stand up in the UN and show us again how
satellittes showed whatever he believes they show while everyone else shakes
their head in disbelief at such bullshit passed off as hard, credible,
orroborated evidence.

Lay it near a civilian area and it'll believed that whatever it is it's been
placed there to capitalise on inevitable collateral. A few Iranians likely
to leave Iran fed some misinformation will have themselves and US convinced
once they get out. They fell hook line and sinker for the crap from the
anti-Saddam gang.

That's how you turn a few acres of tissue thin concrete into the biggest
threat the US has ever perceived.

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:4_irk.530258$I42.117393@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>> news:sM6rk.315595$0O3.182181@fe02.news.easynews.com...
>>>> TWP wrote:
>>>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>>>>>> A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of backing 
>>>>>> off support to the jew state.
>>>>>> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more 
>>>>>> ... Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which 
>>>>>> it very easily can do.
>>>>>> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration 
>>>>>> appear cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do 
>>>>>> not favor armed intervention in Iran.
>>>>>> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
>>>>>> going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
>>>>>> leaving office.
>>>>>> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret 
>>>>>> are two different matters.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern 
>>>>>> that it might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, 
>>>>>> Channel 10 reported on Wednesday evening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
>>>>>> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several Boeing 
>>>>>> 767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it was not 
>>>>>> prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack on Iran's 
>>>>>> nuclear facilities, the report, which could not be confirmed by The 
>>>>>> Jerusalem Post, stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by 
>>>>>> the air force are extremely old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
>>>>>> opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that 
>>>>>> Washington had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence 
>>>>>> information for fear Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an 
>>>>>> action against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our 
>>>>>> position, and formally their position as well, is that no options 
>>>>>> should be taken off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would 
>>>>>> not comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a 
>>>>>> possible strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential 
>>>>>> discussions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's security" 
>>>>>> and that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from Iran."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7
>>>>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
>>>>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
>>>>> already are.
>>>> I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced penetrating 
>>>> conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
>>>> Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.
>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with 
>>>>> conventional weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would 
>>>>> you leave your nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow 
>>>>> them up?
>>>> No doubt, early on, he had what happened to Saddams fledgling nuclear 
>>>> program [courtesy of the French] in mind.
>>>> Dispersal, hardening, redundancy and defense would be their key 
>>>> watchwords.
>>>>
>>>>> Personally I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel 
>>>>> could have fun with it while I plotted to take over the world with the 
>>>>> real one.
>>>> With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the effort 
>>>> would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would take 
>>>> nearly as much effort as the real thing.
>>>> Seems to me very likely they will be acquiring advanced Soviet designed 
>>>> air defense systems in the near future, which is their best hope.
>>>> That will force Israel to increase the scope and intensity of any 
>>>> possible raids, as these defenses will have to be neutralized/destroyed 
>>>> before the actual strike[s] can begin - Which, in turn, will strain 
>>>> Israeli resources, increase the chances of losses & failure, and also 
>>>> increase possible negative world wide reaction - It will also almost 
>>>> insure that the IAF alone could not carry out the mission, which would 
>>>> put more pressure on the hawks in the USA to act in concert with the 
>>>> jews.
>>>> Things could obviously get very dicey if the Soviets decide to make a 
>>>> defense pact with Iran, as it has reportedly done with Syria.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know... I think it would be worth some effort - in fact it's all 
>>> part of the same effort really, and even satellite imagery can only tell 
>>> you so much.  If Iran is seeking a nuclear capability it only needs to 
>>> keep people guessing, undecided and hopefully talking until it can arm 
>>> itself. That's the jackpot, no-one can really do anything about it at 
>>> that point, and if blowing a few million on providing something for 
>>> people to find somewhere far away from where you want their eyes to be is 
>>> what it takes, what the hell, right?   I'm sure they can afford it, and I 
>>> don't underestimate humans when it comes to sneakyness! :-)
>>>
>>> I doubt the link below will survive, but it's "Three Mile Island, 
>>> Pennsylvania, US" in Google Maps.  Could you _absolutely_ tell that this 
>>> is an operational facility with nuclear material inside just looking at 
>>> it? Parts of this complex are actually disused, and essentially like any 
>>> replicas in Iran would be - can you tell which parts, other than the 
>>> cooling towers?
>>>
>>> http://tiny.cc/1LCra
>>>
>>> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=three+mile+island,+pennsylvania,+us&ie=UTF8&ll=40.154277,-76.725426&spn=0.010627,0.017853&t=h&z=15
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Here is a power station (hydro-electric) in the UK that has been built in 
>>> a cavern underground (see "Electric Mountain" somewhere on the net).  If 
>>> this was nuclear, how would you get at it?
>>>
>>> http://tiny.cc/EGtzr
>>>
>>> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=electric+mountain,LLANBERIS&ie=UTF8&ll=53.120534,-4.122405&spn=0.007366,0.013003&t=h&z=15&iwloc=A
>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously it would be a continuum for Iran between effort and 
>>> effectiveness, but if Israel is planning on destroying the facility I 
>>> expect they plan to do so before it becomes operational, so any replica 
>>> station wouldn't necessarily have to be complete or have to work.
>>>
>>> TWP
>> If you are telling me that building something like this strictly for the 
>> purposes of deception would not require nearly as much effort as the real 
>> thing, I disagree.
>> Cooling towers are immense projects, I have in fact worked years building 
>> them - Even someone with 0 construction experience should be able to 
>> imagine the extensive preparations and actual labor involved.
>> A massive displacement of earth, and the associated machinery and 
>> man-power needed to do it ... Endless tons of cement, mountains of forms, 
>> wood and rebar. Dozens of earth moving machines, cranes, tractors, cement 
>> trucks ... And an army of men, working around the clock.
>> Do you suppose that they would just throw up some cardboard cooling 
>> towers, hoping intelligence wouldn't catch on ?
>>
>> The necessarily hardened reactor buildings require scarcely less effort, 
>> as their walls are 12-18 ft thick.
>> If they tried to build a sham one for purposes of deception it would be 
>> instantly recognizable for what it is, a sham.
>> In Irans case, they would also need to build complete cities to maintain 
>> the construction crew on site for months at a time, years even ,,,, 
>> Without which their ploy would become transparent.
> 
> 
> No, I'm not suggesting that they build a plaster or cardboard replica - I'm 
> suggesting that they build pretty much the real thing... trucks going in and 
> out, power lines, everything.  I can well imagine the effort and expense 
> involved, but if it all ends with an atomic bomb it's been worth it from 
> Iran's point of view.  If they had to build a dozen plants to become a 
> nuclear power, safe forever from regime change, it would be worth it from 
> Iran's point of view.  I expect many leaders in the world could imagine 
> Saddam's rope around their own necks.

I didn't say it was impossible, just not very likely to the point of not 
being worth consideration.
They do not have limitless resources and finance, and in fact most of 
these oil rich 3rd world countries have a fair percentage of their 
population living in rather primitive conditions - They probably have 
more to worry from that sector than from being bombed.

I couldn't agree that having a few nuclear weapons makes them safe 
forever .. In fact it just may hasten what they claim to be trying to avoid.
No one, with the possible exception of the anti USA internet crowd, 
wants to see a nuclear armed Iran.
Not any of her neighbors, to be very certain.

> If Iran is developing nuclear weapons the effort to obtain them is 
> effectively a wartime project.  If building a complete nuclear complex to 
> sacrifice to the enemy would win the war to obtain nuclear weapons, why not? 
> Once the weapons are developed Iran can build as many reactors as it likes.

If the deception is good enough to be effective, it will only entail it 
being added to the target list, along with the legitimate targets.
Its difficult to imagine that they would attempt to defend this bogus 
target with anything other than basic anti air defense, which would 
weaken the defenses of real targets ... Hence all that they will gain is 
perhaps a dozen aircraft and a few tankers wasting their time.

TWP, they are not going to build a fake nuclear installation.

> I don't know that this is what's going to happen - it quite possibly isn't, 
> I'm just saying that it's a possibility given how important any nuclear 
> weapons project would be to Iran.  Think of the effort that the US went to 
> in order to develop atomic weapons.  Nothing stood in it's way, and I have 
> my doubts that anything will ultimately stand in Iran's way if they're 
> completely committed to the idea.

They are committed, and also have the advantage [over the 1940's U.S. 
program] of being able to simply purchase technology & hardware instead 
of inventing it from scratch.
The only thing that will stand in its way, obviously, is the correct 
application of superior force.

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "TWP"  wrote ...
> 
>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in
>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them
>> already are.
>>
>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional
>> weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your
>> nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?
> Personally
>> I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel could have fun
>> with it while I plotted to take over the world with the real one.
> 
> Probably not as hard as one would imagine nor anywhere near as complicated
> or costly as some may think.
> 
> Paranoia plays a good part in deception; absence of evidence doean't prove
> it's not what they want to believe it is. Lack of people going in or out
> would simply prove they've built some massive railway complex to move people
> around underground. That it doesn't look like a nuclear facility is because
> it's intended not to look like a nuclear facility, not that it isn't.
> 
> One could probably lay a concrete slab of large enough size and the US would
> be convinced there was something under it, something nasty, something
> breeding nukes. Powell can stand up in the UN and show us again how
> satellittes showed whatever he believes they show while everyone else shakes
> their head in disbelief at such bullshit passed off as hard, credible,
> orroborated evidence.
> 
> Lay it near a civilian area and it'll believed that whatever it is it's been
> placed there to capitalise on inevitable collateral. A few Iranians likely
> to leave Iran fed some misinformation will have themselves and US convinced
> once they get out. They fell hook line and sinker for the crap from the
> anti-Saddam gang.
> 
> That's how you turn a few acres of tissue thin concrete into the biggest
> threat the US has ever perceived.
> 
> 

See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time on 
their hands

http://tinyurl.com/2hgdsd

Jesse wrote:
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>>> A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of 
>>> backing off support to the jew state.
>>> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot more 
>>> ... Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, which 
>>> it very easily can do.
>>> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration 
>>> appear cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do 
>>> not favor armed intervention in Iran.
>>> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush is 
>>> going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions before 
>>> leaving office.
>>> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret 
>>> are two different matters.
>>>
>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>
>>>
>>> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern 
>>> that it might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, 
>>> Channel 10 reported on Wednesday evening.
>>>
>>> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
>>> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several 
>>> Boeing 767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it 
>>> was not prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack 
>>> on Iran's nuclear facilities, the report, which could not be 
>>> confirmed by The Jerusalem Post, stated.
>>>
>>> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used by 
>>> the air force are extremely old.
>>>
>>> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it was 
>>> opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>>>
>>> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that 
>>> Washington had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence 
>>> information for fear Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>>>
>>> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an 
>>> action against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our 
>>> position, and formally their position as well, is that no options 
>>> should be taken off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>>>
>>> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman would 
>>> not comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding a 
>>> possible strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential 
>>> discussions.
>>>
>>> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's 
>>> security" and that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from 
>>> Iran."
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7
>>
>>
>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
>> already are.
> 
> I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced penetrating 
> conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
> Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.
> 
>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with 
>> conventional weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would 
>> you leave your nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow 
>> them up?
> 
> No doubt, early on, he had what happened to Saddams fledgling nuclear 
> program [courtesy of the French] in mind.
> Dispersal, hardening, redundancy and defense would be their key watchwords.
> 
>> Personally I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel 
>> could have fun with it while I plotted to take over the world with the 
>> real one.
> 
> With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the effort 
> would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would take 
> nearly as much effort as the real thing.

We know how good the latest technology is at tracking WMD....

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:_Rkrk.370786$bC5.320243@fe07.news.easynews.com...



> If the deception is good enough to be effective, it will only entail it 
> being added to the target list, along with the legitimate targets.
> Its difficult to imagine that they would attempt to defend this bogus 
> target with anything other than basic anti air defense, which would weaken 
> the defenses of real targets ... Hence all that they will gain is perhaps 
> a dozen aircraft and a few tankers wasting their time.
>
> TWP, they are not going to build a fake nuclear installation.

I didn't say they were, I just wouldn't be surprised if they did  There's 
already some smoke and mirrors going oin... remember the missile test that 
the US said was actually just a couple of missiles made to look like more? 
Remember just recently Iran declaring that it now had a "unique weapon" - 
but wouldn't say exactly what it was?  Also if Iran is planning to arm 
itself even the pretence of a nuclear programme for civilian use is an 
attempt at a deception.  You won't get everyone to believe they're 
developing weapons if they protest that they're just generating electricity. 
Doubt and confusion.  In WWII we built fake planes and inflatable tanks, 
fake docks in waste ground close to real ones and they even built fake 
cities to divert bombers (not buldings, but lights including fake incendiary 
bomb hits - it just had to work at night).  Deception isn't a new idea and 
it does tend to work, probably because people don't expect it.  Hell, even 
Captain Kirk had polystyrene boulders! :-)


2008 Site on doctored missile test video (not an official news site, but I 
do know the story from official news sources, as you probably do).
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/irans-missile-test-made-33-more-powerful-with-photoshop/


Similar 2006 story:
"Video of Iranian Missile Test Is Fake, Pentagon Says"
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/10/world/fg-missile10


Iran announces development of new unique weapon
http://www.eng.tatar-inform.ru/news/2008/08/05/18484/


All this is of course is just talk and video - a lot cheaper than making a 
fake nuclear complex, but it suggests the will to make the effort to deceive 
is there, even if it also suggests that they're also not very good at it!


Alright, if they do build a fake installation I get to come back here and 
say "I told you so", OK?

TWP

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:1Mjrk.46225$E41.11018@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in
>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them
>> already are.
>>
>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional
>> weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your
>> nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?
> Personally
>> I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel could have 
>> fun
>> with it while I plotted to take over the world with the real one.
>
> Probably not as hard as one would imagine nor anywhere near as complicated
> or costly as some may think.
>
> Paranoia plays a good part in deception; absence of evidence doean't prove
> it's not what they want to believe it is. Lack of people going in or out
> would simply prove they've built some massive railway complex to move 
> people
> around underground. That it doesn't look like a nuclear facility is 
> because
> it's intended not to look like a nuclear facility, not that it isn't.
>
> One could probably lay a concrete slab of large enough size and the US 
> would
> be convinced there was something under it, something nasty, something
> breeding nukes. Powell can stand up in the UN and show us again how
> satellittes showed whatever he believes they show while everyone else 
> shakes
> their head in disbelief at such bullshit passed off as hard, credible,
> orroborated evidence.
>
> Lay it near a civilian area and it'll believed that whatever it is it's 
> been
> placed there to capitalise on inevitable collateral. A few Iranians likely
> to leave Iran fed some misinformation will have themselves and US 
> convinced
> once they get out. They fell hook line and sinker for the crap from the
> anti-Saddam gang.
>
> That's how you turn a few acres of tissue thin concrete into the biggest
> threat the US has ever perceived.
>
>

There have been a few attempts at deception by Iran already.  It reminds me 
of a phrase from a few years ago - "They're practiced if not talented 
liars!"

http://books.google.com/books?id=jrS-Ccy5WYcC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=practiced+if+not+talented+liars&source=web&ots=jdAYEp77FQ&sig=41xwHS3DynirJplapcuLhAwdj1g&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result


TWP

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:QUkrk.370793$bC5.68004@fe07.news.easynews.com...


> See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time on 
> their hands

Birds of a feather! :-)

TWP

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:_Rkrk.370786$bC5.320243@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> 
> 
> 
>> If the deception is good enough to be effective, it will only entail it 
>> being added to the target list, along with the legitimate targets.
>> Its difficult to imagine that they would attempt to defend this bogus 
>> target with anything other than basic anti air defense, which would weaken 
>> the defenses of real targets ... Hence all that they will gain is perhaps 
>> a dozen aircraft and a few tankers wasting their time.
>>
>> TWP, they are not going to build a fake nuclear installation.
> 
> I didn't say they were, I just wouldn't be surprised if they did  There's 
> already some smoke and mirrors going oin... remember the missile test that 
> the US said was actually just a couple of missiles made to look like more? 
> Remember just recently Iran declaring that it now had a "unique weapon" - 
> but wouldn't say exactly what it was?  Also if Iran is planning to arm 
> itself even the pretence of a nuclear programme for civilian use is an 
> attempt at a deception.  You won't get everyone to believe they're 
> developing weapons if they protest that they're just generating electricity. 
> Doubt and confusion.  In WWII we built fake planes and inflatable tanks, 
> fake docks in waste ground close to real ones and they even built fake 
> cities to divert bombers (not buldings, but lights including fake incendiary 
> bomb hits - it just had to work at night).  Deception isn't a new idea and 
> it does tend to work, probably because people don't expect it.  Hell, even 
> Captain Kirk had polystyrene boulders! :-)
> 
> 
> 2008 Site on doctored missile test video (not an official news site, but I 
> do know the story from official news sources, as you probably do).
> http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/irans-missile-test-made-33-more-powerful-with-photoshop/
> 
> 
> Similar 2006 story:
> "Video of Iranian Missile Test Is Fake, Pentagon Says"
> http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/10/world/fg-missile10
> 
> 
> Iran announces development of new unique weapon
> http://www.eng.tatar-inform.ru/news/2008/08/05/18484/
> 
> 
> All this is of course is just talk and video - a lot cheaper than making a 
> fake nuclear complex, but it suggests the will to make the effort to deceive 
> is there, even if it also suggests that they're also not very good at it!

Yes, I understand perfectly the concept of deception.
We often use it in everyday life for advantage, nations do the same.
There are entire bureaus in many countries, whose business is nothing 
but conceiving deceptive gems ... Particularly, of course, during 
conflict [which is why I always get a kick from those here bleating "The 
US Army lies ! Them people don't tell the truth!]
If you could list the top 10 military deceptions in history, none would 
come close to a passable sham nuclear power plant, in terms of effort 
required.
Because of the logistics, manpower and material that it would require to 
construct one - And also because of the very minimal relative advantage 
the builder would acquire, even if successful, it will never be seen.

I know the Germans were big on large scale deceptions, modifying the 
appearance of their cities and mimicking/doubling important targets good 
enough to cause doubt and confusion from the high altitude bomber 
streams, largely through the careful application of paint and props.
These just might be the largest scale deceptive efforts ever, and would 
pale in comparison to a realistic, bogus nuclear power plant.

> Alright, if they do build a fake installation I get to come back here and 
> say "I told you so", OK?
> 
> TWP

TWP, if they build a fake nuclear installation that is not an obvious 
sham, I will call you Daddy for a week & donate $100 to your favorite 
charity [as long as it ain't the ACLU/SPLC or UNICEF].

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:QUkrk.370793$bC5.68004@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> 
> 
>> See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time on 
>> their hands
> 
> Birds of a feather! :-)
> 
> TWP

Ouch, well at least I attempt to use logic and fact vs flights of fancy 
& overly imaginative witticisms.

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:tQqrk.534982$3p2.84641@fe10.news.easynews.com...



>> Alright, if they do build a fake installation I get to come back here and 
>> say "I told you so", OK?
>>
>> TWP
>
> TWP, if they build a fake nuclear installation that is not an obvious 
> sham, I will call you Daddy for a week & donate $100 to your favorite 
> charity [as long as it ain't the ACLU/SPLC or UNICEF].

OK then! :-)

TWP
(Now where did I put that inflatable reactor....)

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Jesse wrote:
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>> news:Ul_qk.520394$3p2.30139@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>>>> A mildly encouraging development, I've always been in favor of 
>>>> backing off support to the jew state.
>>>> Of course, they will eventually get the tankers, and a whole lot 
>>>> more ... Possibly over night, if the urgent need suddenly develops, 
>>>> which it very easily can do.
>>>> I view this more or less as a ploy, to make the U.S. administration 
>>>> appear cautious, and as a sop to the growing number of folks who do 
>>>> not favor armed intervention in Iran.
>>>> In any case, this deflates a bit the predictions of some that Bush 
>>>> is going to go all out to destroy Irans growing nuclear ambitions 
>>>> before leaving office.
>>>> Then again, what is reported publicly and what takes place in secret 
>>>> are two different matters.
>>>>
>>>> `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The United States has refused to sell Israel planes out of concern 
>>>> that it might be seen as encouraging an Israeli attack on Iran, 
>>>> Channel 10 reported on Wednesday evening.
>>>>
>>>> During his most recent visit to the US earlier this month, Defense 
>>>> Minister Ehud Barak requested that America sell the IAF several 
>>>> Boeing 767 refueling planes. However, the White House refused, as it 
>>>> was not prepared to seem as though it was aiding a potential attack 
>>>> on Iran's nuclear facilities, the report, which could not be 
>>>> confirmed by The Jerusalem Post, stated.
>>>>
>>>> The IAF has a great need of the planes, as the ones currently used 
>>>> by the air force are extremely old.
>>>>
>>>> Last week, Barak told Army Radio that the US had made it clear it 
>>>> was opposed at the present time to military action against Teheran.
>>>>
>>>> However, he would not relate to a press report at the time that 
>>>> Washington had denied Israel advanced weaponry and intelligence 
>>>> information for fear Jerusalem was on the verge of an attack.
>>>>
>>>> "The US's position at the present time is that they don't see an 
>>>> action against Iran as the right thing to do," Barak said then. "Our 
>>>> position, and formally their position as well, is that no options 
>>>> should be taken off the table. When we say that, we mean it."
>>>>
>>>> Following the report last week, a US State Department spokesman 
>>>> would not comment on what messages the US had given Israel regarding 
>>>> a possible strike on Iran, because they were part of confidential 
>>>> discussions.
>>>>
>>>> He did stress, though, that "the US is committed to Israel's 
>>>> security" and that "the US would defend Israel from any attack from 
>>>> Iran."
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/63kpp7
>>>
>>>
>>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities in 
>>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them 
>>> already are.
>>
>> I would imagine IAF has access to some of the most advanced 
>> penetrating conventional weapons in the world, courtesy of Uncle Sam.
>> Should largely be public info what they have in this regards.
>>
>>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with 
>>> conventional weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would 
>>> you leave your nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could 
>>> blow them up?
>>
>> No doubt, early on, he had what happened to Saddams fledgling nuclear 
>> program [courtesy of the French] in mind.
>> Dispersal, hardening, redundancy and defense would be their key 
>> watchwords.
>>
>>> Personally I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so 
>>> Israel could have fun with it while I plotted to take over the world 
>>> with the real one.
>>
>> With the state of high res satellite photography, I doubt if the 
>> effort would really be worth it, as making a convincing decoy[s] would 
>> take nearly as much effort as the real thing.
> 
> We know how good the latest technology is at tracking WMD....
> 
Sure ya do Napoleon ... I mean, Art

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:JTqrk.345572$eu.252221@fe01.news.easynews.com...
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:QUkrk.370793$bC5.68004@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>
>>
>>> See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time on 
>>> their hands
>>
>> Birds of a feather! :-)
>>
>> TWP
>
> Ouch, well at least I attempt to use logic and fact vs flights of fancy & 
> overly imaginative witticisms.

I wasn't referring to you Jesse, I was referring to me!

TWP

"TWP"  wrote in message 
news:a_KdnT_zGplrpzPVRVnyiQA@eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:tQqrk.534982$3p2.84641@fe10.news.easynews.com...
>
>
>
>>> Alright, if they do build a fake installation I get to come back here 
>>> and say "I told you so", OK?
>>>
>>> TWP
>>
>> TWP, if they build a fake nuclear installation that is not an obvious 
>> sham, I will call you Daddy for a week & donate $100 to your favorite 
>> charity [as long as it ain't the ACLU/SPLC or UNICEF].
>
> OK then! :-)
>
> TWP
> (Now where did I put that inflatable reactor....)
>
>
>
>
>

Hang on a minute....  If it's a crap deception you win, and if it's a really 
good deception won't you just say it was a real reactor?  Don't I get 
screwed either way on this deal?

TWP

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:JTqrk.345572$eu.252221@fe01.news.easynews.com...
> TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:QUkrk.370793$bC5.68004@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>
>>
>>> See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time on 
>>> their hands
>>
>> Birds of a feather! :-)
>>
>> TWP
>


I think your post warrants a longer reply.

> Ouch,

I didn't mean any insult to you, I thought you'd pick up that I meant myself 
from the tone.


well at least I attempt to use logic and fact vs flights of fancy
> & overly imaginative witticisms.

Overly imaginitive witticisms? :-)

A description of the 11 Sept attacks would have been considered a flight of 
fancy by most people on 10 Sept.  A flight of fancy becomes just another 
crazy thing that once happened in the world once someone actually does it.

We'll see....  I may yet be able to say "Jesse, I am your Father!" :-)

TWP

In message <4_irk.530258$I42.117393@fe04.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>
>If you are telling me that building something like this strictly for 
>the purposes of deception would not require nearly as much effort as 
>the real thing, I disagree.

Then you are wrong.

>Cooling towers are immense projects, I have in fact worked years 
>building them - Even someone with 0 construction experience should be 
>able to imagine the extensive preparations and actual labor involved.

What did you work on then as?

>A massive displacement of earth, and the associated machinery and 
>man-power needed to do it ... Endless tons of cement, mountains of 
>forms, wood and rebar. Dozens of earth moving machines, cranes, 
>tractors, cement trucks ... And an army of men, working around the clock.

Labour is cheap It has been done before. Many times

>Do you suppose that they would just throw up some cardboard cooling 
>towers, hoping intelligence wouldn't catch on ?

That's been done before too.....

>The necessarily hardened reactor buildings require scarcely less 
>effort, as their walls are 12-18 ft thick.

So... Not a problem. Incidentally they only have to appear to be 12-18 
feet think.

>If they tried to build a sham one for purposes of deception it would be 
>instantly recognizable for what it is, a sham.

You have no knowledge of that.

>In Irans case, they would also need to build complete cities to 
>maintain the construction crew on site for months at a time, years even 
>,,,,

Yes. The Russians are good at that sort of thing.

>Without which their ploy would become transparent.

Well the Iraqi's managed to do it. Had the US fooled into believing 
there were lots of WMD.  So Iraq HAS done it why can't Iran?


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message , TWP 
 writes
>
>"Jesse"  wrote in message
>news:4_irk.530258$I42.117393@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>>
>> If you are telling me that building something like this strictly for the
>> purposes of deception would not require nearly as much effort as the real
>> thing, I disagree.
>> Cooling towers are immense projects, I have in fact worked years building
>> them - Even someone with 0 construction experience should be able to
>> imagine the extensive preparations and actual labor involved.
>> A massive displacement of earth, and the associated machinery and
>> man-power needed to do it ... Endless tons of cement, mountains of forms,
>> wood and rebar. Dozens of earth moving machines, cranes, tractors, cement
>> trucks ... And an army of men, working around the clock.
>> Do you suppose that they would just throw up some cardboard cooling
>> towers, hoping intelligence wouldn't catch on ?
>>
>> The necessarily hardened reactor buildings require scarcely less effort,
>> as their walls are 12-18 ft thick.
>> If they tried to build a sham one for purposes of deception it would be
>> instantly recognizable for what it is, a sham.
>> In Irans case, they would also need to build complete cities to maintain
>> the construction crew on site for months at a time, years even ,,,,
>> Without which their ploy would become transparent.
>
>
>No, I'm not suggesting that they build a plaster or cardboard replica - I'm
>suggesting that they build pretty much the real thing... trucks going in and
>out, power lines, everything.  I can well imagine the effort and expense
>involved, but if it all ends with an atomic bomb it's been worth it from
>Iran's point of view.  If they had to build a dozen plants to become a
>nuclear power, safe forever from regime change, it would be worth it from
>Iran's point of view.  I expect many leaders in the world could imagine
>Saddam's rope around their own necks.
>
>If Iran is developing nuclear weapons the effort to obtain them is
>effectively a wartime project.  If building a complete nuclear complex to
>sacrifice to the enemy would win the war to obtain nuclear weapons, why not?
>Once the weapons are developed Iran can build as many reactors as it likes.
>
>I don't know that this is what's going to happen - it quite possibly isn't,
>I'm just saying that it's a possibility given how important any nuclear
>weapons project would be to Iran.  Think of the effort that the US went to
>in order to develop atomic weapons.  Nothing stood in it's way, and I have
>my doubts that anything will ultimately stand in Iran's way if they're
>completely committed to the idea.

It's already been done. Iraq had the US believing they had WMD...... 
Iran just has to do something similar but not finish the building site 
whilst developing the stuff... have the WMD finished before "the 
building s are finished"

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <JTqrk.345572$eu.252221@fe01.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>news:QUkrk.370793$bC5.68004@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>
>>> See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time 
>>>on  their hands
>>  Birds of a feather! :-)
>>  TWP
>
>Ouch, well at least I attempt to use logic

Not so far in the last 45 years.

>and fact

No, what you use is propaganda. Usually you are wrong.

> vs flights of fancy & overly imaginative witticisms.

Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to think for your self so we 
have seen no flights of fancy let alone imaginative any thing.

Jesse my love you are still refusing to answer the question: What is 
your day job?   Clearly embarrassed in what you do.


-- 
My bestest friend Jesse : http://tinyurl.com/6zwjnz
Join the Jesse Fan Club  at http://www.army-gays.com/gay-marines.html

In message <QUkrk.370793$bC5.68004@fe07.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> What are they going to do if Iran starts building major facilities 
>>>
>>> mountains or other hardened structures?  In fact I think some of them
>>> already are.
>>>
>>> I'm sure Iran has anticipated being bombed - certainly with conventional
>>> weapons anyway.  If you were Iran's beloved leader would you leave your
>>> nuclear facilities lying around where anyone could blow them up?
>> Personally
>>> I think I might even be inclined to build a decoy so Israel could have fun
>>> with it while I plotted to take over the world with the real one.
>>  Probably not as hard as one would imagine nor anywhere near as 
>>complicated
>> or costly as some may think.
>>  Paranoia plays a good part in deception; absence of evidence doean't 
>>prove
>> it's not what they want to believe it is. Lack of people going in or out
>> would simply prove they've built some massive railway complex to move people
>> around underground. That it doesn't look like a nuclear facility is because
>> it's intended not to look like a nuclear facility, not that it isn't.
>>  One could probably lay a concrete slab of large enough size and the 
>>US would
>> be convinced there was something under it, something nasty, something
>> breeding nukes. Powell can stand up in the UN and show us again how
>> satellittes showed whatever he believes they show while everyone else shakes
>> their head in disbelief at such bullshit passed off as hard, credible,
>> orroborated evidence.
>>  Lay it near a civilian area and it'll believed that whatever it is 
>>it's been
>> placed there to capitalise on inevitable collateral. A few Iranians likely
>> to leave Iran fed some misinformation will have themselves and US convinced
>> once they get out. They fell hook line and sinker for the crap from the
>> anti-Saddam gang.
>>  That's how you turn a few acres of tissue thin concrete into the 
>>biggest
>> threat the US has ever perceived.
>>
>
>See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time on 
>their hands


What Hap is saying is EXACTLY what happened with the US and Iraq. It's 
been done and the US was fooled last time why not next time?
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote ...

[snip]

> >>  That's how you turn a few acres of tissue thin concrete into the
> >>biggest
> >> threat the US has ever perceived.
> >>
> >
> >See what ya done TWP, you brought out the loonies with too much time on
> >their hands
>
>
> What Hap is saying is EXACTLY what happened with the US and Iraq. It's
> been done and the US was fooled last time why not next time?

There are numerous cases of deception which have worked. Not so easy to do
when there's scepticism but much easier when people want to belive it; they
are pre-disposed to seeing things as real rather than fake and will even
manufacture plausible explanations why what they see doesn't match what it
should be - No WMD in Iraq; well obviously it must have been there, it's
been moved. That it's not been found proves it existed ;-)

One of the best deceptions I heard ( which may or may not be true ) was that
Russia, to inflate the perceived size of its air force, built flat metal
silhouettes of aircraft which looked just like the real thing from a
satellite which they'd park up on the their runways. To give extra realism
they put small fires in boxes under the wings so the IR photographs made it
look like they'd been used and the engines were cooling down.

The British Army has its own inflatable tanks they can park on the horizon.
Of course there's nothing "looney" about deception and people who see it as
such are probably the ones most easily suckered into a deception because
they won't accept such things are possible or that they can get fooled.

Of all the nuclear missile silos in America, Russia and China I would bet
that not all are. A simple deception to make it hard for an enemy to know
which to hit; the exact scenario TWP described.

A simple way to intrigue, confuse and detract someone spying from above is
to lay a concrete circle a few metres across clearly labelled as a
helicopter landing pad. Put it somewhere it would never be expected to be
and people will automatically start to ask "why?" and try to find a
plausible answer to justify its ominous presence even when there isn't one.

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:JTqrk.345572$eu.252221@fe01.news.easynews.com...
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>> news:QUkrk.370793$bC5.68004@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>