- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,265
- 126
When was it that Iranian terrorists attacked us, anyway?
Maybe they are practicing on Azerbaijan first.
When was it that Iranian terrorists attacked us, anyway?
So what if they have them?
It's not like they could use them.
If they did it would be the last thing they ever do.
Pretty much sums it up
No, but keeping up the farce of our current "security" is a slap in the face to anyone with half a brain. I'm simply arguing for a reality check. We are either going to do something about it or we're going to pretend to do something about it. It's obviously not the former in either case, so we are left with the latter. It's simply a sham intended to assuage the anxiety of the zombie masses at an enormous cost.
They don't need to use them because there's no need. All they have to do is intimidate or threaten or attack conventionally with the confidence that a nuclear poison pill gives. Anything goes.
They don't need to use them because there's no need. All they have to do is intimidate or threaten or attack conventionally with the confidence that a nuclear poison pill gives. Anything goes.
They only problem with that argument is that Iran claims it does not want nukes. They have repeatedly proclaimed the capabilities are for purely nuclear power generation and nothing more.And isn't Israel doing that right now?
If you're Iran, you look at your neighbors on either side, and say to yourself "gee, would they have invaded either country if they had nuclear weapons?" And then you look at the US and Israeli threats. How would it be rational if they didn't want nukes?
And isn't Israel doing that right now?
If you're Iran, you look at your neighbors on either side, and say to yourself "gee, would they have invaded either country if they had nuclear weapons?" And then you look at the US and Israeli threats. How would it be rational if they didn't want nukes?
When was it that Iranian terrorists attacked us, anyway?
And isn't Israel doing that right now? -- thats just assinine! NO Israel is not using any nuclear weapons they might have as a means to influence or intimidate other countries.
If you're Iran, you look at your neighbors on either side, and say to yourself "gee, would they have invaded either country if they had nuclear weapons?" And then you look at the US and Israeli threats. How would it be rational if they didn't want nukes?
It's only a matter of time before we have another terrorist attack. Should we make it easier?
When was it that Iranian terrorists attacked us, anyway?
As usual trying to derail the thread with a meaningless bloviation...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------One other thing- LL will tell you that Israel is a pipsqueak of a nation who exists only because it has nukes. Without them Israel would already be gone.
Contrast that with Iran who had a major problem in the form of Saddam, but he's exited our reality and Iraq is no threat. That's another difference between the two. The Saudis for example won't attack Iran or the reverse even though they can't stand each other. One has no great advantage over the other. That would change with a nuclear Iran and if they had nukes then everyone else would be seeking the same. Doesn't sound like a good thing to me.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Haybasusa, I take some offense at anyone distorting my position. Numerically Israel is a very tiny country, but mainly thanks to the arms they have the best army and air force in the mid-east. And able in fact, Israel can defeat all their neighbors combined. So obviously Israel does not need any nukes to survive.
After that Hayabasusa, IMHO, I find your analysis rather shallow, if Iran is going to go all nuclear electric, its going to take decades to refine enough uranium to fuel all the required reactors. After that Iran is already talking about supplying electricity to its neighbors, and if they want reactors of their own, Iran will be able to fuel it. To a large extent, nuclear reactors may be the only answer for arid and semi arid regions, because it takes a tremendous amount of energy to desalinate sea water.
I haven't the time to address the first, but if Iran wants to use the most common form of reactor and doesn't play games with inspections then it looks like the 5+1 will let them enrich to what is needed.
So you're saying that...
I am saying that Iran is purposefully working towards the creation of nuclear weapons. IMO, it would be stupid for them to do anything but that.
Are you saying they are NOT working towards the creation of nuclear weapons?
You're stating your opinion as fact, and attempted to equate a minor production purity overrun with deliberate creation of weapons grade material of a much, much higher purity. That's dishonest.
You're trying to build your usual strawman, too. I'm in no position to accurately gauge Iranian intentions, nor are you. What I'm confident about is that nuclear weapons cannot exist w/o weapons grade materials, and that there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has ever created any significant amounts of it. Ongoing IAEA efforts assure us of that, and serve to keep Iran honest in that regard, even if they might act differently under other circumstances.
Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?I think you are just overlooking the point cybrsage is trying to make. From his (and, for that matter all of our) knowledge, 27% vs 20% is not as insignificant as it may numerically seem. I don't mean to speak for him, but based on the aforementioned understanding, I think he is arguing that it is plausible to think that Iran did this purposefully. With that in mind, it is still at levels where plausible deniability is legitimate. Honestly, if Iran would simply allow IAEA inspectors access at the times they request, they could really calm tensions. As it stands, they refuse to allow the aforementioned access and when they do, higher grade Uranium is found which increases suspicions and tensions with all parties. That leaves us where we are now... arguing about something where only they have the absolute truth. -GP
They probably did make a mistake and it's going to cost them now. Those poor people can't even have nuclear energy.
Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?
I think you are just overlooking the point cybrsage is trying to make. From his (and, for that matter all of our) knowledge, 27% vs 20% is not as insignificant as it may numerically seem.
Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?
You're stating your opinion as fact, and attempted to equate a minor production purity overrun with deliberate creation of weapons grade material of a much, much higher purity. That's dishonest.
You're stating your opinion as fact, and attempted to equate a minor production purity overrun with deliberate creation of weapons grade material of a much, much higher purity. That's dishonest.
You're trying to build your usual strawman, too. I'm in no position to accurately gauge Iranian intentions, nor are you. What I'm confident about is that nuclear weapons cannot exist w/o weapons grade materials, and that there is no evidence to suggest that Iran has ever created any significant amounts of it. Ongoing IAEA efforts assure us of that, and serve to keep Iran honest in that regard, even if they might act differently under other circumstances.
They probably did make a mistake and it's going to cost them now. Those poor people can't even have nuclear energy.
Why would Iran attack us even if they had nuclear weapons?
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/25/2817623/un-agency-finds-higher-enrichment.html
This isn't "oops we must have forgot to shut the thing off". It takes deliberate effort to make what was found and its completely unnecessary for any reactor.
This warrants a closer look.