Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009
- Thread starter ProfJohn
- Start date
yes a nuclear bomb Iran makes that will not even destroy a city is very scary ...not to mention it will be a big fat ball.
versus
their known stockpiles of chemical weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people and possibly millions.
Has Iran ever given anyone WMD? No
U.S? YES
So tell me why we should worry about Iran when our own country has done the very acts we are scared of Iran doing.
versus
their known stockpiles of chemical weapons that could kill hundreds of thousands of people and possibly millions.
Has Iran ever given anyone WMD? No
U.S? YES
So tell me why we should worry about Iran when our own country has done the very acts we are scared of Iran doing.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,502
- 9,724
- 136
You can thank this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
For selling North Korea, Libya, and Iran parts necessary for nuclear weapons. Specifically for nuclear weapons. He should know a thing or two, having built Pakistan?s bombs. North Korea has proven how effective that offer was, and Libya has confirmed as a second source that Khan?s deals were for nuclear weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan
For selling North Korea, Libya, and Iran parts necessary for nuclear weapons. Specifically for nuclear weapons. He should know a thing or two, having built Pakistan?s bombs. North Korea has proven how effective that offer was, and Libya has confirmed as a second source that Khan?s deals were for nuclear weapons.
Let me ask you this:
Do you believe that any sane government in the world would ever think the US would nuke Mexico, or Canads, or <insert a Central Amer. country here>?
Do you believe we would?
I'm going to have to make the huge assumption you are going to say No to both of those quesitons...and that's why I say your statements above really don't make much sense.
Be realistic in today's world, not the one from 30 years ago.
Chuck
"Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009"
Yes, I saw the same drawings. I'm still waiting for the paint-by-number documents from intel, to confirm the diabolical plans of Iran. Rumor has it, they bought some yellow cake from Pittsburg.
Yes, I saw the same drawings. I'm still waiting for the paint-by-number documents from intel, to confirm the diabolical plans of Iran. Rumor has it, they bought some yellow cake from Pittsburg.
Iran has the capability to attack whoever they want right now with chemical weapons which will be far deadlier than their junk nuclear bombs will ever be. People think nuclear weapons and major destruction. How big do you think Iran's nuclear bomb will be? It'll be a ****** bomb.
What has Iran done? Give weapons to Hezbollah?
U.S did the same crap by giving Saddam weapons which included WMD. Iran has not given anyone WMD, but the U.S has.
I do not see how anyone can label Iran a threat when the U.S has been doing the same B.S too.
It is the U.S who made it possible for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die.
Maybe if the U.S would actually talk to Iran. Then they can both apologize and they can be friends. However, the U.S lacks communication skills. Especially Bush who likes to label a nation that was trying to make connections with the U.S part of the axis of evil.
I'll assume you are being morbidly sarcastic. You can't honestly consider the Iranian regime to be a "sane" government?
5150Joker
Diamond Member
I think he was framed by the ISI who were selling the secrets themselves. If anything he was just hung out to dry. Doesn't matter, US is sharing nuclear tech with India, there's no reason countries like Pakistan and China can't do the same. Not like anyone can do anything to the latter two nuclear armed countries anyway--who also happen to have very close military ties.
Nuclear Iran doesn't scare me the least bit. I know they'll just use it as a means to ward off invasions from other countries like Israel has done.
I think Brazil or Mexico is planning to attack Iran soon; oh wait, they don't give a damn.
Edit::beer:
Edit::beer:
First, you answered neither of my questions.
The reason people are afraid of nukes is because unlike a B or C deployment, a nuke deployment will hurt as long as it's somewhat close enough...that's not even to speak of the lingering radiation for years to come. We merely had a hurricane rip through New Orleans, and look how long it's taken to start getting that city back together. What do you think the progress would be so far if someone had cooked off a nuke there? Compare that with a B or C attacK? Do you now see why letting countries that will have poor/no controls over the deployment of their nukes, plus have a track record of extremism, is bad?
For one, you nor anyone else not having real hard intelligence have absolutely no way of knowing that. Even if it's a "small" nuke, does that really matter? How large does it have to be before you will worry about it? Large enough to take out a company? Battalion? Brigade? Aircraft carrier group? City? What size nuke will you start to worry at here? A carrier group or mechanized force can drive through and out of a B or C attack, and then hopefully decontaminate...how do you do that when you're incinerated?
I watched CSPAN for like 4 hours one day, and watched Boxer or Pelosi (I cannot remember which) grill Rice about not trying to have dialouge with Syria and Iran. Rice's resposne is that she's got a standing invite with her peers in Syria and Iran to talk whenever they'd like...so I'd say our communication skills are more than adequate.
As far as being labeled the Axis of Evil, when your head of state makes crazy comments about wanting to wipe another world recognized state of the map, is pursuing nukes, and openly funds terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, would you want to label that state Axis of Peace? Axis of Goodwill? Axis of Neutrality?
I serously don't understand your interest in giving countries like Iran the benefit of the doubt? You cannot even apply the same rules to Iran as you want enact on the US's past actions...
...if Jimmy gets drunk and kills someone DUI, that doesn't mean Tommy gets a pass to do the same thing.....if you see Tommy ripped and about to get in his car and drive away, you stop him. The UN is supposed to do this, or try and be a designated driver...except they to often either hem and haw over to drive and then Tommy has already left the parking lot, or, they trust Tommy when he says he's fine, or, they just fail to show up at the bar period.
Chuck
P.S. I'm going to have to hand out in P&N more often, it's fun to de-Geek once in a while...
The reason people are afraid of nukes is because unlike a B or C deployment, a nuke deployment will hurt as long as it's somewhat close enough...that's not even to speak of the lingering radiation for years to come. We merely had a hurricane rip through New Orleans, and look how long it's taken to start getting that city back together. What do you think the progress would be so far if someone had cooked off a nuke there? Compare that with a B or C attacK? Do you now see why letting countries that will have poor/no controls over the deployment of their nukes, plus have a track record of extremism, is bad?
For one, you nor anyone else not having real hard intelligence have absolutely no way of knowing that. Even if it's a "small" nuke, does that really matter? How large does it have to be before you will worry about it? Large enough to take out a company? Battalion? Brigade? Aircraft carrier group? City? What size nuke will you start to worry at here? A carrier group or mechanized force can drive through and out of a B or C attack, and then hopefully decontaminate...how do you do that when you're incinerated?
Yes. You view that as a marginal thing...interesting...
This is impossible...I'm sure you'd be the first to point out Saddam had no WMD, hence our President, the Legislative that also approved force, many folks out in the rest of the world, saying/believing Saddam had WMD or was near to having them, which caused us to go into Iraq without cause, were wrong, right?
I actually somewhat agree with you here...our hands are not clean throughout the rest of the world.
First, I highly doubt we gave Iraq C weapons to actually use on Iran...more like we gave them to Iraq as a deterrant, much like our standoff with the USSR. The difference being the USSR and US have actual safeguards we follow so one wacko cannot cause us all to burn, unlike Mr. Saddam and Iran. Second, we did not launch C weapons on Iran, Iraq did that. Your argument is like saying firearms manufacturers and gun store owners should be held accuontable for the misuse of firearms be the owners of them...you cannot possible think that could you???? Please say No...
I watched CSPAN for like 4 hours one day, and watched Boxer or Pelosi (I cannot remember which) grill Rice about not trying to have dialouge with Syria and Iran. Rice's resposne is that she's got a standing invite with her peers in Syria and Iran to talk whenever they'd like...so I'd say our communication skills are more than adequate.
As far as being labeled the Axis of Evil, when your head of state makes crazy comments about wanting to wipe another world recognized state of the map, is pursuing nukes, and openly funds terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, would you want to label that state Axis of Peace? Axis of Goodwill? Axis of Neutrality?
I serously don't understand your interest in giving countries like Iran the benefit of the doubt? You cannot even apply the same rules to Iran as you want enact on the US's past actions...
...if Jimmy gets drunk and kills someone DUI, that doesn't mean Tommy gets a pass to do the same thing.....if you see Tommy ripped and about to get in his car and drive away, you stop him. The UN is supposed to do this, or try and be a designated driver...except they to often either hem and haw over to drive and then Tommy has already left the parking lot, or, they trust Tommy when he says he's fine, or, they just fail to show up at the bar period.
Chuck
P.S. I'm going to have to hand out in P&N more often, it's fun to de-Geek once in a while...
judasmachine
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2002
- 8,515
- 3
- 81
Sorry about that...what I way trying to get at is that no other sane government on earth believes the US would deploy a nuke without us (I'm American) having just an overwhelming reason to. I say sane because there's the Iranian presidents of the world out there, who just live it seems in another world...one which hopefully is rapidly drawing to a close
I truly believe no rational person would say the same for Iran, N. Korea, etc.
Chuck
Why would the UK apologize for having their people abducted in Iraqi waters and imprisoned in Iran?
Why would they ever do that????
Chuck
Why would the UK apologize for having their people abducted in Iraqi waters and imprisoned in Iran?
Why would they ever do that????
Why would US forces not detain anyone in Iraq suspected of helping insurgents?
Why would we ever not do that?
Chuck
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,041
- 14,446
- 146
I just hope that the intel behind thos is at least MARGINALLY better than the intel that sent us into Iraq...Remember?
Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld (30 March 2003, to ABC's George Stephanopoulos):
"we know where they [the weapons] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld, speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (27 May 2003):
"Now if the speed and the way that plan was executed surprised them, it may very well be that they didn't have time to blow the dams, or use chemical weapons. It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict. I don't know the answer. And I suspect we'll find out a lot more [...] It's a country the size of California. It is not as though we've managed to look everyplace. There are hundreds and hundreds of suspect chemical or biological or nuclear sites that have not been investigated as yet. It'll take time. [...] We do know that they bury things. They bury things all over the country. They've buried airplanes. They've buried tanks. They've buried weapons."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." ? President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ? President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
"We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." ? Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." ? Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
Let's just hope we're not being fed more of the same...
Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld (30 March 2003, to ABC's George Stephanopoulos):
"we know where they [the weapons] are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
Donald Rumsfeld, speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (27 May 2003):
"Now if the speed and the way that plan was executed surprised them, it may very well be that they didn't have time to blow the dams, or use chemical weapons. It is also possible that they decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict. I don't know the answer. And I suspect we'll find out a lot more [...] It's a country the size of California. It is not as though we've managed to look everyplace. There are hundreds and hundreds of suspect chemical or biological or nuclear sites that have not been investigated as yet. It'll take time. [...] We do know that they bury things. They bury things all over the country. They've buried airplanes. They've buried tanks. They've buried weapons."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program ... Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment need for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." ? President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002, in Cincinnati.
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." ? President Bush, Jan.28, 2003, in the State of the Union address.
"We believe [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." ? Vice President Cheney on March 16, 2003 on "Meet the Press."
"Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent. That is enough to fill 16,000 battlefield rockets." ? Secretary of State Colin Powell, Feb. 5 2003, in remarks to the UN Security Council.
Let's just hope we're not being fed more of the same...
I'd hope so too BoomerD...given that we had very little intelligence assets in Iraq or Iran pre-Iraq war (and I'm sure we still have little inside Iran, but most likely more than we had before the war), it's sort of hard to say.
Anyone that has a job that requires decisions to be made in advance of actual total knowledge knows that you go on what info you have, what you believe will happen, input from Subject Matter Experts, etc. I can't wait at my job to have every i dotted and every t crossed before making a decision, it's simply too late at that point.
When planes are flying into the World Trade Center, you've reached your decision point. It's time to gather what you know, and act on the likely path.
People can argue that going into Iraq was a mistake, and that's fine. But they have the luxuy and roll of not being responsible for the next 9/11, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, etc. At some point, you have to do something...inaction is just as dangerous as action sometimes.
Chuck
P.S. It's interesting you used Administration quotes...where are you Senator quotes from Kerry, Clinton, etc? The vote was 49-1 was it not?
Anyone that has a job that requires decisions to be made in advance of actual total knowledge knows that you go on what info you have, what you believe will happen, input from Subject Matter Experts, etc. I can't wait at my job to have every i dotted and every t crossed before making a decision, it's simply too late at that point.
When planes are flying into the World Trade Center, you've reached your decision point. It's time to gather what you know, and act on the likely path.
People can argue that going into Iraq was a mistake, and that's fine. But they have the luxuy and roll of not being responsible for the next 9/11, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, etc. At some point, you have to do something...inaction is just as dangerous as action sometimes.
Chuck
P.S. It's interesting you used Administration quotes...where are you Senator quotes from Kerry, Clinton, etc? The vote was 49-1 was it not?
Good thing as well as the rest of the world is apparently oblivious to the threat. Imagine if Israel took the lefts stance in 1981 and let Saddam continue on his nuclear program? Imagine the shatstorm in 1991 when they invaded Kuwait and held the Arabian penninsula at nuclear gunpoint?
Nice fearmongering. The part the authors forgot to mention is the IAEA inspectors onsite at Natanz, monitoring the input and output of nuclear materials. They're also onsite at every other declared nuclear facility in Iran, and they've witnessed no diversion of materials...
Basically, if the inspectors weren't there, if the bugs are worked out, and if the enrichment process were used exclusively for the production of HEU, then the Iranians *might* be able to produce a single weapon by 2009.
The first "if" squelches the whole scenario- IAEA inspectors *are* there, doing their job. Unless, of course, the Bush incompetents are willing to claim that the IAEA is equally incompetent...
What the Bush faction does well is to deceive. They created a rationale for the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq from the ashes of 9/11, even though the two were completely unrelated. But that still hasn't sunk in for many- Witness chucky2's post, above, and the whole "gotta do something, even if it's wrong" headset.
It plays right into the hands of real extremists, whose stated plans are to provoke the US into acts of stupidity that will inflame the whole muslim world to stand against us. With the Bushistas at the helm, and their fanbois lockstepping behind, looks like that'll be easy as taking candy from a baby...
Basically, if the inspectors weren't there, if the bugs are worked out, and if the enrichment process were used exclusively for the production of HEU, then the Iranians *might* be able to produce a single weapon by 2009.
The first "if" squelches the whole scenario- IAEA inspectors *are* there, doing their job. Unless, of course, the Bush incompetents are willing to claim that the IAEA is equally incompetent...
What the Bush faction does well is to deceive. They created a rationale for the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq from the ashes of 9/11, even though the two were completely unrelated. But that still hasn't sunk in for many- Witness chucky2's post, above, and the whole "gotta do something, even if it's wrong" headset.
It plays right into the hands of real extremists, whose stated plans are to provoke the US into acts of stupidity that will inflame the whole muslim world to stand against us. With the Bushistas at the helm, and their fanbois lockstepping behind, looks like that'll be easy as taking candy from a baby...
Like I said above Jhhnn, I think it's fine you make that argument, it's just as valid as anyone else's...except you have that luxury, Bush and whoever the next president of the US is does/will not.
It's interesting in that if we applied your logic to WWII, we would have never engaged Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor, nor joined the UK in the fight against Hitler. People advocating that would be Rooseveltistas and play right into him pushing for us to enter WWII right? The waiting and benefit of the doubt you give the extremists today, how would that have played out back in WWII? And that's with a clear enemy in known geographies...
...how long do you wait and do nothing in today's world? Past presidents have done that, finishing with Clinton...which awarded us 9/11...
What number of next events should we wait for the count to reach before acting? Do you really trust the Iranian government and UN weapons inspectors competency (and access)? Do you trust the "good intentions" the Iranian government has showed in Iraq (land and sea)? Do you trust the terrorists if we do nothing to say, Oh look, the US has been really hands off the past 2 years, we'll disband and not attack Western civs anymore.
What's your plan for when Iran actually goes nuclear? When the rest of the states in the region then start rushing themselves to even it up?
It seems you have complete faith in the UN weapons inspectors, the Iranian government, and the terrorists, yet none in the US or UK governments, even though they've already stopped repeat attacks.
Try getting off the hate Bush fanatical bandwagon and start looking at the big long term picture...it's not so rosy, and it ain't because of Bush/Blair...
Chuck
It's interesting in that if we applied your logic to WWII, we would have never engaged Japan after they attacked Pearl Harbor, nor joined the UK in the fight against Hitler. People advocating that would be Rooseveltistas and play right into him pushing for us to enter WWII right? The waiting and benefit of the doubt you give the extremists today, how would that have played out back in WWII? And that's with a clear enemy in known geographies...
...how long do you wait and do nothing in today's world? Past presidents have done that, finishing with Clinton...which awarded us 9/11...
What number of next events should we wait for the count to reach before acting? Do you really trust the Iranian government and UN weapons inspectors competency (and access)? Do you trust the "good intentions" the Iranian government has showed in Iraq (land and sea)? Do you trust the terrorists if we do nothing to say, Oh look, the US has been really hands off the past 2 years, we'll disband and not attack Western civs anymore.
What's your plan for when Iran actually goes nuclear? When the rest of the states in the region then start rushing themselves to even it up?
It seems you have complete faith in the UN weapons inspectors, the Iranian government, and the terrorists, yet none in the US or UK governments, even though they've already stopped repeat attacks.
Try getting off the hate Bush fanatical bandwagon and start looking at the big long term picture...it's not so rosy, and it ain't because of Bush/Blair...
Chuck
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter