Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
When you pull your head out of the sand, you may find that the Palestinians and the Arabs have wanted to destroy Israel.

Plenty of first strikes agaisnt Israel, yet none have suceeded. but ist shows that Israel should not trust those thatstate that they are against them.

If you care to list the first strikes against Israel you elude to specifically, I'd be happy to tear your argument down.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Iranians have no concerns about the Palestians and the PR agasint them if they were to take out Israel would not matter vs the acolades from the Muslim world.

Rather, you have concerns about the millions of people you dismiss as "the Palestians" and hence are incapable of comprehending the concerns of others.

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Go back and re-read what I said, only things relevant in your reply was saying Iran is not willing to take the PR backlash from nuking Israel which I consider a non issue as there will be no more Iran and their leaders know this, biggest question to me is who is in charge and are they suicidal?

My response was all in regard to what you wrote. As for your question, see what Lemon law wrote, and don't just read it, come to terms with it.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Let them have it, the first time they use it will also be their last.

One dirty bomb with the right wind conditions and Israel no longer exists.

You VASTLY overestimate the power of a dirty bomb.

On another note, it's nice to see Winnar embracing government spending as the way out of the recession.

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.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Let them have it, the first time they use it will also be their last.

One dirty bomb with the right wind conditions and Israel no longer exists.

You VASTLY overestimate the power of a dirty bomb.

On another note, it's nice to see Winnar embracing government spending as the way out of the recession.

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.

talk about how badly the world will own Irans face into the dirt if they even fired a missle with a nuke on it

 

[kylebisme]

Which is why even if Iran ever does develop nuclear weapons, they would only serve as a deterrent, just as they do in any other nation.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I thought Obama was going to talk to them about this?

 

[kylebisme]

Then I recommend you recheck your thought process for errors.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: freshgeardude

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Let them have it, the first time they use it will also be their last.

One dirty bomb with the right wind conditions and Israel no longer exists.

You VASTLY overestimate the power of a dirty bomb.

On another note, it's nice to see Winnar embracing government spending as the way out of the recession.

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.

talk about how badly the world will own Irans face into the dirt if they even fired a missle with a nuke on it

I very much doubt Iran would even try to go after Israeli if they did get a nuclear weapon. They just don't have a reliable delivery system. A missile could be shot-down. The Israeli Air Force is to on the ball to allow a Iranian aircraft to penetrate Israeli air space. The Israeli intelligence service is to good to allow the reliable delivery of a nuclear weapon by a Terrorist cell in Israeli. They would have better luck trying to smuggle a nuke in the US. Iran getting nuclear weapon is more about prestige and deterrence against Israeli attacking them. It would be suicide for Iran to go after the Israeli with a nuclear. There is also a high probability that the attack would be unsuccessful if Iran even tried.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
When you pull your head out of the sand, you may find that the Palestinians and the Arabs have wanted to destroy Israel.

Plenty of first strikes agaisnt Israel, yet none have suceeded. but ist shows that Israel should not trust those thatstate that they are against them.

If you care to list the first strikes against Israel you elude to specifically, I'd be happy to tear your argument down.

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The Iranians have no concerns about the Palestians and the PR agasint them if they were to take out Israel would not matter vs the acolades from the Muslim world.

Rather, you have concerns about the millions of people you dismiss as "the Palestians" and hence are incapable of comprehending the concerns of others.

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy
Go back and re-read what I said, only things relevant in your reply was saying Iran is not willing to take the PR backlash from nuking Israel which I consider a non issue as there will be no more Iran and their leaders know this, biggest question to me is who is in charge and are they suicidal?

My response was all in regard to what you wrote. As for your question, see what Lemon law wrote, and don't just read it, come to terms with it.

*sigh*
If that's your answer you're added to my mental list of people to ignore on this sub forum.

 

[Modelworks]

Iran could do a lot of damage if they did an underwater bomb. We always show our force in the area by bringing in carriers and ships . They could even pass it off as being another country at fault, like Syria. We go to war with someone else and Iran stays silent patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Yeah there is about a 1 in a million chance of that ever happening, but its not impossible, and gets around the launch problems.


Iran can't openly attack anyone, even with conventional weapons, without being bombed back to the stone age. So they would have to do things covertly.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Let them have it, the first time they use it will also be their last.

One dirty bomb with the right wind conditions and Israel no longer exists.

You VASTLY overestimate the power of a dirty bomb.

On another note, it's nice to see Winnar embracing government spending as the way out of the recession.

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.

Ok, yes I was quite wrong on the damage. But what impact would taking out Tel Aviv, Israel's biggest city? I would say that would end Israel, for something like that to happen and the threat of it happening again will drive people out of the country and keep others away until all that is left are a small jewish minority, Israel won't be able to sustain itself anymore.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

The Institute for Science and International Security report concludes Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon but does have enough low-enriched uranium for a single nuclear weapon.

OMG, the inevitable result of any civilian nuclear energy program. Panic!

I believe weapons have been the result of every nuclear program ever, yes, except Japan's for obvious reasons. Even they apparently maintain the ability to build a weapon at very very short notice.

Canada...

We've got a fairly advanced nuclear program, and actually helped the US develop the first bomb, but have no nukes of our own. I'm sure we could have them quite quickly if we wanted to, but really we have no need.

 

[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.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
When you pull your head out of the sand, you may find that the Palestinians and the Arabs have wanted to destroy Israel.

Plenty of first strikes agaisnt Israel, yet none have suceeded. but ist shows that Israel should not trust those thatstate that they are against them.

If you care to list the first strikes against Israel you elude to specifically, I'd be happy to tear your argument down.

First strikes against Isreal

'48
'56
'72 (Munich)
'73
'76 (Entebbe)

Hezbollah from Lebanon
Hamas from Gaza (breaking of Truces)

First Strike by Israel
'67 (Questionable - Arabs were massing for attacks
'81 Iraqi reactor
'08 Syria reactor


Note that the Israeli initiated attacks were surgical and not intended on destroying a country.
And Israel has shown no intentions on destroying the Palestinians - only creating a bufferzone to protect Israel.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Iran could do a lot of damage if they did an underwater bomb. We always show our force in the area by bringing in carriers and ships . They could even pass it off as being another country at fault, like Syria. We go to war with someone else and Iran stays silent patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Yeah there is about a 1 in a million chance of that ever happening, but its not impossible, and gets around the launch problems.


Iran can't openly attack anyone, even with conventional weapons, without being bombed back to the stone age. So they would have to do things covertly.

Basically what you are proposing is nuclear mine. It would be difficult to get the mine into position without it being detected. Also even with a underwater detonation some material is going to be recovered from the A-bomb that will point back to Iran. If a nuclear detonation like this goes off we are not going to be looking at Syria. We will be looking at Iran.

 

[kylebisme]

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.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ZzZGuy

Originally posted by: cliftonite
Let them have it, the first time they use it will also be their last.

One dirty bomb with the right wind conditions and Israel no longer exists.

You VASTLY overestimate the power of a dirty bomb.

On another note, it's nice to see Winnar embracing government spending as the way out of the recession.

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.

Ok, yes I was quite wrong on the damage. But what impact would taking out Tel Aviv, Israel's biggest city? I would say that would end Israel, for something like that to happen and the threat of it happening again will drive people out of the country and keep others away until all that is left are a small jewish minority, Israel won't be able to sustain itself anymore.

Don't get me wrong. If Iran does manage to get a nuclear weapon detonated on Israeli it will have quite a impact especially on Tel Aviv. However I don't think Israelis will be going anywhere and will not abandon there country. Iran will have several nuclear weapons launched at it knocking out probably every major city and all the major infrastructure in the country. Basically the country will probably be knocked back to a medieval level of technology. If other countries like Syria and Jordan decide to use this as a opportunity to attack Israeli they will be dealt with swiftly. The one that Jews are is survivors. They have millennium of practice surviving. Also Jews around the world especially in the US will be opening there wallets with donations Israeli and probably aid to Israeli by the US will go up a lot.

However at the end of the day even if Iran has a nuclear weapon they are not going to use it against Israeli. The likely hood of the nuclear weapon being intercepted is to high. Also nuclear weapons are a deterrence. Once you use them as a offensive weapon your country will almost certainly face destruction.

 

[kylebisme]

He won't listen to Lemon Law or myself for suggesting the same, what makes you think he will listen to you?

 

[Lemon law]

Gotta say Brovane is about 100% correct. Israel has managed to derail the nuclear ambitions of Syria and Iraq, but Iran is just to big, too far away, and too smart to allow Israel to bully them.

As long as Iran stays in compliance with the IAEA, any Israeli crying, bitching, and moaning will amount to Israeli crying, bitching, and moaning. Its going to take Israeli nukes to destroy the deeply buried
Iranian facilities, something impossible to justify as a preemptive strike. And after crying wolf over Iraqi WMD, Israel and the USA have zero credibility with the IAEA, who have had it up to their eyeballs with panic mongers.

 

[palehorse]

Summary section of the Feb. 19th IAEA Report:

F. Summary
18. The Agency has been able to continue to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran. However, Iran has not implemented the modified text of its Subsidiary Arrangements General Part, Code 3.1, on the early provision of design information and has continued to refuse to permit the Agency to carry out design information verification at IR-40.

19. Contrary to the request of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not implemented the Additional Protocol, which is a prerequisite for the Agency to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities. Nor has it agreed to the Agency?s request that Iran provide, as a transparency measure, access to additional locations related, inter alia, to the manufacturing of centrifuges, R&D on uranium enrichment, and uranium mining and
milling, as also required by the Security Council.

20. Regrettably, as a result of the continued lack of cooperation by Iran in connection with the remaining issues which give rise to concerns about possible military dimensions of Iran?s nuclear programme, the Agency has not made any substantive progress on these issues. As indicated in previous reports of the Director General, for the Agency to make such progress, Iran needs to provide substantive information, and access to relevant documentation, locations and individuals, in
connection with all of the outstanding issues. With respect to the alleged studies in particular, an important first step is for Iran to clarify the extent to which information contained in the documentation which Iran was shown, and given the opportunity to study, is factually correct and where, in its view, such information may have been modified or relates to non-nuclear purposes.

21. Unless Iran implements the above transparency measures and the Additional Protocol, as required by the Security Council, the Agency will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran. The Director General continues to urge Iran to implement all measures required to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme at the earliest possible date. The Director General, at the same time, urges Member States which have provided such documentation to the Agency to agree to the Agency?s
providing copies thereof to Iran.

22. Contrary to the decisions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities or its work on heavy water-related projects, including the construction of the heavy water moderated research reactor, IR-40, and the production of fuel for that reactor.

23. The Director General will continue to report as appropriate.

 

[iGas]

Ohno! the Iranian is building a nuke, lets put on our tin foil hats, build backyard bunkers, and bombs them.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: iGas
Ohno! the Iranian is building a nuke, lets put on our tin foil hats, build backyard bunkers, and bombs them.

Aimster, is that you?

 

[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.

 

[kylebisme]

Israel has enough connections to not need to do their own tests.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: iGas
Ohno! the Iranian is building a nuke, lets put on our tin foil hats, build backyard bunkers, and bombs them.

Aimster, is that you?

Sorry little boy but I've never been wrong when it comes to Iran.
According to you Israel will be destroyed in .. I dunno 9 months. Go pray.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: iGas
Ohno! the Iranian is building a nuke, lets put on our tin foil hats, build backyard bunkers, and bombs them.

Aimster, is that you?

Sorry little boy but I've never been wrong when it comes to Iran.
According to you Israel will be destroyed in .. I dunno 9 months. Go pray.

When the fuck have I ever said any such nonsense?!

I'm completely against any attack against Iran; but, I'm also completed opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. Those two beliefs are not mutually exclusive. As of right now, there are still other options.

Grow the hell up.