Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: palehorse
..I'm also completed opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Why?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: palehorse
..I'm also completed opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Why?

To keep his lifetime membership to AIPAC.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I said specifically, not broadly. If you don't want to take out the time to type the details to sub state your argument, so be it, but I have no interest in addressing such vagary.

How much more details do you need.

Everyone else on the board knows what the dates/incidents refer to.

You asked about first strikes against Israel and I listed the dates that it happened
For dates that may have been vague, I also listed the incident.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse
As of right now, there are still other options.

What are they?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Brovane


Lets not forget that after a nuclear strike on Israeli by Iran. Iran would be wiped off the map. Completely. There are some estimates showing Israeli with a nuclear arsenal of over 100+ warheads with the capability to deliver them to Iran. Also Israeli has ABM capability against the type of Ballistic missiles that Iran would use to deliver the weapon. Imagine the embarrassment for Iran if it launched a Ballistic missile at Israeli with a nuclear warhead and it was shot down.

A couple things.
Iran does not have a missile that can deliver a Uranium type bomb. Weights are in the 4Ton range and the last missile test they had could barely lift 1 ton.

It would only take 1 warhead from the current class of weapons to make Iran a useless chunk of real estate. Current warheads can easily kill for hundreds of miles. Where as Hiroshima was only deadly for about 2-3 miles. If we know how to do anything , it is destroy stuff.

A current nuclear warhead is not going to kill for hundreds of miles. Basically with a explosion just because the power doubles doesn't mean the area doubles. The destructive power of a nuclear device is distrusted in 3 dimensions. So the destructive power of a device observers a inverse square law in relation to distance from the target. As you circle of damage gets bigger it requires more and more explosive power to increase your damage area. That is why most nuclear weapons are less than 500 kiloton. It is better to have a MIRV with 10 500 kiloton warheads than to have 1 10 Megaton warhead. A 1 megaton device isn't 100 times as destructive as 10 kiloton device it is 10 times more destructive. That is why a majority of strategic weapons are 200-400 kilotons in power. Also the reason that nuclear devices jumped so much in power is that they are Fusion dual stage weapons with a fission reaction that starts a fusion explosion. I doubt either Iran or Israeli for that matter have access to Fusion weapons. That requires a lot of testing which is a very large Neon sign going off that says look at me I am developing nuclear weapons.

Yields also shrank from the megaton range due to much increased guidance system accuracy. If you can drop a 150-500kt warhead onto a target with an accuracy below say 150M CEP you simply don't need the the extra power and you increase efficency.

I don't think it would be a stretch at all to say that Israel has thermonuclear and ER weapons. The physics of these devices are certainly not beyond their capability and they have the nuclear industry to furnish the materials required on a continuing basis.

 

[halik]

You guys do know that their Ayatollah (s?p) has issued a fatwa that building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons is haram, right?

I can't escape the feeling that all this iran/weapons stuff is yet another neocon circle masturbation plan.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: halik
You guys do know that their Ayatollah (s?p) has issued a fatwa that building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons is haram, right?
I can't escape the feeling that all this iran/weapons stuff is yet another neocon circle masturbation plan.

The only people that can compete with politicians as liars are religious leaders.

When they are one in the same watch the fuck out.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: halik
You guys do know that their Ayatollah (s?p) has issued a fatwa that building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons is haram, right?
I can't escape the feeling that all this iran/weapons stuff is yet another neocon circle masturbation plan.

The only people that can compete with politicians as liars are religious leaders.

When they are one in the same watch the fuck out.

Two things: I thought that Iran's gov't is very intermingled with the religion, so I'm not sure how they could get away with doing this w/o his knowledge.

And also more importantly I'd imagine that going against an ayatollah's fatwa, when their whole legal system is based on sharia, would be very bad juju.

Think about it - why would the guy issue a fatwa when he knows we wouldn't believe him and he'd lose all credibility with the people that do believe him (iranians) if it turns out he's full of it. He's got nothing to gain by it, which is why I think this "OMG BE SCURRED OF TEH IRAN" is yet another neocon fantasy of turning middle east into america junior (cue in the family guy scene).

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: halik
You guys do know that their Ayatollah (s?p) has issued a fatwa that building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons is haram, right?
I can't escape the feeling that all this iran/weapons stuff is yet another neocon circle masturbation plan.

The only people that can compete with politicians as liars are religious leaders.

When they are one in the same watch the fuck out.

Two things: I thought that Iran's gov't is very intermingled with the religion, so I'm not sure how they could get away with doing this w/o his knowledge.

And also more importantly I'd imagine that going against an ayatollah's fatwa, when their whole legal system is based on sharia, would be very bad juju.

Think about it - why would the guy issue a fatwa when he knows we wouldn't believe him and he'd lose all credibility with the people that do believe him (iranians) if it turns out he's full of it. He's got nothing to gain by it, which is why I think this "OMG BE SCURRED OF TEH IRAN" is yet another neocon fantasy of turning middle east into america junior (cue in the family guy scene).

Khamenei and a few others really run the country, any nuclear program under development could not proceed without their express direction. As he is the one that issues the fatwas he can rescind them at will. Not exactly what I'd call a huge impediment to a nuclear capability.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: halik
You guys do know that their Ayatollah (s?p) has issued a fatwa that building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons is haram, right?
I can't escape the feeling that all this iran/weapons stuff is yet another neocon circle masturbation plan.

The only people that can compete with politicians as liars are religious leaders.

When they are one in the same watch the fuck out.

It always seems like critics of Iran try to have it both ways on this. When it suits their purposes they scream "Iran is run by religious fanatics! There's no reasoning with them!". Then in cases like this, where they have issued clear religious edicts on the issue, now they are suddenly wily politicians.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I said specifically, not broadly. If you don't want to take out the time to type the details to substanciate[-edit] your argument, so be it, but I have no interest in addressing such vagary.

How much more details do you need.

Everyone else on the board knows what the dates/incidents refer to.

You asked about first strikes against Israel and I listed the dates that it happened
For dates that may have been vague, I also listed the incident.

I don't need any more details, but I am not going put effort into addressing your arguments unless you are willing to put the effort into fleshing them out, meaning filling in all of the five Ws. Granted, if you bothered to include all that, you'd tear down much of your argument yourself.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: halik
You guys do know that their Ayatollah (s?p) has issued a fatwa that building, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons is haram, right?
I can't escape the feeling that all this iran/weapons stuff is yet another neocon circle masturbation plan.

The only people that can compete with politicians as liars are religious leaders.

When they are one in the same watch the fuck out.

It always seems like critics of Iran try to have it both ways on this. When it suits their purposes they scream "Iran is run by religious fanatics! There's no reasoning with them!". Then in cases like this, where they have issued clear religious edicts on the issue, now they are suddenly wily politicians.

It's usually prerequisite almost for any major religious leader to be a wily politician. Fortunately most of the world has come to it's senses about them being all powerful heads of state or having direct leverage on the mechanisms of government.

 

[kylebisme]

Sure, which is why our leaders never invoke God to rally support for their cause.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Sure, which is why our leaders never invoke God to rally support for their cause.

Has someone made one of our presidents an infallible/unquestionable head of a major religion?

Perhaps I haven't been watching the news closely enough.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It always seems like critics of Iran try to have it both ways on this. When it suits their purposes they scream "Iran is run by religious fanatics! There's no reasoning with them!". Then in cases like this, where they have issued clear religious edicts on the issue, now they are suddenly wily politicians.

It's usually prerequisite almost for any major religious leader to be a wily politician. Fortunately most of the world has come to it's senses about them being all powerful heads of state or having direct leverage on the mechanisms of government.

Well that wasn't really my point though. People accuse them of being irrational fanatics beholden to their extreme religious views one minute, and then the next assume that they won't abide by fatwas issued by their supreme leader. Either they are irrational fanatics, or they aren't.

It has always seemed pretty clear to me that the clerics in charge of Iran are not fanatics, but rational actors. This leads me to believe that they will pursue nuclear weapons despite the fatwa, but they will also not use them once they develop them... because the people in charge over there aren't insane.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: palehorse
..I'm also completed opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Why?

because it is clear to most of the world that Iran doesnt want nuclear capabilities just for power.

they call for the destruction of Israel and fund Hezbollah and Hamas with smuggled weapons.

secondly, they are not even following the IAEA's rules for building anything

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: palehorse
..I'm also completed opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Why?

because it is clear to most of the world that Iran doesnt want nuclear capabilities just for power.

they call for the destruction of Israel and fund Hezbollah and Hamas with smuggled weapons.

secondly, they are not even following the IAEA's rules for building anything

Well do you think Iran would use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel? Do you think having such a weapon would cause Iran to undertake other activities that it would not otherwise undertake to attack Israel? If so, what actions? Also, what does their funding of Hezbollah and Hamas have to do with nukes? Are you saying you think Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations? (because there's no way in hell they would)

Finally, I sincerely doubt that your objections to Iran's nuclear weapons program has to do with the sanctity of the IAEA's rule set.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: eskimospy

It always seems like critics of Iran try to have it both ways on this. When it suits their purposes they scream "Iran is run by religious fanatics! There's no reasoning with them!". Then in cases like this, where they have issued clear religious edicts on the issue, now they are suddenly wily politicians.

It's usually prerequisite almost for any major religious leader to be a wily politician. Fortunately most of the world has come to it's senses about them being all powerful heads of state or having direct leverage on the mechanisms of government.

Well that wasn't really my point though. People accuse them of being irrational fanatics beholden to their extreme religious views one minute, and then the next assume that they won't abide by fatwas issued by their supreme leader. Either they are irrational fanatics, or they aren't.

It has always seemed pretty clear to me that the clerics in charge of Iran are not fanatics, but rational actors. This leads me to believe that they will pursue nuclear weapons despite the fatwa, but they will also not use them once they develop them... because the people in charge over there aren't insane.

I've always regarded the possibility of Iran making a first strike against another nation to be pretty low. As a matter of preference I'd rather not have a nuclear Iran but I don't consider it to be the end of the world. Their system of leadership and the how heavily intertwined with religion it is causes me more concern than the governments of other nuclear armed states.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
I said specifically, not broadly. If you don't want to take out the time to type the details to substanciate[-edit] your argument, so be it, but I have no interest in addressing such vagary.

How much more details do you need.

Everyone else on the board knows what the dates/incidents refer to.

You asked about first strikes against Israel and I listed the dates that it happened
For dates that may have been vague, I also listed the incident.

I don't need any more details, but I am not going put effort into addressing your arguments unless you are willing to put the effort into fleshing them out, meaning filling in all of the five Ws. Granted, if you bothered to include all that, you'd tear down much of your argument yourself.

first strike - 48
Arab armies attack Israel when independence was declared.
Why - because they did not want Israel to exist
Result - Asses kicked, Arabas cry to UN for protection and promise to be good.
Arabs also ignore the Palestinians.

first strike - 56
Arab armies attack Israel thinking that they could succeed with Russian technology.
Why - who knows the Arab leadership mind.
Result - Asses kicked, Arabas cry to UN for protection and promise to be good.
Arabs also ignore the Palestinians.

first strike - 73
Arab armies again attach Israel on the Jewish holy day hoping for a suprise that would allow them tosucceed where they failed before.
Why - same as before
Results - Same as above

Preemptive strike - 67
Arab armies mass to attack Israel. egype closes the suez in an international act of war
Israel preempts
Why - who knows the Arab leadership mind.
Result - Asses kicked, Arabas cry to UN for protection and promise to be good.
Arabs also ignore the Palestinians.


Munich - Arab supported terrorist (PLO) attack the Olympics and target only the Israeli contiguent
Why- who knows the Arab leadership mind.
Result - Only Israel Olypmians are executed

Entebbe - Arab supported terrorist (PLO) hijack an AirFrance flight from Tel-Aviv, take it to Africa and threaten to kill passengers.
Why- who knows the Arab leadership mind.
Result - Israelli commandos rescue without any support for the world. Condemnation on the attack from the Communist & Arab block for attacks on a foriegn territory.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please identify issues where Israel has attacked countries without provocation, threaten to extermination them, broke treaties again and again.

Where has Israel gone and executed civilians at world functions; Where has Israel had people hijack ariliners?

It seems as if the Palestinians and Arabs have the edge on first strikes against opponents.
none of my above examples on first strikes have it been an isolated group; but a well planned operations with plenty of state backing.

You can defend the Palestinians by stating that they had the right to attack and/or had been provoked.

However, the UN authorized Israel and attacks identified by the Palestinians an the Arabs will be difficult for you to justifiy to a non-rabib Arab supporter.

You may also choose to state that I did not provide all the details that you asked; part because there is no need to dig up all the details - they are out there, but contradict your rose colored views.


Start a new thread if you choose to continue this debate. Otherwise we are hijacking this thread.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran is not going to bomb Israel
nothing is going to change.
Go to sleep peacefully or be a paranoid nut

:thumbsup:

Guess Americans are bored again.. they haven't traded away a freedom for a "sense of security" in awhile.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: freshgeardude

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: palehorse
..I'm also completed opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

Why?

because it is clear to most of the world that Iran doesnt want nuclear capabilities just for power.

they call for the destruction of Israel and fund Hezbollah and Hamas with smuggled weapons.

secondly, they are not even following the IAEA's rules for building anything

Well do you think Iran would use a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel? Do you think having such a weapon would cause Iran to undertake other activities that it would not otherwise undertake to attack Israel? If so, what actions? Also, what does their funding of Hezbollah and Hamas have to do with nukes? Are you saying you think Iran would give nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations? (because there's no way in hell they would)

Finally, I sincerely doubt that your objections to Iran's nuclear weapons program has to do with the sanctity of the IAEA's rule set.

they dont need to give it to hamas. they either are getting, or currently have missiles which can deliver the nuke.

do you honestly think a country which funds 2 terrorist organizations and calls for the destruction of israel, and actively wants israel dead, doesnt want a nuke as a weapon?

the IAEA rules are there for a reason. to protect the world from seeing new nuclear threats, and probably among much more, ie: safety.

its not something you dont have to follow just because you dont like it.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude

they dont need to give it to hamas. they either are getting, or currently have missiles which can deliver the nuke.

do you honestly think a country which funds 2 terrorist organizations and calls for the destruction of israel, and actively wants israel dead, doesnt want a nuke as a weapon?

the IAEA rules are there for a reason. to protect the world from seeing new nuclear threats, and probably among much more, ie: safety.

its not something you dont have to follow just because you dont like it.

So you are saying you believe that Iran will launch a nuclear ballistic missile attack on Israel? I'm sorry but that's absurd.

I know why the IAEA rules are there, and I totally agree with them. I was simply saying I doubt your opposition to Iran's nuclear program is based much on what the IAEA might think.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: freshgeardude

they dont need to give it to hamas. they either are getting, or currently have missiles which can deliver the nuke.

do you honestly think a country which funds 2 terrorist organizations and calls for the destruction of israel, and actively wants israel dead, doesnt want a nuke as a weapon?

the IAEA rules are there for a reason. to protect the world from seeing new nuclear threats, and probably among much more, ie: safety.

its not something you dont have to follow just because you dont like it.

So you are saying you believe that Iran will launch a nuclear ballistic missile attack on Israel? I'm sorry but that's absurd.

I know why the IAEA rules are there, and I totally agree with them. I was simply saying I doubt your opposition to Iran's nuclear program is based much on what the IAEA might think.

I am saying, they will have the capabilities to do it soon, or already.

A country that actively supports "wiping a country off the face of the earth" whether it be making conferences on it, or by funding 2 terrorist organizations, should never get nuclear power.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: palehorse
As of right now, there are still other options.

What are they?

Continued sanctions and globally-supported pressure on Iran to cease any/all enrichment processes -- to include improved diplomatic efforts and a genuine out-reach by our own new President.

If none of that works, then we all better get ready to duck and cover when Israel goes forward with attacks or sabotage, even without our blessing. Many in the U.S. may be willing to allow Iran to become a nuclear power, but Israel won't ever allow it to happen. They'll do whatever it takes to destroy Iran's enrichment facilities, with or without international support, and consequences be damned.

Pray that Obama and the UN are successful. I will be over here doing the same...

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Continued sanctions

Like the ones imposed on Iraq? That aided in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, many of them children? And would we be enforcing them in a similar fashion?

and globally-supported pressure on Iran to cease any/all enrichment processes...

Hot air really. If they really want them, "pressure" isn't going to change their mind, and certainly won't prevent them from building.

...to include improved diplomatic efforts and a genuine out-reach by our own new President.

Fine with me, but I am NOT willing to send them money/aid/whatever at the cost of taxpayers. Trade agreements would most likely be ok.