• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why does the US forbid Iran from developing nuclear weapons?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
norseamd said:
No known open contract between the Saudi Arabians and Pakistan because obviously that would cause instant world protesting and UN sanctions. But as I understand it if the Saudi Arabians want nuclear weapons then all they have to do is ask the Pakistanis. Not sure where I read that but I would have to start searching for the article and that is not something I feel like putting lots of time on right now. Possibly was FP or some other world studies magazine.
Click to expand...

We return to the absurdity of any nation giving away nuclear weapons.

Using that concept as the premise for anything is pure folly.

Yeh, sure, the AQ Khan network gave away technical information & even used centrifuges, but they didn't give away any nuclear weapons.
 
norseamd said:
No known open contract between the Saudi Arabians and Pakistan because obviously that would cause instant world protesting and UN sanctions. But as I understand it if the Saudi Arabians want nuclear weapons then all they have to do is ask the Pakistanis. Not sure where I read that but I would have to start searching for the article and that is not something I feel like putting lots of time on right now. Possibly was FP or some other world studies magazine.
Click to expand...
I read about that as well in local news so no need for another source, but it's just some talks and nothing has been determined as far as I know.


Btw, I read the Wiki article about P. Mishal in another thread. Never heard before about such problems to the mentioned degree in the article, also it didn't specify a timeframe for the events.
I'd try to get another opinion on the subject.
 
Victorian Gray said:
Ok, then you can provide us with verifiable examples of 'liberals' showing support for Iran getting nuclear weapons.

You can, can't you? Especially examples of those 'liberals' who "are working day and night to give iran [sic] weapons?"
Click to expand...


This threads question is exhibt Number 1

Exhibit 2 is all the reports coming out that Obama is caving to Iran.
 
michal1980 said:
This threads question is exhibt Number 1

Exhibit 2 is all the reports coming out that Obama is caving to Iran.
Click to expand...

As neither of your 'exhibits' actually answer my question, I repeat:

"Ok, then you can provide us with verifiable examples of 'liberals' showing support for Iran getting nuclear weapons.

You can, can't you? Especially examples of those 'liberals' who "are working day and night to give iran [sic] weapons?"
 
Victorian Gray said:
As neither of your 'exhibits' actually answer my question, I repeat:

"Ok, then you can provide us with verifiable examples of 'liberals' showing support for Iran getting nuclear weapons.

You can, can't you? Especially examples of those 'liberals' who "are working day and night to give iran [sic] weapons?"
Click to expand...
The libruuls that Ministers of Enlightenment Limbaugh and Hannity scream about are selling out real 'murricans every single moment of every single day.

Also: Benghazi.
 
nickqt said:
The libruuls that Ministers of Enlightenment Limbaugh and Hannity scream about are selling out real 'murricans every single moment of every single day.

Also: Benghazi.
Click to expand...

Just because he's dead doesn't mean you can make fun of his name.

220px-Ben_Gazarra_-_still.jpg
 
nickqt said:
Oops, no reading comprehension.

I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons.

I think it is beyond reasonable to preclude any country from using nuclear power.
Click to expand...

nobody is blocking them from it. They, just like anyone else that wants to, can purchase 20% uranium on the open market from any of 30 odd countries for use in their reactors.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Most nuclear reactors need a 3-5% concentration. Low grade nuclear weapons require 20%+. High grade nuclear weapons require 85%+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low-enriched_uranium_.28LEU.29

Is there really any doubt about Iran's intentions?
Click to expand...

Therorical low grade weapon, an improbable weapon that would surely weight tons for an efficency comparable to the most primitive such devices, but i guess that you werent accurate for a reason, that is, to spread falsehood.

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a 20% or higher concentration of 235U. The fissile uranium in nuclear weapon primaries usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though theoretically for an implosion design, a minimum of 20% could be sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable) although it would require hundreds of kilograms of material and "would not be practical to design"
Click to expand...
You should read the articles you re linking....

Jaskalas said:
Obama is presiding over the start of a Middle East nuclear arms race.

KINGDOM EYES NUKES TO COUNTER IRAN
Click to expand...


Lol, the dark age kingdom wants to compare itself to the iranian excellency, in 100 years they didnt had as much genuine engineers as what Iran produce in a single year...

How could this retarded kingdom get any nuclear capacity above the one that is mining uranium minerals..?..

That s all talks and sabre rattling as aknowldgment of powerlessness, and to get the US being harsher in the current "negociations" with Iran..
 
Last edited:
Abwx said:
Therorical low grade weapon, an improbable weapon that would surely weight tons for an efficency comparable to the most primitive such devices, but i guess that you werent accurate for a reason, that is, to spread falsehood.

You should read the articles you re linking....
Click to expand...
I linked the source as I don't have a lot of time to explain details to morons, especially those who are unable to grasp the simple point I was making.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Most nuclear reactors need a 3-5% concentration. Low grade nuclear weapons require 20%+. High grade nuclear weapons require 85%+.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Low-enriched_uranium_.28LEU.29

Is there really any doubt about Iran's intentions?
Click to expand...

Gawd. Weapons using 20% enriched uranium are utterly impractical.

The critical mass for lower-grade uranium depends strongly on the grade: with 20% U-235 it is over 400 kg; with 15% U-235, it is well over 600 kg.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass

Under IAEA supervision, Iran recently down blended what little 20% LEU they had manufactured-

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28397207

Their intentions? Figure it out.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I didn't say they were...are you fucking retarded?
Click to expand...

So you're just fear mongering about Iran's production of 20% LEU, or what?

Other than an accidental & embarrassing small batch overrun to something like 25% LEU, The IAEA says that Iran's production has not exceeded 20% yet you still go on about them making weapons?

Can you not see the contradiction in what you offer?

Is down blending their small stock of 20% not a sign of good faith?
 
Personally, I think the Iranian uranium enrichment issue has very much less to do with nuclear weapons than it does free oil on the market. Currently Iran uses a large percentage of the oil it produces for its national energy requirement. Offsetting that amount of oil with nuclear energy would greatly, and I mean greatly, increase its export revenues. And given both Saudi Arabia and Iran's animosity towards each other, you can see why Saudi Arabia and its allies do not want a richer (and therefore much stronger) Iran.

Purely political.
 
Jhhnn said:
So you're just fear mongering about Iran's production of 20% LEU, or what?

Other than an accidental & embarrassing small batch overrun to something like 25% LEU, The IAEA says that Iran's production has not exceeded 20% yet you still go on about them making weapons?

Can you not see the contradiction in what you offer?

Is down blending their small stock of 20% not a sign of good faith?
Click to expand...
I wanna see proof of this but down-blending is good faith.

I would still be skeptical that they havent just wisked it away to hide somewhere.
 
Ventanni said:
Personally, I think the Iranian uranium enrichment issue has very much less to do with nuclear weapons than it does free oil on the market. Currently Iran uses a large percentage of the oil it produces for its national energy requirement. Offsetting that amount of oil with nuclear energy would greatly, and I mean greatly, increase its export revenues. And given both Saudi Arabia and Iran's animosity towards each other, you can see why Saudi Arabia and its allies do not want a richer (and therefore much stronger) Iran.

Purely political.
Click to expand...
because the market for oil is soooooo lucrative 🙄
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
I linked the source as I don't have a lot of time to explain details to morons, especially those who are unable to grasp the simple point I was making.
Click to expand...

Sure that taking more time would had rendered your fear mongering totaly innfeffective, instead you relied to a half lie possible only with cherry picked and willfully discriminated information...

Next time you get to the bank to deposit some money tell them that it will be enough to write 10 on the books for the 10 000$ you deposited...

Anyway i like the "moron" coming from an obvious troll, it s like being accurate is impossible for a conservative (indeed quarter) brain, hence the insult as a smoke screen for the poor intellect.
 
Ventanni said:
Personally, I think the Iranian uranium enrichment issue has very much less to do with nuclear weapons than it does free oil on the market. Currently Iran uses a large percentage of the oil it produces for its national energy requirement. Offsetting that amount of oil with nuclear energy would greatly, and I mean greatly, increase its export revenues. And given both Saudi Arabia and Iran's animosity towards each other, you can see why Saudi Arabia and its allies do not want a richer (and therefore much stronger) Iran.

Purely political.
Click to expand...

Purely political is right but not the strategy, wich is keep thoses countries underdevelopped so they are forced to sell their oil at dirt cheap price, actualy at Coca Cola price, that is, at he same price as mineral waters.

Think about it, here in France we have roughly 75% of electricity supplied by nuclear plants, yet all thoses nuclear plants annual production would be barely enough to supply the energy needed for our cars and trucks for a straight two months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top