Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: spacejamz
Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
a hostile government with an lunatic president bent on destroying America and has close ties to terrorist organizations that love decimating innocent people in the name of their god.

Elliptical reference to GWB? Only unintentionally, I'm sure...
<snip>

Exactly. Couldn't have described Bush better.

Please provide a quote where GWB calls for the annihilation of another country (something along the lines of "Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday lambasted Israel and Zionism and quoted the late Ayatollah Khomeini calling for Israel to be "wiped out from the map" would be perfect)....

Hope I don't have too wait too long...

Just wondering if anyone still looking for a quote that proves GWB wants to 'wipe another country off the map' ???

Who needs a quote? Bush declared three countries part of the "axis of evil" (hmmm...just like Ahmadinejad thinks Israel's regime is "evil"), then proceeded to use false evidence to invade and take over one of them (Iraq). Action speaks louder than words, don't you agree?

And so far, between the US and Iran, only one country has proven itself with its actions.

Coincidentally, the only traces of WMDs found in Iraq were the ones the US gave to Saddam.
 

will889

Golden Member
Sep 15, 2003
1,463
5
81
Oh , freakin PLZ Chckster. Look at who supposedly has their hands on the "parts". LOLZ. An organization you can trust.

 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: jpeyton

...

Coincidentally, the only traces of WMDs found in Iraq were the ones the US gave to Saddam.

Right, right......

Nuke program parts unearthed in Baghdad back yard

I mean, everyone knows centrifuges make great fertilizer... :roll:

Chuck

from your article

"The gas centrifuge equipment dates to Iraq's pre-1991 efforts to build nuclear weapons."

"U.S. officials emphasized this was not evidence Iraq had a nuclear weapon -- but it was evidence the Iraqis concealed plans to reconstitute their nuclear program as soon as the world was no longer looking."

"Obeidi told me that he never worked on a nuclear program after 1991."



This still doesnt constitute a WMD that poses an immediate threat justifing a pre-emptive invasion and strike.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
I agree, it definitely doesn't constitute a WMD.

What it does show is that Saddam had intentions of pursuing them again (or else why have and hide them???), that UN weapons inspectors mean nothing since there's no way they would have ever found this (and didn't), that WMD's or what's used to make them are rediculously easy to hide (and Iraq has got lots of ground), and that WMD equpment was found in Iraq post invasion.

So it hadn't been used in years? It was there. Saddam was not supposed to have it, period. Saddam said he didn't have it. The UN said up and down, we inspected, we inspected! Guess what? Surprise! Trusting a liar (Saddam), and a group that has a hopeless task in front of it (UN weapons inspectors), is not really good preventative policy.

I'll take proactive measures over trusting radical dictators and putting faith in the 14 resolutions and counting UN for $1000 please.

Chuck
 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Colt45

I only seem to recall one country that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war.

I echo spacejamz's reply and add that Japan directly attacekd us first, and started a war to take over the Pacific (and China). In effect, they reaped what they tried to sow.

Chuck

That's an interesting argument Chuck. Following the same logic, I'd like your opinion on two things:

1) what should Israel reap? Didn't the israelis attack the palestinians first to chase them off their land and steal everything they owned? and then proceeded to destroy everything Palestinian while keeping them in an open-air prison with ridiculous water and food resources? That's a lot of sowing.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. That's mass murdering and extreme terrorism if you ask me. I don't care if the bomb is attached on a dude's belt or not. So if you're in support of these events, then you support "terrorism" and 9/11? do you also support the suicide attacks in Israel or in the illegally occupied territories or does that call for another set of morals?
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Scary stuff. A country like Iran with a nuke should scare everyone.

As this sailor crisis is showing us, they don't play by the same rules as everyone else.
What to do about this could be a HUGE issue in the 2008 election.
link
Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material.

The development means Iran could have enough material for a nuclear bomb by 2009, sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade tell ABC News.

The sources say the unexpected expansion is taking place at Iran's nuclear enrichment plant outside the city of Natanz, in a hardened facility 70 feet underground.

A spokesperson for the United Nation's International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA, declined to comment citing the "extreme sensitivity" of the situation with Iran.

Iran has already declared its above-ground operations at Natanz have some 320 centrifuges.

The addition of 1,000 new centrifuges, which are not yet operational, means Iran is expanding its enrichment program at a pace much faster than U.S. intelligence experts had predicted.

"If they continue at this pace, and they get the centrifuges to work and actually enrich uranium on a distinct basis," said David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security, "then you're looking at them having, potentially having enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 2009."

Previous predictions by U.S. intelligence had cited 2015 as the earliest date Iran could develop a weapon.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has publicly predicted his country would have 3,000 centrifuges installed by this May, but few in the West gave his claim much credence, until now.

"I think we have all been caught off guard. Ahmadinejad said they would have these 3,000 installed by the end of May, and it appears they may actually do it," Albright said.

The new centrifuges are in open defiance of the U.N. Security Council which last week imposed a new set of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt enrichment.

Iran maintains its enrichment facilities are only meant to produce fuel for nuclear power reactors.

But the uranium they are enriching could not be used in the Russian nuclear power reactor they are currently building.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment on the details of Iran's new centrifuges but told ABC News, "This kind of expansion of Iran's centrifuge capability is why we went to the U.N. Security Council and pushed for a stronger resolution and stronger sanctions."

If they nuked anyone they would be destroyed by the world.. this is not news,
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
If they nuked anyone they would be destroyed by the world.. this is not news,
ummm nice... let's wait until they kill a hundred thousand people and then we can take action huh?

How about we prevent them from getting a nuke and then we don't have to worry about this happening.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: ElDonAntonio
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Colt45

I only seem to recall one country that has ever used a nuclear weapon in war.

I echo spacejamz's reply and add that Japan directly attacekd us first, and started a war to take over the Pacific (and China). In effect, they reaped what they tried to sow.

Chuck

That's an interesting argument Chuck. Following the same logic, I'd like your opinion on two things:

1) what should Israel reap? Didn't the israelis attack the palestinians first to chase them off their land and steal everything they owned? and then proceeded to destroy everything Palestinian while keeping them in an open-air prison with ridiculous water and food resources? That's a lot of sowing.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. That's mass murdering and extreme terrorism if you ask me. I don't care if the bomb is attached on a dude's belt or not. So if you're in support of these events, then you support "terrorism" and 9/11? do you also support the suicide attacks in Israel or in the illegally occupied territories or does that call for another set of morals?

1.) While I don't really agree with the context you've put this in, I get where you're going. I'm sure you'll be surprised to hear that I think Israel is a total cluster, and that I actually largely agree with what the Iranian president was getting at in one of his rants, in that after WWII, we should not have advocated the Jews just roll on over to Palestine and move right on in. No other religion in the world must have their own country to exist, and the Jews don't need one either. Jews in the US, Europe, Australia, etc. are existing just fine right now w/o Israel.

So in direct answer to your question, I believe Israeli's are reaping what the beginnings of the UN sowed (that includes the US) back right after WWII, and everything they've done themselves since then. Had we not devised the "Jew" situation we did way back when, the ME would be a much more calm place. That notwithstanding, Israel is here, and it is here to stay. Blowing up civilians in Israel, and other countries that have friendly ties with it (think us and Iranian embassy, USS Cole, 9/11, etc.), is also wrong. I really do believe that normal Israeli's would be willing to co-exist with Palestinians (which is the best anyone can hope for now), but their not going to do it while the suicide bombers and the terrorist groups - some financed by Iran - are helping Israel "reap". Israel is taking the first steps by taking out their settlers...and in turn for that, they got rocketed.

2.) I'm sure if Truman could do things over again, a much better solution could be found. Possibly arrange to have Japanese units a safe distance away from the blast and have them observe it. Then give them time to make their report, and then let the Emporer know that unless they unconditional surrender, their going to be getting one of those every few days.

To be fair though, we slugged it out with the Japanese for 4 long years, lost a ton of our own, for a shooting war they started. The Japanese should count themselves very lucky we didn't conduct ourselves as they did to us, populcations on the islands they held before we liberated them, and especially the Chinese (Google Rape of Nanking). So us not wasting more of our lives for a war we didn't start doesn't exactly leave me up at night.

I understand what you're saying though: That we nuked two cities killing lots of people in a nation that started a war with us, and who we both knew we were at active war with, and one that we asked surrender to before the first bomb, and then again afterwards, then the nation didn't surrender, so we nuked them again...and that somehow compares to 19 crazies hijacking 4 civilian aircraft out of the blue because they want to strike a great blow to The Great Satan (that's what they think of us), then flying 3 of them into multinational buildings of civilians.

Yeah, I can really see how that's the same. :roll:

Chuck

EDITS: Fixed typos.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
If they nuked anyone they would be destroyed by the world.. this is not news,
ummm nice... let's wait until they kill a hundred thousand people and then we can take action huh?

How about we prevent them from getting a nuke and then we don't have to worry about this happening.

We also prevented Iraq from nuking us :roll: Only $350+ billion and 3,200 lives in year 4 out of 10. What's a trillion dollars between cronies?
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
jpeyton- What's your solution then to keeping the ME non-nuclear?

Or, do you advocate the Just let'em do whatever they want, their peaceful strategy?

Chuck
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: chucky2
jpeyton- What's your solution then to keeping the ME non-nuclear?

Or, do you advocate the Just let'em do whatever they want, their peaceful strategy?

Chuck

Non-nuclear weapons, or non-nuclear power? I strongly advocate nuclear power for any nation as we move forward this century.

As for non-nuclear weapons, it's quite simple: you find evidence they are producing nuclear weapons, make them an offer they can't refuse. If there is no evidence, why run around and worry about the sky falling?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: ElDonAntonio
That's an interesting argument Chuck. Following the same logic, I'd like your opinion on two things:

1) what should Israel reap? Didn't the israelis attack the palestinians first to chase them off their land and steal everything they owned? and then proceeded to destroy everything Palestinian while keeping them in an open-air prison with ridiculous water and food resources? That's a lot of sowing.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. That's mass murdering and extreme terrorism if you ask me. I don't care if the bomb is attached on a dude's belt or not. So if you're in support of these events, then you support "terrorism" and 9/11? do you also support the suicide attacks in Israel or in the illegally occupied territories or does that call for another set of morals?
A history lesson that you desperately need.

1. It was the Arabs, Palestinian allies, who attacked Israel first. Every major war in the area against Israel was started by the Arabs through direct attack or by taking actions in preparations for attack. This pattern continues today (Hezbollah crossing the boarder and killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers.)

2. How do you compare an act committed during a war to terrorism?
And in case you don?t know, almost as many civilians were killed during the battle of Okinawa as were killed in BOTH bombings combined. Also, a February fire bombing of Tokyo killed 72,000 people, and all across Japan more people were dying due to fire bombing than died during the Atomic raids. The atomic bombs are the most talked about events at the end of the war, but they were not the most deadly.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chucky2
jpeyton- What's your solution then to keeping the ME non-nuclear?

Or, do you advocate the Just let'em do whatever they want, their peaceful strategy?

Chuck
Non-nuclear weapons, or non-nuclear power? I strongly advocate nuclear power for any nation as we move forward this century.

As for non-nuclear weapons, it's quite simple: you find evidence they are producing nuclear weapons, make them an offer they can't refuse. If there is no evidence, why run around and worry about the sky falling?
Every country that has gone nuclear, or tried to go nuclear, used nuclear power as their excuse.
This should be a sign.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chucky2
jpeyton- What's your solution then to keeping the ME non-nuclear?

Or, do you advocate the Just let'em do whatever they want, their peaceful strategy?

Chuck

Non-nuclear weapons, or non-nuclear power? I strongly advocate nuclear power for any nation as we move forward this century.

As for non-nuclear weapons, it's quite simple: you find evidence they are producing nuclear weapons, make them an offer they can't refuse. If there is no evidence, why run around and worry about the sky falling?

No, it doesn't work that way. You tell us all what your great solution is to keep the ME from going nuke weapons.

Remember, as soon as Iran gets one, everyone else wants one. The more there are, the greater likelihood with the radicals in that area will end up getting one.

Come on, here's your chance, tell us how your ideas:

Chuck

EDIT: Fixed typo.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: chucky2
No, it doesn't work that way. You tell us all what your great solution is to keep the ME from going nuke weapons.

Remember, as soon as Iran gets one, everyone else wants one. The more there are, the greater likelihood with the radicals in that area will end up getting one.

Come on, here's your chance, tell us how your ideas:

Chuck

EDIT: Fixed typo.
It doesn't work that way? So evidence isn't needed to make an accusation?
 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A history lesson that you desperately need.

1. It was the Arabs, Palestinian allies, who attacked Israel first. Every major war in the area against Israel was started by the Arabs through direct attack or by taking actions in preparations for attack.

Oh trust me I don't need any history lessons, and certainly not from you. As for "Arabs attacked Israel!", I'm sure it had nothing to do with Israeli colonists settling by force on someone else's land. So who started the hostilities now? The Palestinians had nothing to do with WW2 yet they're still paying its price.

This pattern continues today (Hezbollah crossing the boarder and killing and kidnapping Israeli soldiers.)

Hahaha you gotta be kidding me if you're complaining about people violating Israel's border. Israel doesn't even recognize its borders. Israel violates Lebanon's border everyday to fly super-sonic jets over its cities. Israel violated Lebanon's border for decades to install torture camps. Israel violates and rapes its UN border in Palestinian territories. Israel goes in Palestinian territories and destroys infrastructure for the sheer heck of it. Israel demolishes civilian homes. Israel kidnaps palestinians on a daily basis, and holds them without any trial or accusations for as long as they want. Hundreds are detained in israeli prisons without charge, and without any contact with their families. You won't make me cry for a couple kidnapped israeli soldiers.

2. How do you compare an act committed during a war to terrorism?
And in case you don?t know, almost as many civilians were killed during the battle of Okinawa as were killed in BOTH bombings combined. Also, a February fire bombing of Tokyo killed 72,000 people, and all across Japan more people were dying due to fire bombing than died during the Atomic raids. The atomic bombs are the most talked about events at the end of the war, but they were not the most deadly.

War doesn't excuse anything. Targeting of civilians is terrorism period. The point here is not about other atrocities that might've happened. You support the nuclear bombing of civilian cities, so you support terrorism. You should rethink your moral values.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Don't dodge jpeyton!

You are quick to criticize anything and everything the current Administration has, is, or will do. So here you go....no more me pulling links that demonstrate why we would never want Iran to have a nuke. Please tell the thread viewers how you would keep the ME nuke weapon free, come on, I'd love to hear your plan, as you are so extremely smart to criticize a whole Adminstration and it's staff that deals with international issues day in and day out. You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

<crickets chirping>

Chuck
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Originally posted by: chucky2
Don't dodge jpeyton!

You are quick to criticize anything and everything the current Administration has, is, or will do. So here you go....no more me pulling links that demonstrate why we would never want Iran to have a nuke. Please tell the thread viewers how you would keep the ME nuke weapon free, come on, I'd love to hear your plan, as you are so extremely smart to criticize a whole Adminstration and it's staff that deals with international issues day in and day out. You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

<crickets chirping>

Chuck

I like how the administration is currently handling it with Iran. With diplomacy, no war.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,952
8,007
136
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chucky2
jpeyton- What's your solution then to keeping the ME non-nuclear?

Or, do you advocate the Just let'em do whatever they want, their peaceful strategy?

Chuck
Non-nuclear weapons, or non-nuclear power? I strongly advocate nuclear power for any nation as we move forward this century.

As for non-nuclear weapons, it's quite simple: you find evidence they are producing nuclear weapons, make them an offer they can't refuse. If there is no evidence, why run around and worry about the sky falling?

Their trading partner North Korea just got done successfully screwing the world over nuclear proliferation. Iran has a great example to follow, you?re more than happy to give it to them.
 

ElDonAntonio

Senior member
Aug 4, 2001
967
0
0
Originally posted by: chucky2
Don't dodge jpeyton!

You are quick to criticize anything and everything the current Administration has, is, or will do. So here you go....no more me pulling links that demonstrate why we would never want Iran to have a nuke. Please tell the thread viewers how you would keep the ME nuke weapon free, come on, I'd love to hear your plan, as you are so extremely smart to criticize a whole Adminstration and it's staff that deals with international issues day in and day out. You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

<crickets chirping>

Chuck

Uhmm, the ME is already full of nuclear weapons, right in Israel. And I wouldn't trust the nuts at the head of that country any more than I trust the nuts at the head of Iran.

Also, I suspect you to be hiding nuclear warheads in your house. Please explain how I should keep your house nuclear-free without demolishing it and killing your whole family in the process.
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: jpeyton
Originally posted by: chucky2
Don't dodge jpeyton!

You are quick to criticize anything and everything the current Administration has, is, or will do. So here you go....no more me pulling links that demonstrate why we would never want Iran to have a nuke. Please tell the thread viewers how you would keep the ME nuke weapon free, come on, I'd love to hear your plan, as you are so extremely smart to criticize a whole Adminstration and it's staff that deals with international issues day in and day out. You are obviously vastly smarter than they are, so please, enlighten us on your views on how to keep Iran from gainin a nuke:

<crickets chirping>

Chuck

I like how the administration is currently handling it with Iran. With diplomacy, no war.

Except we're not handling it diplomatically really - we are not talking to Iran. You are meaning you are liking how the Adminstration is dealing with Iran via the UN I take it, correct?

For all our sakes, I hope it works out better than how the UN handled N. Koreo and Iraq. Lets all hope that the Iranian Leadership is as peaceful as you keep insinuating, else, I hope you like biking and walking, because if nukes started acutally getting popped off in the ME, the world economy is going to grind to one shuddering halt as gas pricies hit the stratosphere.

Chuck
 

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
Originally posted by: ElDonAntonio

Uhmm, the ME is already full of nuclear weapons, right in Israel. And I wouldn't trust the nuts at the head of that country any more than I trust the nuts at the head of Iran.

Also, I suspect you to be hiding nuclear warheads in your house. Please explain how I should keep your house nuclear-free without demolishing it and killing your whole family in the process.

Except Israel ain't going to go deploying what they've got unless their pushed way up against a wall. They also sure as heck won't be giving them to anyone. World confidence in Iran doing that is low for a reason.

As for my house, first, out of the 75 or so million homes in the US (I don't know the exact number, but I figure it's way up there), first I'd have to give you some reason to actually suspect me of wanting to have a nuke. Since I don't go around making crazy statements, I don't have radical elements living in my house that like to teach people to harm others, since I don't send people from my house to go over to the local school where their trying to maintain order so things can be accomplished and have them cause problems there...I guess the first question would be Why do you suspect me?

Now, if I actually was doing all those things, you'd call in the neighborhood watch right? Their infallible, act extremely speedily, and catch everything. You can totally trust that if I give them complete access to my basement, they'll find any nukes there.

Now, the one I'm working on out in my garage that no one knows about.........

Chuck
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
low for a reason?

It is the world who gave chemical weapons to a terrorist state. NOT IRAN.

 

Socio

Golden Member
May 19, 2002
1,732
2
81
Originally posted by: jpeyton
[It doesn't work that way? So evidence isn't needed to make an accusation?


They refuse to allow the IAEA to inspect and monitor all aspects in all their nuclear facilities and that lends more than enough suspicion to warrant an accusation.