Printable View
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.
The is a step-wise 'order of magnitudes' increase in technical difficulty of taking 3% enriched Uranium to >90% enriched.
Indeed, I have to agree with yrywddfa here. There is a huge difference between nuclear power (3% enrichment) and nuclear weapons >90% enrichment). However, they can produce plutonium weapons from the waste produced by nuclear power.
Now, look at all the press releases and statements given by the Iranian leader. "We have no interest in nuclear weapons"...no mention of interest in plutonium weapons
You don't need highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2003-02-27-make-a-nuke.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...at-cover_x.htm
You only need a source of plutonium - say, the byproduct of a civilian nuclear energy program.
If you ask me its just another excuse for western countries to show off and reinforce their power. :sick:
I think you'll find that's exactly what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
i believe that IRAN is just threatened by the other ASIAN countries that have Nukes.
ISREAL, PAKISTAN, INDIA, NORTH KOREA, RUSSIA.!
now if the usa didnt have nukes, but canada and mexico and the south america countries had them what would WE do?
"Here's something scary on the world scene. The president of Iran has announced that 'We are a nuclear country.' You know what's scary about that? The president of Iran knows how to pronounce 'nuclear'."
-David Letterman
:lol:
Nuclear weapons have been a threat since the Nagasaki/Hiroshima bombings. Not to mention the cold war between US and Russia. French Nuclear Testing at islands near Hawaii. Pakistan and India's Nuclear Testing...Hmmmmm, this nuclear thing started during World War 2..This is indeed a magnificent discovery of technological advancement but should be taken care of..
We can't just simply dictate those people to stop..They too have pride and ambition to become nuclear powers.Competition I say would be an appropriate term..The dilemma here is the main reason for producing nuclear energy..They may go public and say "We do it for good!!!"...That we don't know..
:confused: :confused:
Want to know what's going to happen with Iran?
Watch the whole 3 minutes
yep..
I don't think anyone should have a nuke... Everyone should have spoons instead - a much more peaceful weapon of mass destruction.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
Think about the forks before making ridiculous statements. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by vbNeo
heheQuote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
God no, we can't let 'em have the forks or they'd all turn into jedi and kick our ass. :)Quote:
Think about the forks
It's going to be funny when one of their guys pulls a Homer, they have a Three Mile Island, and they want help cleaning it up.
Just send in a bunch of Syrians with mops. They won't need us. And the burned guys -- let the French send doctors and supplies. They sold them the equipment.
It would be catastrophic if any religious nut gains control of nuclear warheads. But I can certainly understand Iran's point of view. After all, Iraq was invaded really because they DID NOT have WMDs. Iran is only following the North Korea tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
With their leader threatening to attack twice as hard and anywhere around the world, this shows their mentality that they are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of nuclear technology.
Yeah, they appear to be as dumb as the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Agreed :D :lol: ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by visualAd
Seems the USA is the only responsible country and is also why we always seem to have to bail out other countries from debt or war. :rolleyes: There go my hard earned tax dollars. :(
I was being serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Why because we help allot of other countries when we should be helping ourselves first just like all the other countries around the world.
The US and UK have done more to damage this planet than Iran, Iraq, China and North Korea put together.
If you mean environmentally then I may disagree. Other countries do not have emission regulations or polution control on their factories and mills. Not to mention recycling programs, hazardous waste handling, etc.
You should go to India, people burn heaps of plastic water bottles in their backyard. I was there on a dredger, we gave off some sludge (waste extracted from oils & fuels) to a bunker after which it got 'lost' (the sludge), it never gave it off at any harbour.
Who is to decide wether anyone is mature enough to kill someone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
It will always be true that poor people don't give a **** about the environment. They got personal survival issues to deal with.Quote:
Originally Posted by grilkip
The bottom line: Ignorant people will always find something to complain about, no matter what side we take. We could pour billions of dollars into helping other countries (like we have done in the past and are doing now) and somewhere it won't be appreciated... Could even be in the country we are helping.
Personally, I'm sick of all the complaining. Since the rest of the world doesn't like our actions, then let's take their advice and not do anything... I would like to see our own country protected than some arab nation that's not appreciative of the millions of dollars we've given them. If Iran starts nuking other countries, then o well. As long as it's not us, then let's stay out of it. Of course we'll get bashed for staying out of it just like we would getting into it.
I am not judging them.Quote:
Originally Posted by capsulecorpjx
Try to ignore them for a start..Quote:
In light of the breaking of the seals on nuclear facilities in Iran what should be the next step the international community takes? It seems that Europe favors a more slow step-by-step approach to the situation while the US favors a tougher reaction to the latest move by Iran.
With statements from Iran’s leader calling for the destruction of Israel and his ridiculous statements about the holocaust it is quite obvious that allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon would be quite destabilizing for the region. So I put it to you, what should the international community do about the growing problem of Iran and nuclear proliferation?
Yeah ignoring a problem always makes it go away :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by arunb
X
:sick:
I think that allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon is a big mistake , but it is not justice to talk about iran and ignor Israel which obtain nuclear weapon more than Iran so much and it represents abig deanger on whole the area!!
So, you are saying that there are other dieties out there. That's nice. Can we talk about the others? Allah is getting boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by hanysaad
I agree with the first half, but not so sure about the second half. I have listened to proponents of most major religions, and I'm not convinced that any deity is worth worshipping. Of course, I don't know them, only the people who say they follow them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moon Pie
As to Iran, I don't think there is a right answer to every question. There are plenty of wrong answers to the question of nukes, though, and I have no doubt that the world will find one eventually. I can understand the Iranian point of view. If I was in their shoes, I'd certainly be trying anything I could to make a nuke. They're sitting on the most valuable commodity in the world today, and it is just getting more valuable all the time. There are alot of powerful neighbors who have shown a willingness to help themselves over the last century or so, why would they expect to be left alone with their wealth now?
If you had a house with a REALLY valuable item in it, that everybody knew you had, would you protect it? Certainly.
So they will try to get a nuke. Will we try to stop them? Is that the best solution? At what price? There will be plenty of opinions as to what price is acceptable, and any course of action can always be defended by saying "it would have been worse had we done anything else." Thus we will do what we do, and live with the consequences. Nobody ever has to be wrong.
You have to believe they're only after nukes for self defense for that arguement, Shaggy. The whole point is that it's highly unlikely it's a purely defensive quest. And they've threatened to give the technology to some African countries etc. Can you imagine that?
There isnt any other use for nukes, the use of a nuke means instant anhialation to the country that uses it by the rest of the world, it can only be used as a last resort like when Iraq hinted at useing chemical weapons if the Americans reached Bagdad. They didnt have them but the threat was used as a last resort, know that Iran has seen what happened to Iraq they have realised that for the deterent to work everyone must KNOW they have them, not just a couple of countries suspecting they have them so they have to go all the way
In your world you have to assume that Iran will be the benevolent caretakers of this new technology and use their nukes for purely defensive purposes. One can argue given recent statements about wiping Israel off the face of the earth that this assumption cannot be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Therefore we must assume and rightfully so that if Iran gets its hands on a nuclear weapon they will use it. This must be stopped at any cost.
The problems we will face will be blocking of any action in the UN (even sanctions) by both China and Russia who have extensive interests in Iran. The countries in Europe will not have the stomach for anything other than a diplomatic solution, which will again leave the US alone with a scattered few other countries probably willing to take that military step if and when it becomes necessary. This is probably the reason why Iran is being so bold, they know they are protected by both Russia and China, and they know Europe will not back any military solution.
X
You must stop nations who will use a nuclear weapon from having them? When's the US going to give theirs up then?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
As far as the US government is concerned they invented the things and back in the 1940’s and when they were used I don’t think anyone had any idea just how terrible a weapon they really were. I personally think dropping both of those bombs were a good thing, it hastened the end of WWII and probably saved countless US lives and it showed the world the effects of this horrible weapon so that it should never be used again.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Also when you have some legitimate insight or care to share any relevant points about the present situation in Iran I would love to hear them. It’s not like you to simply offer up one-liners and cheap theatrics.
X
I think that, as like you always tell me, a lesson from history should be learnt here. Remember Oppenheimer's quote? "Now I am become Death destroyer of worlds." Somehow I don't think that he felt the damn things were as benign as you would like to make out. As I recall he was the principal in developing the weaponsQuote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
Read what I've posted here; I think I've made my stance more than clear with regard to Iran and it's nuclear program. Of which, I might add, stands (at the moment) unanswered and unargued.Quote:
Also when you have some legitimate insight or care to share any relevant points about the present situation in Iran I would love to hear them. It’s not like you to simply offer up one-liners and cheap theatrics.