• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Looks like Iran's got nuclear weapons...

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
1
0
Check it out

Seems like concrete evidence so far. Anyone know if this "enriched uranium" is analogous to that that Iraq was supposed to have attempted to purchase?

Err...that they didn't purchase...err...
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.
Take PhillyTIM's approach!

"That country (israel) needs to be wiped out."
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,408
2
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.
Take PhillyTIM's approach!

"That country (israel) needs to be wiped out."
Why would I do that? Nukes prevent that from ever happening anyway...See how useful they are?
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
If you read the article, it says that traces of enriched uranium have been found. That's a long way from "Looks like Iran's got nuclear weapons," which is what you titled this thread. How about "looks like Iran has traces of enriched uranium." That's what the article says.
 

konichiwa

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,077
1
0
"The United States has accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear power program as a cover for developing weapons."
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.
Take PhillyTIM's approach!

"That country (israel) needs to be wiped out."
Why would I do that? Nukes prevent that from ever happening anyway...See how useful they are?
Israel is extremely aggressive. For example, all the times they have tried invade their neighbors. Of course Iran needs nukes to protect their peaceful democracy.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.
Take PhillyTIM's approach!

"That country (israel) needs to be wiped out."
Why would I do that? Nukes prevent that from ever happening anyway...See how useful they are?
Israel is extremely aggressive. For example, all the times they have tried invade their neighbors. Of course Iran needs nukes to protect their peaceful democracy.
LOL exactly! Like the time they invaded Palestine in 1948, Egypt in 1967 and Lebanon in 1982. :)

Iran however has invaded .... no one.

Although I do hate when Iran makes stupid public statements about "wiping Israel off the map". There's no doubt Israel feels the same way about them but they're smart enough not to go around gloating it publically.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
Good for Iran, for having real weapons of defense/deterrance. The bar has been raised as far as types of weapons a country needs to defend itself, and George Bush Jr. raised that bar through the roof when he started invading harmless-to-America countries.

NK, already having nukes, hasn't suffered an unjustified American invasion, because of it's deterrance,,,,has it now.
 

Pandaren

Golden Member
Sep 13, 2003
1,029
0
0
Good for Iran, for having real weapons of defense/deterrance
The fewer nukes that exist on this planet, the better. With every extra nuclear device in existence, the greater the chance that someone will steal or accidently deploy one.

It irks me that countries (the U.S. included) continue to spend money developing these weapons when there are so many humanitarian problems on this planet.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.
Take PhillyTIM's approach!

"That country (israel) needs to be wiped out."
Why would I do that? Nukes prevent that from ever happening anyway...See how useful they are?
Israel is extremely aggressive. For example, all the times they have tried invade their neighbors. Of course Iran needs nukes to protect their peaceful democracy.
LOL exactly! Like the time they invaded Palestine in 1948, Egypt in 1967 and Lebanon in 1982. :)

Iran however has invaded .... no one.

Although I do hate when Iran makes stupid public statements about "wiping Israel off the map". There's no doubt Israel feels the same way about them but they're smart enough not to go around gloating it publically.
Good old peaceful Nassar (Or was it PhillyHamas?): "The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents"

No doubt? Well if Israel feels that why, why don't they? They could waste every neighbor in the ME if they wanted to...what discourages them?

Better check your history books about 1948 and 1967. You are a little confused. Oh, and Israel invaded Lebanon only after endless acts of terrorism crossed its borders. How long do you think Mexico would last if Mexican-Indians were firing rocket launchers into Houston, Texas with the sanctioning of the Mexican government?

It's ok, twist history to fit your view of the world. Somebody has got to offset this vast right wing conspiracy.

 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,492
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Good for Iran, for having real weapons of defense/deterrance. The bar has been raised as far as types of weapons a country needs to defend itself, and George Bush Jr. raised that bar through the roof when he started invading harmless-to-America countries.

NK, already having nukes, hasn't suffered an unjustified American invasion, because of it's deterrance,,,,has it now.
"That country (israel) needs to be wiped out." Right PhillyHamas?
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
But, to return to Konichiwa, ""The United States has accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear power program as a cover for developing weapons." Great! So the U.S. has accused them. They also said that the planet isn't getting warmer, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction just lying around ready to use, that we're closing in on Osama Bin Laden (circa October, 2001) and that a destroyer was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, which was our justification for escalating the Viet Nam war. They were wrong in every case. What can you possibly be thinking when you put out that quote as if "Oh, the U.S. said it, therefore it must be a fact."? Note that my avatar is an older white guy? That's me. I've seen this and done this all before. I'll tell you what's going to happen. We'll set up a pest hole government, declare our job done, and leave. Within ten years our pest hole government will be overthrown or turned out and the country will put in its own pest hole government. Nothing changed except the hundreds of Americans who die, the thousands of Iraqis, and, oh yes, about $300 billion dollars unless that spineless Congress who gave Bush permission to start this thing starts to cut back on the funds. And yes, I support the troops. I was one and I know how wrong the government can be. Fortunately, they give free lessons. In ten years you'll know it too. I apologize for making this a bit personal but the stupidity involved in this move into Iraq is monumental. It will make Viet Nam look like wisdom.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,710
5
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't have a probelm with that. Everyone should have them. Makes people think twice about war. Plus Israel has about 200 any they are extremly aggressive.
Take PhillyTIM's approach!

"That country (israel) needs to be wiped out."
Why would I do that? Nukes prevent that from ever happening anyway...See how useful they are?
Israel is extremely aggressive. For example, all the times they have tried invade their neighbors. Of course Iran needs nukes to protect their peaceful democracy.
LOL exactly! Like the time they invaded Palestine in 1948, Egypt in 1967 and Lebanon in 1982. :)

Iran however has invaded .... no one.

Although I do hate when Iran makes stupid public statements about "wiping Israel off the map". There's no doubt Israel feels the same way about them but they're smart enough not to go around gloating it publically.
Good old peaceful Nassar (Or was it PhillyHamas?): "The danger of Israel lies in the very existence of Israel as it is in the present and in what she represents"

No doubt? Well if Israel feels that why, why don't they? They could waste every neighbor in the ME if they wanted to...what discourages them?

Better check your history books about 1948 and 1967. You are a little confused. Oh, and Israel invaded Lebanon only after endless acts of terrorism crossed its borders. How long do you think Mexico would last if Mexican-Indians were firing rocket launchers into Houston, Texas with the sanctioning of the Mexican government?

It's ok, twist history to fit your view of the world. Somebody has got to offset this vast right wing conspiracy.
You didn't know Israel was the aggressor in 1948 and 1967? Shame, which history books are you reading? Is Ariel Sharon the author of said books?

 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
1
0
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Good for Iran, for having real weapons of defense/deterrance
The fewer nukes that exist on this planet, the better. With every extra nuclear device in existence, the greater the chance that someone will steal or accidently deploy one.

It irks me that countries (the U.S. included) continue to spend money developing these weapons when there are so many humanitarian problems on this planet.
I think this is part of the reason why some hate the Bush Administration so much

They chose to further militancy around the world instead of finding options for peace.

NKorea to 'boost nuke program'

NKorea to 'boost nuke program'
From correspondents in Seoul, South Korea
September 30, 2003
NORTH Korea said it was taking "concrete measures" to boost its nuclear capabilities, reiterating that it was no longer interested in holding further negotiations with the United States.

A spokesman of the communist state's Foreign Ministry also told its official news agency KCNA that if the United States tries to force North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons program before it provides Pyongyang with a nonaggression treaty, it would lead to "war."

North Korea has made the threats before, and its Stalinist government tends to escalate its harsh rhetoric when it wants to extract concessions before crucial talks with the United States.

The latest comments, monitored by South Korean news agency Yonhap, came as the United States and others were trying to coax the North to return to six-nation nuclear talks that ended without agreement last month in Beijing.

"We are taking concrete measures to keep and further strengthen our nuclear deterrent force as self-defense aimed at preventing a nuclear pre-emptive strike by the U.S. and guarantee peace and security on the Korean Peninsula," the North Korean spokesman said.
"We have lost any interest in or expectations for talks when it has been proved that the U.S. has no willingness to build peaceful coexistence with us but spares no efforts to use the six-way talks to completely disarm us," he added.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7418331%255E1702,00.html
 

KenGr

Senior member
Aug 22, 2002
725
0
0
Originally posted by: konichiwa
Check it out

Seems like concrete evidence so far. Anyone know if this "enriched uranium" is analogous to that that Iraq was supposed to have attempted to purchase?

Err...that they didn't purchase...err...
WOW! Talk about thread hijacking!

Back to the first question. It's concrete evidence that Iran has purchased enrichment equipment that has been used for a high enrichment (weapon) program. They almost certainly do not have weapons now. However, this raises a couple of important questions. If they want a nuclear power (5% enrichment) plant, why are they buying equipment from a weapons (95%) enrichment program? (The equipment is similar but not the same.) And it brings back the original question of why they are building an enrichment plant. The world is full of cheap nuclear fuel from many different countries and yet Iran, with one incomplete nuclear reactor, wants to build an enrichment plant that will cost much more than the nuclear plant will cost. Pretty close to a smoking gun.

Relative to Iraq, they were allegedly trying to obtain yellow cake which is refined but unenriched uranium. It is the raw material for the enrichment cycle. Although the proof was not developed, no one has uncovered another reason for Iraq's sudden interest in Niger in the late 1990's. Niger and Iraq really had no significant trade relationship except for the 300 tons of yellowcake Saddam bought in the 1980's. Most stories about this seem to omit that bit of history.
 

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
Thank you, KenGr, for the information in the first paragraph. It's always refreshing to see an assertion of facts. Facts can be checked. I think we'll all agree that developing the capacity to make weapons grade material is of concern. I have no reason to doubt what you say in the first paragraph but that, of course, is not what the thread leader alleged or what the article said.

With respect to your second paragraph, I wasn't aware that Iraq had had a relationship with Nigeria in the late 1990s. I've read of only one document that the Bush administration relied on for its assertions and that is pretty well acknowledged as a forgery now. I know it's tough to develop reliable reports on what was happening in the late 90s but I'd be interested in any respectable source that you had on the connection. If you have to look it up, I can do that myself if I'm interested enough.
 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
I love the way people say that there's no difference between the U.S. and Iran having Nuclear weapons.. yeah.. OK.. lets see, country run by extremist religious fanatics who want to wipe out any non-muslim country.. or the United States.. yeah, good example.. Lets give the bomb to everyone.. what if every person on earth had a nuclear bomb.. You don't think someone would be stupid enough to use it?

Nuclear deterence worked with Russia and the United States because neither side was crazy enough to use them.. take a politically unstable country with fanatics ruling it.. and you got a bomb in downtown Jerusalem.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Good for Iran, for having real weapons of defense/deterrance
The fewer nukes that exist on this planet, the better. With every extra nuclear device in existence, the greater the chance that someone will steal or accidently deploy one.

It irks me that countries (the U.S. included) continue to spend money developing these weapons when there are so many humanitarian problems on this planet.

Actually nukes are the only reason why we never went to war with the U.S.S.R. M.A.D works and has worked up until this administration.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Crimson
I love the way people say that there's no difference between the U.S. and Iran having Nuclear weapons.. yeah.. OK.. lets see, country run by extremist religious fanatics who want to wipe out any non-muslim country.. or the United States.. yeah, good example.. Lets give the bomb to everyone.. what if every person on earth had a nuclear bomb.. You don't think someone would be stupid enough to use it?

Nuclear deterence worked with Russia and the United States because neither side was crazy enough to use them.. take a politically unstable country with fanatics ruling it.. and you got a bomb in downtown Jerusalem.
I agree let's make sure we never ever elect Jerry Farwell, Pat Robinson or anyone with their mindset.....shudders at the idea of these two in the White House.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,835
3,635
126
Originally posted by: Crimson
I love the way people say that there's no difference between the U.S. and Iran having Nuclear weapons.. yeah.. OK.. lets see, country run by extremist religious fanatics who want to wipe out any non-muslim country.. or the United States.. yeah, good example.. Lets give the bomb to everyone.. what if every person on earth had a nuclear bomb.. You don't think someone would be stupid enough to use it?

Nuclear deterence worked with Russia and the United States because neither side was crazy enough to use them.. take a politically unstable country with fanatics ruling it.. and you got a bomb in downtown Jerusalem.
George Bush is not an extremist religious fanatic. How is PNAC different than Islam? And when did Iran start an illegal, preemptive war?

 

Crimson

Banned
Oct 11, 1999
3,809
0
0
Originally posted by: Drift3r
Originally posted by: Pandaren
Good for Iran, for having real weapons of defense/deterrance
The fewer nukes that exist on this planet, the better. With every extra nuclear device in existence, the greater the chance that someone will steal or accidently deploy one.

It irks me that countries (the U.S. included) continue to spend money developing these weapons when there are so many humanitarian problems on this planet.

Actually nukes are the only reason why we never went to war with the U.S.S.R. M.A.D works and has worked up until this administration.
Well, I think its pretty safe to say George Bush isn't going to nuke Canada.. do you think its equally safe to say Syria, Iran, Iraq, et all wouldn't nuke Israel? If Saddam had nukes and was about to be overthrown, and Bush had nukes and was about to be recalled (Even though there is no way to recall a President).. who do you think is more likely to use them?

M.A.D. worked because it was between 2 rational countries who didn't want to go to war.. it doesn't work with people who think certain races/religions should be exterminated.
 

Drift3r

Guest
Jun 3, 2003
3,572
0
0
They wouldn't nuke Isreal because they would get nuked in return. Trust me even Al Queda does not have the balls to use nukes. They know that a nuke attack would spell out-right doom for the whole ME.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY