StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
You are right they have existing tech to go off of but if I had my pick I'd choose Russian, not NK rockets.
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Why are we even worried about this. They just accomplished what we were able to do in 4 years in the manhattan project during WWII 60+ years ago......
Uhhh to0 late to enter predictions when the answer is already posted on news sites.
Because insane dictators having access to nuclear weapons is something to be worried about, regardless if the tech is "60+ years" old...it is still devastating.
There is no evidence of weaponized nuclear capabilities so you should put your jump to conclusions mat away. Plus the fact IRAN probably values its existence more than its desire to build, use or threaten to use nukes.
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
well done.
I'm actually grateful than it was nothing more than their usual rhetoric and chest-pounding. Given what I do for a living, it allows me to breath a little sigh of relief...
So they can enrich uranium to 20%? And he says they have the "capability" to enrich it to 80% or beyond. Are they going to make a new announcement at every 5% increment? This is pretty foolish, IMO, to announce this. It is a veiled kind of deterrent threat. Except you don't make a deterrent threat before you can make the weapon. The world isn't supposed to know until you test one. This is really just an invitation for a bombing, IMO. It's like painting a target on yourself.
- wolf
- wolf
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
While we deride Iran for talking or feeling froggie, Israel and the USA are talking in exactly the same language and dialect.
Where does this stinking thinking come from, that anything that is good for Iran is bad for everyone else? When its the right and duty of all nations to act in their own self interests.
Meanwhile, Iran has been every right to be totally paranoid and threatened after they threw out an American and British imposed Shah. And had to beg for the arms to defend themselves when an American sponsored Iraq attacked them in the late 80's.
And had to endure a Dick Cheney always whispering in GWB's ear, you will be a failed President is you don't take on Iran.
And now Iran is embarking on getting a peace time nuclear electrical generation program on a massive scale. And that is going to take a tremendous amount of lowly enriched U235 to power all the planned reactors. Or so goes the Iranian stated intentions.
While the USA and Israel, already massive nuclear powers already, scream Iran wants a bomb, Iran wants a bomb, the sky is falling, and its the end of the world. Really based on simple paranoia and no evidence. Simply because Iran might have that potential to much later develop nuclear weapons, and then, gasp, would better be able to defend itself.
Meanwhile Iran and the West can't communicate with each over anything other than a frog paranoia dialect no rational person can understand. And rather than talk about an actual program to fuel nuclear reactors to generate only electrical power and make sure the design is unfavorable to use as a breeder reactor, we can only squabble about a tiny side issue of fueling one small and tiny Iranian reactor for medical purposes.
When we use the brains of frogs to only talk about tiny side issues, and totally ignore the big issues, why should we be surprised when both sides act froggie.
Besides in terms of possible nuclear proliferation, Iran is only the tip of the iceberg, because a pile of other nations have already petitioned the IAEA to start their own peacetime nuclear electrical power generation programs. A right every nation has under the UN charter.
But if we want to ask what happens when bad nations go rouge, we can also ask what happens when good nations go rouge. Remember Iraq when Saddam Huessein was our guy in the mid-east, remember Rumsfeld shaking his hand and saying we will help you get armaments and poison gas. But when ole Saddam double dealt with the Russians, he got demoted to tin pot dictator status.
But in terms of Iran, maybe if the USA lost this what ever is good for Iran is bad for us mindset, we might just find some common intertests.
Where does this stinking thinking come from, that anything that is good for Iran is bad for everyone else? When its the right and duty of all nations to act in their own self interests.
Meanwhile, Iran has been every right to be totally paranoid and threatened after they threw out an American and British imposed Shah. And had to beg for the arms to defend themselves when an American sponsored Iraq attacked them in the late 80's.
And had to endure a Dick Cheney always whispering in GWB's ear, you will be a failed President is you don't take on Iran.
And now Iran is embarking on getting a peace time nuclear electrical generation program on a massive scale. And that is going to take a tremendous amount of lowly enriched U235 to power all the planned reactors. Or so goes the Iranian stated intentions.
While the USA and Israel, already massive nuclear powers already, scream Iran wants a bomb, Iran wants a bomb, the sky is falling, and its the end of the world. Really based on simple paranoia and no evidence. Simply because Iran might have that potential to much later develop nuclear weapons, and then, gasp, would better be able to defend itself.
Meanwhile Iran and the West can't communicate with each over anything other than a frog paranoia dialect no rational person can understand. And rather than talk about an actual program to fuel nuclear reactors to generate only electrical power and make sure the design is unfavorable to use as a breeder reactor, we can only squabble about a tiny side issue of fueling one small and tiny Iranian reactor for medical purposes.
When we use the brains of frogs to only talk about tiny side issues, and totally ignore the big issues, why should we be surprised when both sides act froggie.
Besides in terms of possible nuclear proliferation, Iran is only the tip of the iceberg, because a pile of other nations have already petitioned the IAEA to start their own peacetime nuclear electrical power generation programs. A right every nation has under the UN charter.
But if we want to ask what happens when bad nations go rouge, we can also ask what happens when good nations go rouge. Remember Iraq when Saddam Huessein was our guy in the mid-east, remember Rumsfeld shaking his hand and saying we will help you get armaments and poison gas. But when ole Saddam double dealt with the Russians, he got demoted to tin pot dictator status.
But in terms of Iran, maybe if the USA lost this what ever is good for Iran is bad for us mindset, we might just find some common intertests.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Israel might not be so paranoid about Iran and therefore infecting other nations, IF, Iran would stop sponsoring the terrorist organizations and states that want to destroy Israel.
Iran's rhetoric has been to challenge the Western world.
Iraq tried the same (playing a poker game and bluffing) and look what happened to it.
Iran has let Islam and their leaders bring the country to the precipice. Hopefully it does not fall over it.
Iran's rhetoric has been to challenge the Western world.
Iraq tried the same (playing a poker game and bluffing) and look what happened to it.
Iran has let Islam and their leaders bring the country to the precipice. Hopefully it does not fall over it.
why not? the western world drew first blood first by overthrowing iran's established democracy.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
you're not thinking far back enough. go back about 2300 years before that and you'll be in about the right century.
as mosaddegh once said, 'it all started with that greek alexander'
SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
- Feb 15, 2006
- 2,422
- 3
- 76
Great, kindergarten level politics. Who has rights and who started first. The thing is simple: it is not in the interest of US, Israel or another Western country to have a nuclear Iran. Nothing to gain, much to lose, that's why it should be brought down - for Israelis, for Westerners, for other Arabs and for the Iranian people themselves who can forget any chance of outside intervention in their favor after Iran is nuclear armed. No one is going to gain anything other than the Iranian regime. In essence, you are protecting their right to be invincible, the same people who execute protesters. If only your mother saw you now.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Blood has been drawn many times from both sides.
The issue is:
Does Iran want to continue to be a martyr, pariah, outsider and continue to live under the threat; OR
soften their rhetoric and become a welcomed member of the world community.
SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
- Feb 15, 2006
- 2,422
- 3
- 76
So by the same logic I assume that every time someone calls to crack down on drug dealers you propose him to join the police force?
Maybe I just misunderstood you, and you actually propose that the troops will be the one running foreign policy. Help me here, I'm lost.
SamurAchzar
Platinum Member
- Feb 15, 2006
- 2,422
- 3
- 76
They obviously aren't looking for that. It's much easier to keep your population under control when you have the Zionist boogieman.
Why would a failed country such as Iran look for a direct clash course with the world instead of focusing on its economy and growth? Why would it sponsor organizations fighting the wars of others (or creating wars of their own) and threat other nations nearly weekly?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
i suggest you look up some of the big tenets of twelver theology (quick answer: yes)
frankly its amazing that a bunch of twelvers decided it was ok to be the .gov.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter