Iran has enough uranium for bomb; UN (4 Viewers)

[Lentern]

I'm not really trying to justify what the Bush administration did, but I do offer sympathy to the situation they found themselves in on S11 - as did anyone with a heart. I dont believe that they then acted on some fickle impulse to increase American power, but rather to a changed world where we could wake up with images not of planes going into a few NY buildings, but NY's nuclear ruins - and with all the intense confusion and desporate urgency surrounding such an eventuality. They acted, however incorrectly and hastily in hindsight, to prevent such mad murder.

You ever watched "Blair at war"? One can't help wonder who was more responsible for the invasion.

 

[Empyrean444]

I'm not really trying to justify what the Bush administration did, but I do offer sympathy to the situation they found themselves in on S11 - as did anyone with a heart. I dont believe that they then acted on some fickle impulse to increase American power, but rather to a changed world where we could wake up with images not of planes going into a few NY buildings, but NY's nuclear ruins - and with all the intense confusion and desporate urgency surrounding such an eventuality. They acted, however incorrectly and hastily in hindsight, to prevent such mad murder.

Paranoia is not a justification for such actions either. As I said, Afghanistan was (in objective) not the problem for me; Iraq, on the other hand, does not fit your bill at all, and it would be wrong to believe that the US HERE had no ulterior motives (e.g. oil). I acknowledge, for example, that Saddam was a monster of a ruler, but being 'right' for the wrong reasons still equals a lack of vindication.

 

[Iron]

Finally a normal post no some extent.

however, what do you mean by "not really trying"? that clearly undertones that deep down you sort of do justify what has happened during the bush administration. Bush or no Bush, you would probably support whatever action he'd take if he were still president with the Iran situation.

It's Israel, not America, that Iran has to worry about.

Iranian moderates need to throw this dirty beggar, Dinnerjacket, out - or he needs to immediately recant the statements about annihilating Israel and withdraw all support for regional terrorists. Until then, i'd support any pre-emptive action to thwart their attempts to build a bomb - as would anyone with guts enough to fight evil when they see it

 

[Iron]

Paranoia is not a justification for such actions either. As I said, Afghanistan was (in objective) not the problem for me; Iraq, on the other hand, does not fit your bill at all, and it would be wrong to believe that the US HERE had no ulterior motives (e.g. oil). I acknowledge, for example, that Saddam was a monster of a ruler, but being 'right' for the wrong reasons still equals a lack of vindication.

That's where you have to at least acknowledge the modern age and all its capacity to deliver information, people and technology across borders at very fast speeds. Saddam dicked us around on WMDs for over a decade. We had plenty of good reasons to believe that he had them, and that he would exploit the post-911 chaos to hit the US through a 3rd party

 

[ChockoRepublic]

agreed with iron.

ahmeddeniijad is a crazy motherfucker who's made it pretty obvious that he'd blow up the western world if given half the chance.

 

[SAVAK]

It's Israel, not America, that Iran has to worry about.

Iranian moderates need to throw this dirty beggar, Dinnerjacket, out - or he needs to immediately recant the statements about annihilating Israel and withdraw all support for regional terrorists. Until then, i'd support any pre-emptive action to thwart their attempts to build a bomb - as would anyone with guts enough to fight evil when they see it

please give credible non bias source which claims that the Iranian president made such claims.

one could also put forward why doesn't America withdrawal support from regional dictators along the western end of the Persian gulf. but it aint going to happen. we can play the moral high ground but we will just go round and round in circles.

LOL, your opinion, your support and all that yaada yaada doesn't matter. If Iran wants the bomb it will get it and there is nothing you can do about it. Because America knows that for its self protection and interests, keeping the region in stability while its there isn't going to happen if she or Israel strikes Iran.

deal with it

 

[SAVAK]

That's where you have to at least acknowledge the modern age and all its capacity to deliver information, people and technology across borders at very fast speeds. Saddam dicked us around on WMDs for over a decade. We had plenty of good reasons to believe that he had them, and that he would exploit the post-911 chaos to hit the US through a 3rd party

LOL
edit: who is we? are you American?

agreed with iron.

ahmeddeniijad is a crazy motherfucker who's made it pretty obvious that he'd blow up the western world if given half the chance.

and LOL

 

[Iron]

please give credible non bias source which claims that the Iranian president made such claims.

one could also put forward why doesn't America withdrawal support from regional dictators along the western end of the Persian gulf. but it aint going to happen. we can play the moral high ground but we will just go round and round in circles.

LOL, your opinion, your support and all that yaada yaada doesn't matter. If Iran wants the bomb it will get it and there is nothing you can do about it. Because America knows that for its self protection and interests, keeping the region in stability while its there isn't going to happen if she or Israel strikes Iran.

deal with it

This makes no sense. If Iran gets the bomb, we have plenty of reasons to believe that they will use it to hit Israel or the West, due to their terrorist support and wishes to destroy Israel. Acting to prevent this is obviously a better alternative than waiting to see if they'll 'play nice'.

Also, youre an idiot

 

[SAVAK]

This makes no sense. If Iran gets the bomb, we have plenty of reasons to believe that they will use it to hit Israel or the West, due to their terrorist support and wishes to destroy Israel. Acting to prevent this is obviously a better alternative than waiting to see if they'll 'play nice'.

Also, youre an idiot

are you ok? normal? its called legitimate self defense. an international right. you know, if Australia wanted nukes who the hell is country X from stopping us? According to the NPT the iranians have every right to do what they are doing. Israel is not a signatory to that treaty. All of this is conjecture, rumors , potentials, maybes. In that case why is it not possible for a terrorist group to ask from India, Pakistan, China, Russia or Israeli into providing material for a "dirt" bomb? this argument is baseless! and smacks of an actual psyche problem within the Israeli administration who push it down western governments...a siege mentality.

 

[Iron]

Pakistan is a risk and the Obama administration has expressed strong concern about them. The other nations you mention are rational enough to see the barbarism and immorality of using nuclear weapons first. Their leaders have not expressed any wish to drive some group of people into the sea

 

[SAVAK]

Pakistan is a risk and the Obama administration has expressed strong concern about them. The other nations you mention are rational enough to see the barbarism and immorality of using nuclear weapons first. Their leaders have not expressed any wish to drive some group of people into the sea

it was a hypothetical analogy i put forward you idiot. did you even read the post properly? i guess not. oh wait, thanks for letting me know China and Russia really like Israel playing a part as a launching pad for America in the most strategically important region in the world.


thankyou

 

[Lentern]

Iron how on earth can you possibly subscribe to the nuclear deterrent notion? It is the most paradoxical, dangerous notion in modern politics. And how can ye who subscribes to the notion oppose countries getting it? Do you hope for a nuclear attack on Iran and Pakistan to take place? If not then don't the laws of the nuclear deterrent theory make it desirable? Do you really think Zadari would initiate a nuclear conflict?We aren't talking about sendign mindless subordinates to their death in his name, using the bomb would surely be signing his own death warrant.

 

[Joel8945]

The implications of a nuclear Iran are serious and destabilising to the region, not to mention dangerous in the hands of a radical regime under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei.

The world has been dancing around this issue for too long. It is time to act, but how?

Discuss.

This topic does seem quite scary to me. At the moment Iran is rather unfriendly to westerners and the thought of them having the capability to construct a nuclear bomb that will be rather weak (compared to what has been made) but will still be powerful enough to destroy a city. I would expect the yield to potentially be maybe 5-8 kilotons (considering the 64kg's of uranium in the little boy bomb yielded 13-18kilotons).

Another fear though is that nuclear waste may potentially be used to make 'dirty bombs'. These bombs would be much easier to manufacture (with the amount of nuclear waste present) and the short-lived radioisotopes would be able to cause radiation illness and contributing in other short term effects and long term effects (sterility, cancer, genetic mutations, etc).

How we act on this is to be more proactive in how we investigate what countries involved with nuclear material do. We should not allow uranium refinement plants to be built under our noses by nations that pose a threat to us. If our agencies are not being given information every nuclear facility used in a nation, their right to be a nuclear nation must be removed and we should send people out to decomission their sites.

 

[Riet]

Iran is not a potential threat to the united states to date. It is only a threat in sense of American interests are being threatened with the growing power of Iran in the region. lets not forgets every country west of the persian gulf is an American backed dictator.



An invasion Will not happen and neither a military strike on nuclear reactors either. Neither would Israel do anything without big brothers permission.

I think Nuclear missiles are the only danger for Iran. Otherwise they can give as well as they get but will be defeated in the long run. All American bases are within range. America cannot keep their airfields out the Iranian reach.
The best thing for Iran to do would be to sign a mutual defense pact with Syria, so if one gets attacked the both go to war with the attacker. If Iran is attacked there is no doubt Syria is next so they may as well pre-empt it.
That way if the US attacked they would no doubt beat Iran but the consequences for American troops in Iraq & Afghanistan would be carnage, non-stop. And with western society valuing human life to such a high degree, sooner or later something back home will cause a withdrawal. there is only a number of troop an aggressor will sacrifice.

Nimitz class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SAVAK]

Nimitz class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ohk. so...umm

 

[SAVAK]

This topic does seem quite scary to me. At the moment Iran is rather unfriendly to westerners and the thought of them having the capability to construct a nuclear bomb that will be rather weak (compared to what has been made) but will still be powerful enough to destroy a city. I would expect the yield to potentially be maybe 5-8 kilotons (considering the 64kg's of uranium in the little boy bomb yielded 13-18kilotons).

Another fear though is that nuclear waste may potentially be used to make 'dirty bombs'. These bombs would be much easier to manufacture (with the amount of nuclear waste present) and the short-lived radioisotopes would be able to cause radiation illness and contributing in other short term effects and long term effects (sterility, cancer, genetic mutations, etc).

How we act on this is to be more proactive in how we investigate what countries involved with nuclear material do. We should not allow uranium refinement plants to be built under our noses by nations that pose a threat to us. If our agencies are not being given information every nuclear facility used in a nation, their right to be a nuclear nation must be removed and we should send people out to decomission their sites.

see post 51

 

[Riet]

They could easily fly from the indian ocean/gulf which would make any counter-attack by the iranians highly susceptible to AA fire from ships. Not to mention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit

If they wanted they could most definitely neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat.

 

[SAVAK]

They could easily fly from the indian ocean/gulf which would make any counter-attack by the iranians highly susceptible to AA fire from ships.

Iran has C802 Chinese anti ship missile and rumor has it the Russians have positioned sunburn anti ship missiles in Iran. but thats beside the point, the whole region can possibly slip through American hands which is not in americas best interest, and not to forget Iran will press the shi-ite button in iraq casing heavy casualties for american troops.

but look, we can speculate all we want, shit all is going to happen.

 

[Lentern]

This topic does seem quite scary to me. At the moment Iran is rather unfriendly to westerners and the thought of them having the capability to construct a nuclear bomb that will be rather weak (compared to what has been made) but will still be powerful enough to destroy a city. I would expect the yield to potentially be maybe 5-8 kilotons (considering the 64kg's of uranium in the little boy bomb yielded 13-18kilotons).

Another fear though is that nuclear waste may potentially be used to make 'dirty bombs'. These bombs would be much easier to manufacture (with the amount of nuclear waste present) and the short-lived radioisotopes would be able to cause radiation illness and contributing in other short term effects and long term effects (sterility, cancer, genetic mutations, etc).

How we act on this is to be more proactive in how we investigate what countries involved with nuclear material do. We should not allow uranium refinement plants to be built under our noses by nations that pose a threat to us. If our agencies are not being given information every nuclear facility used in a nation, their right to be a nuclear nation must be removed and we should send people out to decomission their sites.

How exactly does one attain the "right to be a nuclear nation." Bloody turkey.

 

[Riet]

By being part of NATO in the mid 20th century.