Printable View
may be its true that iran is supporting terrorist groups ,but supplying them with nukes is no childs play!!.how can terrorists who dont have a place to hide will stock their nukes even before they deploy it against someone .they will get burnt to death...Nuclear fissile stuff is not tnt or rdx that one can just stuff in his boots
How many years have we been footing the bill: 0!Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Did congress vote to increase the debt ceiling today, or is that tomorrow? In absolute terms, this will make the US national debt the highest ever. As a percentage of GDP, it will be the highest in over 50 years. We aren't paying for the war through taxes, we're paying through the war through borrowing. Most of that debt is held by foreign countries. No person is advised to live their lives this way, why should our government?
Some people would argue that our economy is so big that no foreign country would ever 'call in' the debt (dump US dollars) because it would take down their economy. Lots of people used that as an argument as to why WWI would never start, too.
It will eventually payed. I'm not saying we will never pay for it. I am just saying, when it comes to war, there is always a way to finance it. Lack of cash will never stop people from going to war if they are hell bent on going.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Ok, I certainly agree with that. However, the Republican party lead the revolt against huge deficits in the early 90's (Graham-Rudman-Hollings, not all R, I think). Eventually, there would be a bipartisan revolt against the expenses of going to war.
One other thing we have learned from history is that if you go only half to war, you tend to lose.
That's the most sensible thing I've ever heard you say. To bad your half is doing their damndest to undermine the entire effort.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
We're not really fighting a war in Iraq anymore - that ended in the first month of the invasion. We're just blowing dollars on preventing what would naturally occur in Iraq - a civil unrest which inevitably leads to one dominant group. I say, pull out, and let it happen. Its far cheaper to pull out and go in when we need to do.
Not my half anymore, the majority of this country favors an immediate withdrawal of US troops. I opposed the war from the start, but I oppose making a botch of it even more. Seems like we can't avoid that though. I fail to see a viable solution to this situation that leaves us in a postion better than the one we had before. There are people who say that the insurgency can be beaten, the civil war won't happen, and all can be good. I'd like that to be true, but it doesn't seem possible at this point. We appear to be losing ground steadily.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
i would say assasinate the iran's mullahs if needed so but dont nuke them as that would mean another hiroshima!.we must think sensibly shouldnt we masterblaster ,i understand u worked in the army may be thats the reason why u r so enthusiastic abt bombing iran.
you lost thousands of ur fellow brothers for a war no one approves of!
Blahhh, we have better nukes now than we had at hiroshime. I'll guarentee if we use them no one will be buying an Iranian telivision for at least 200 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
;)
Any way. The US is isn't going to nuke any one. Israel will make Iran glow way before it comes to that.
life of a million iranians mean nothing to u right! Whatever israel does is right because they support bush what do u say mast...
What the hell? Am I talking to Microsoft tech support here?Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
Actually, No I don't really care if either of them live or die. If Iran and Israel want to blow each other up, I say let them.
Think before you speak little Indian. You're defending the one country threatening to bring the nuclear option to the table. We have no need to nuke anyone. We have plenty of conventional firepower to bring most of the planet to its knees. Why don't you keep worrying about your neighbor and making sure your women remain muted, leave the rest of the world to the big boys. We'll give you a shout when your needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
that's where u cross the line demotivater .i never said i support iran or their rulers iam just saying nuking should be left as a last option .iran is only threatening to build one lets see when it does so and if they do so no one is going to support them.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
i want to know the reason why women here should remain muted.This is a forum where everyone discuss not brag abt them or their country.i respect everyone here and their views and i expect the same .if we are not among the big boys why did ur president come here to sign the nuke deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Don't worry too much about Demotivator, he usually doesn't misunderstand posts like that.
Demotivator is ignorantly confusing India with some repressive third-world country (Iran).Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
Ohhh :eek: I actually did fall off my chair :lol: :thumb: Best joke on Chit Chat for a while, now . . ..Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
*(Corrections in brackets are mine)
thanks 4 the correction didnt notice that !
No problem ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
unfortunately wysiwyg editors dont have inbuilt dictionaries
Back the realm of sensible behaviour, then . . . .
In the mire of alleged US nuclear strikes on Iran's infrastructure, I think that we need to answer the following issue:
(i) Why should Iran be denied to become a nuclear power?
(ii) Why should anyone be allowed to be a nuclear power?
(iii) What's the definition of a responsible state?
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a nutcase.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Allowed by who?Quote:
(ii) Why should anyone be allowed to be a nuclear power?
Anything on the opposite end of the spectrum from Iran and North Korea.Quote:
(iii) What's the definition of a responsible state?
Probably still cringing from when you cut their thingies off. You should know; you live there.Quote:
Originally Posted by litlewiki
Yes, I seen the newscast on Bush stating the possibility of a nuclear type of attack against Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
i: If they are promoting or supporting terrorism.
ii: to help protect against the ones that are irresponsible or trigger happy.
iii: USA :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Yeah, unfortunatlly the type of "ground penetrating" nukes that he described were never developed because congress pulled his funding for the development of them 3 or four years ago. Blahahahahaha! I wonder how he missed that one ;)
Thats the bunker busters, right?
similar concept, but bunker busters are conventional. they were trying to get one to carry a nuclear warhead but were having trouble getting it to work properly, according to some article I read a while ago (not sure of the validity of the source).I think they said something about the inital impact blast destroying the detonator on the nuke. Any way, they were for a fact trying to develop them and the funding was definatly pulled and someone forgot to tell the President :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
The detonator is the "initial impact blast" - it's supposed to be destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
not with these apparently. There is an initial blast that digs a hole and then the big explosion is supposed to happen or in the case of nukes it would be explosion, detinator implosion then kafookingboomyou'rglowingflurogreenwithapermenantorangeafro. Like I said, the article I read on how these things generally work may be incorrect. Who knows, I'm not an explosives expert. Either way, we don't have one that works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Al42
TrueQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
By the UN. Besides it's not nuclear power they are worried about, it is nuclear weapons in such a volatile region they are worried about.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
So we say, but the Bush adminsitration has hardly been very responsible in the case of Iraq.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
As has the UK, China, Russia, Israel, France, and everyone else with an nuke but no one has nuked Iraq, have they?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Didnt Iran say they were interested in WMD's a while ago? This would be another reason for the world to fear Iran becoming a nuclear power.
Not sure, but I figure Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promising to wipe Israel off the face of the planet pretty much sums it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
And what to keep them from spreading this over to other countries (rhetorical).
If proved true doesn't this violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that iran signed. And if so what would the result of that be? A disapproving scowl or something else?
Latest news: Iran have announced that they can now produce enriched uranium.
Sigh. I guess we'll just have to wait for the day now...
Ok, call your betts. I bet in exactly 31 days Israel nukes them.
Iran can enrich uranium to a strength of around 3%. Big deal.
160 (ish) centrifuges and a long long process. Uranium of this enrichment can only be used for making electricity - at a push you could make an extremely weak dirty bomb - but you couldn't make a nuclear weapon. You'd need enrichment >90% to do that, and thousands of centrigues which would easily be visible from satellite photos.
The press, generally, are making a big deal about this 'achievement' when there isn't one. Most countries in the world have the sophistication (and the technology) to create the centriguges to achieve this. I could probably build them if I owned enough land.
The focus is totally in the wrong area.
If we allow Iran to have a domestic nuclear programme (and no-one's against that?) then the problems begin from there. A by-product of a nuclear power programme is plutonium - you can't help but produce it. With plutonium you can develop all the necessary in a small house to produce powerful (10mt) weapons. I won't go into the details on how this achieved. This can clearly be done in a clandestine way and can therefore be away from satellite inspections and can easily be hidden - such plutonium could also be given to terrorists. It is easy to promote the development of nuclear weapons as a highly sophisticated achievement. This is not the case - it is, after all, simply a chemical reaction. It is the preparation, and management, of the chemicals that is difficult.
I believe that Iranian scientists are years - perhaps decades - away from developing uranium based nuclear weapons; it's the plutonium by product that you'll need to look out for.
This can be managed as it's entirely predictable how much plutonium will be produced from a given reactor; it can be measured, and thus verified, whether any plutonium is 'missing'
In my opinion - let them have their nuclear electricity programme - but insist that outside agencies manage the waste.
Should they not allow such agencies access - it is then that the other countries of the region should worry.
It should be self-evident that having a nuclear warhead and being able to deliver such a weapon to the lap of your enemies (ICBM's for instance) are two completely seperate things. Delivery is harder to develop than the weapons themselves. Controlling the entire process is harder still
This is a rational view of things.
Rationality, of course, is inversely proportional to the amount of politics involved in any given matter :)
Let's just let the babies play with their highly enriched uranium.
But that's the point. It's not highly enriched. They'd probably find it difficult to boil a pint of water let alone build a power-generation plant.Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
That is but a mere intechnicality. It's uranium and its enriched and certain countries feel uneasy about their new water boiling technology. Therefore they must be stopped.