Report: Iran short on uranium

[michiganFats]

Kevin, the President of Iran stated that he wants the weapons, he wants to use them, and he has taken the steps necessary to produce them. Will you only take him at his word when he actually drops the bomb?

 

[elvis]

Let him have the bomb. The first time a nuclear device is detonated, everyone will know who used it. The Persian civilization will go the way of the Phoenecians.

 

[Paulie]

Let him have the bomb. The first time a nuclear device is detonated, everyone will know who used it. The Persian civilization will go the way of the Phoenecians.

See, this is where I stand as well. How much damage can Iran possibly do? If they're lucky enough to actually create a weapon, and use it, they'll be annihilated. After detonation, it can still be traced back to its origin.

Everyone who thinks Iran would be stupid enough to try and blow someone up with a nuke is crazy. Unless they built an entire arsenal that they could use to volley back and forth with the subsequent retaliatory nations after they detonated their FIRST one, they'd be sitting ducks and be turned to glass in mere MINUTES.

What's in it for them to blow up one lousy nuke somewhere? It is completely counter-productive to their SUPPOSED desire to reincarnate the caliphate and rule the world, as insane as that even sounds. It sounds like a fucking plot from a Dan Brown fiction novel. It's stupid. Regardless of the ridiculous rhetoric from the otherwise powerless president Ahmadinejad, Iran is most likely not going to be nuking anything unless they all want to die without ever accomplishing their supposed ultimate goal.

 

[Sunni Man]

I can't help but think it a shame that an entire nation, including its citizens, gets screwed out of the potential for nuclear energy because of the rhetoric and actions of its government, especially without 100% rock solid proof to support the collective cause of prevention in the first place.

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

Israel refuses to allow inspectors of it's nuclear weapons.

Israels nuclear program is totally secretive.

Israel also will not sign any International nuclear treaties.

So why should Iran comply with any outside pressure to be transparent about it's nuclear activities

 

[Paulie]

I can't help but think it a shame that an entire nation, including its citizens, gets screwed out of the potential for nuclear energy because of the rhetoric and actions of its government, especially without 100% rock solid proof to support the collective cause of prevention in the first place.

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

Israel refuses to allow inspectors of it's nuclear weapons.

Israels nuclear program is totally secretive.

Israel also will not sign any International nuclear treaties.

So why should Iran comply with any outside pressure to be transparent about it's nuclear activities

Because 6 million jews were killed. That obviously gives them not only the perpetual benefit of the doubt, but perpetual carte blanche to do whatever they damn well want.

Pretty simple, really.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

Israel refuses to allow inspectors of it's nuclear weapons.

Israels nuclear program is totally secretive.

Israel also will not sign any International nuclear treaties.

So why should Iran comply with any outside pressure to be transparent about it's nuclear activities

Because 6 million jews were killed. That obviously gives them not only the perpetual benefit of the doubt, but perpetual carte blanche to do whatever they damn well want.

You are right, they are still playing the 6 million card.

That's why the zionists have to keep the Holohoax myth alive and well.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Let him have the bomb. The first time a nuclear device is detonated, everyone will know who used it. The Persian civilization will go the way of the Phoenecians.

See, this is where I stand as well. How much damage can Iran possibly do? If they're lucky enough to actually create a weapon, and use it, they'll be annihilated. After detonation, it can still be traced back to its origin.

Everyone who thinks Iran would be stupid enough to try and blow someone up with a nuke is crazy. Unless they built an entire arsenal that they could use to volley back and forth with the subsequent retaliatory nations after they detonated their FIRST one, they'd be sitting ducks and be turned to glass in mere MINUTES.

What's in it for them to blow up one lousy nuke somewhere? It is completely counter-productive to their SUPPOSED desire to reincarnate the caliphate and rule the world, as insane as that even sounds. It sounds like a fucking plot from a Dan Brown fiction novel. It's stupid. Regardless of the ridiculous rhetoric from the otherwise powerless president Ahmadinejad, Iran is most likely not going to be nuking anything unless they all want to die without ever accomplishing their supposed ultimate goal.

How much damage could just one nuclear bomb do if it landed in Manhattan at lunchtime on a business day? Millions dead? Trillions lost in property damage and to the disruption in our economy taking out New York would cause? What about if it hit Washington? These are, after all, the targets of choice of the Sunni counterparts to the fanatical religious zealots who run Iran who also had nothing to gain and everything to lose by bombing New York and Washington on 9/11.

And if these martyrdom praising nutcases who run Iran did fire off that one nuclear missile at New York, what would be the consequences? Would they be annihilated? What would be the justification for wiping out tens of millions of people who had no control over the decision to bomb us? After all, could Iran even be considered a threat to us now that it had fired its one nuclear missile? How would a massive counter attack improve our national security now that New York had been reduced to a smoking hole in the ground?

In fact, the question would then be the same one we face now: how can we deal with Iran so that it will not be a threat to us in the future?

 

[toomuchtime_]

I can't help but think it a shame that an entire nation, including its citizens, gets screwed out of the potential for nuclear energy because of the rhetoric and actions of its government, especially without 100% rock solid proof to support the collective cause of prevention in the first place.

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

Israel refuses to allow inspectors of it's nuclear weapons.

Israels nuclear program is totally secretive.

Israel also will not sign any International nuclear treaties.

So why should Iran comply with any outside pressure to be transparent about it's nuclear activities

Because much of the world, not just the US and Europe but also the Arab nations in the region and neighboring states in central Asia, fear that Iran is likely to use the threat of nuclear strikes to extort what they want, just as they use terrorist proxies to attempt to do that now, and that the fanatical religious zealots who run Iran might allow a nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb fall into the hands of these terrorists.

Interestingly, although Israel is believed to have had nuclear bombs at least since the 1960's, it is only since Iran has seemed to be close to acquiring nuclear weapons that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional enemies of Iran, have made exploratory moves towards acquiring these weapons for themselves: obviously, the Arab states in the region feel they are in more danger from an Iranian nuclear weapon than they are from an Israeli nuclear weapon.

Clearly, a nation whose leaders and citizens extol martyrdom as the most virtuous act an individual can perform will not be deterred from using a nuclear weapons out of fear of the consequences.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, that's a fair question. The reason(or one reason) Libertarians aren't taken seriously is their naivety on defense issues. You can't just sit back and let a nation develop the means to launch weapons of mass destruction at your allies and trading partners. The idea that you have to wait for someone to inflict massive damage before you can do anything about it is ridiculous. Especially in a case such as Iran, where the President is on record multiple times stating that he wants to use nuclear weapons, Iran has sought the materials and technical knowhow to produce nuclear weapons, yet you want to do nothing. No rational person would ever put a candidate into national office who holds that opinion.

I disagree on your assumption that we're naive on defense issues.

As I stated previously, the IAEA has found no evidence that Iran has broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty. There's no reason to throw us into another costly war without any evidence.

But as a non interventionist, you would be opposed to getting into another costly war even if there were indisputable evidence Iran was trying to acquire nuclear weapons, or was in some other way in violation of the Non Proliferation Treaty, right? So why even bring up what the IAEA has found since it would not influence your decision?

Because it should influence the decision of those that would go to war with Iran over a nuclear weapon.

 

[Sunni Man]

The Iranians seem determined to screw themselves. The Europeans have offered to supply Iran with nuclear technology that would not supply weapons grade fissionable material if Iran would only make its nuclear activities transparent, but Iran has refused, and Russia has offered to supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it would need for energy production if it would give back the spent rods for reprocessing, but Iran has refused. If all Iran wants is nuclear energy for peaceful use, why be so secretive about its program and why continue to research enrichment processes that could produce weapons grade uranium?

Israel refuses to allow inspectors of it's nuclear weapons.

Israels nuclear program is totally secretive.

Israel also will not sign any International nuclear treaties.

So why should Iran comply with any outside pressure to be transparent about it's nuclear activities

Because much of the world, not just the US and Europe but also the Arab nations in the region and neighboring states in central Asia, fear that Iran is likely to use the threat of nuclear strikes to extort what they want, just as they use terrorist proxies to attempt to do that now, and that the fanatical religious zealots who run Iran might allow a nuclear bomb or a dirty bomb fall into the hands of these terrorists.

Interestingly, although Israel is believed to have had nuclear bombs at least since the 1960's, it is only since Iran has seemed to be close to acquiring nuclear weapons that Egypt and Saudi Arabia, traditional enemies of Iran, have made exploratory moves towards acquiring these weapons for themselves: obviously, the Arab states in the region feel they are in more danger from an Iranian nuclear weapon than they are from an Israeli nuclear weapon.

Clearly, a nation whose leaders and citizens extol martyrdom as the most virtuous act an individual can perform will not be deterred from using a nuclear weapons out of fear of the consequences.

Iran only want's nuclear weapons for defensve purposes.

They feel threatened by the West and Israel.

The Iranians are Not suicidal.

They know if they attacked another country with a nuclear bomb.

They would have a hundrend dropped on them.

They only want nuclear weapons to keep from being invaded

 

[Paulie]

Let him have the bomb. The first time a nuclear device is detonated, everyone will know who used it. The Persian civilization will go the way of the Phoenecians.

See, this is where I stand as well. How much damage can Iran possibly do? If they're lucky enough to actually create a weapon, and use it, they'll be annihilated. After detonation, it can still be traced back to its origin.

Everyone who thinks Iran would be stupid enough to try and blow someone up with a nuke is crazy. Unless they built an entire arsenal that they could use to volley back and forth with the subsequent retaliatory nations after they detonated their FIRST one, they'd be sitting ducks and be turned to glass in mere MINUTES.

What's in it for them to blow up one lousy nuke somewhere? It is completely counter-productive to their SUPPOSED desire to reincarnate the caliphate and rule the world, as insane as that even sounds. It sounds like a fucking plot from a Dan Brown fiction novel. It's stupid. Regardless of the ridiculous rhetoric from the otherwise powerless president Ahmadinejad, Iran is most likely not going to be nuking anything unless they all want to die without ever accomplishing their supposed ultimate goal.

How much damage could just one nuclear bomb do if it landed in Manhattan at lunchtime on a business day? Millions dead? Trillions lost in property damage and to the disruption in our economy taking out New York would cause? What about if it hit Washington? These are, after all, the targets of choice of the Sunni counterparts to the fanatical religious zealots who run Iran who also had nothing to gain and everything to lose by bombing New York and Washington on 9/11.

And if these martyrdom praising nutcases who run Iran did fire off that one nuclear missile at New York, what would be the consequences? Would they be annihilated? What would be the justification for wiping out tens of millions of people who had no control over the decision to bomb us? After all, could Iran even be considered a threat to us now that it had fired its one nuclear missile? How would a massive counter attack improve our national security now that New York had been reduced to a smoking hole in the ground?

In fact, the question would then be the same one we face now: how can we deal with Iran so that it will not be a threat to us in the future?

They have no missiles even CLOSE to being capable of reaching our shores. And anything they shot up in the air wouldn't make it out of Old World Persia before it was completely destroyed in the air.

The best they could ever hope for is getting someone to smuggle it into the country and detonate it in a city.

Yes, that would be a lot of damage, but it would be the last thing they ever did. So I ask, being as how annihilation of their entire country would be imminent and inevitable for them, while we on the other hand would continue to exist as a nation and carry on our lives, what's in it for them?

 

[toomuchtime_]

See, this is where I stand as well. How much damage can Iran possibly do? If they're lucky enough to actually create a weapon, and use it, they'll be annihilated. After detonation, it can still be traced back to its origin.

Everyone who thinks Iran would be stupid enough to try and blow someone up with a nuke is crazy. Unless they built an entire arsenal that they could use to volley back and forth with the subsequent retaliatory nations after they detonated their FIRST one, they'd be sitting ducks and be turned to glass in mere MINUTES.

What's in it for them to blow up one lousy nuke somewhere? It is completely counter-productive to their SUPPOSED desire to reincarnate the caliphate and rule the world, as insane as that even sounds. It sounds like a fucking plot from a Dan Brown fiction novel. It's stupid. Regardless of the ridiculous rhetoric from the otherwise powerless president Ahmadinejad, Iran is most likely not going to be nuking anything unless they all want to die without ever accomplishing their supposed ultimate goal.

How much damage could just one nuclear bomb do if it landed in Manhattan at lunchtime on a business day? Millions dead? Trillions lost in property damage and to the disruption in our economy taking out New York would cause? What about if it hit Washington? These are, after all, the targets of choice of the Sunni counterparts to the fanatical religious zealots who run Iran who also had nothing to gain and everything to lose by bombing New York and Washington on 9/11.

And if these martyrdom praising nutcases who run Iran did fire off that one nuclear missile at New York, what would be the consequences? Would they be annihilated? What would be the justification for wiping out tens of millions of people who had no control over the decision to bomb us? After all, could Iran even be considered a threat to us now that it had fired its one nuclear missile? How would a massive counter attack improve our national security now that New York had been reduced to a smoking hole in the ground?

In fact, the question would then be the same one we face now: how can we deal with Iran so that it will not be a threat to us in the future?

They have no missiles even CLOSE to being capable of reaching our shores. And anything they shot up in the air wouldn't make it out of Old World Persia before it was completely destroyed in the air.

The best they could ever hope for is getting someone to smuggle it into the country and detonate it in a city.

Yes, that would be a lot of damage, but it would be the last thing they ever did. So I ask, being as how annihilation of their entire country would be imminent and inevitable for them, while we on the other hand would continue to exist as a nation and carry on our lives, what's in it for them?

Do you think Barack Obama would give the order to "annihilate" Iran? Do you think Bush would have? How about Clinton? The first Bush? No US president would give the order to kill millions of people because of the actions of a few of its leaders and the Iranian leaders know this, but even if they didn't, these fanatic believe jihad is the obligation of every Iranian and martyrdom is a greater reward than any that can be gained in life, so the threat of massive retaliation would have no deterrent value with them.

The Iranian leaders will be asking themselves what actions will further their goal of re establishing the Caliphate. Perhaps they would even believe a US nuclear strike that wiped out a Muslim country would advance this goal more than anything else they could do. More likely they know that will not happen and they will think that the US will do no more than strike at their nuclear program and punish their military and leadership, and that after that is done they can declare victory, as Hamas and Hezbollah have done, because they survived the wrath of the US.

In fact, it is reasonable to assume Iran will have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon in the near future and there are already reports Iran may have a missile capable of reaching Europe. Since we know that Iran has purchased missile technology from North Korea in the past and North Korea is believed by many to have missiles capable of reaching our west coast, it is not far fetched to imagine Iran may have the capability of reaching New York with a nuclear missile in the future. although that threat is not imminent, prudence would dictate that we would be better off preventing Iran from having that capability that waiting and trying to figure out how to counter it.

 

[Paulie]

Give me a break. If anyone nukes us, they're going to get nuked back. We don't have trillions of dollars worth of nukes ourselves, if we're not prepared to use them in the event of a nuclear attack. If Iran shot a nuclear missile, and it somehow actually made it to its destination without being shot down, which is doubtful in itself, they'd be responded to in kind.

You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. I was a Minuteman missile maintenence tech in the Air Force. We don't have them because they're pretty to look at. We spend the insane amounts of money and time acquiring and maintaining the arsenal because we expect that we may have to eventually use it. If we were to pre-emptively use them, it would be to reach their supposed underground bunkers with smaller, precision based tactical nuclear strikes. However, if we were to retaliate after they somehow attacked us with a nuke first, we'd nuke their capital and any other areas where there were military and political targets, with way broader of a scope. It would be two completely different types of missions.

You give Iran's leaders way too much credit, and you listen to too much corporate news. It's reducing your ability to think critically.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Give me a break. If anyone nukes us, they're going to get nuked back. We don't have trillions of dollars worth of nukes ourselves, if we're not prepared to use them in the event of a nuclear attack. If Iran shot a nuclear missile, and it somehow actually made it to its destination without being shot down, which is doubtful in itself, they'd be responded to in kind.

You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. I was a Minuteman missile maintenence tech in the Air Force. We don't have them because they're pretty to look at. We spend the insane amounts of money and time acquiring and maintaining the arsenal because we expect that we may have to eventually use it. If we were to pre-emptively use them, it would be to reach their supposed underground bunkers with smaller, precision based tactical nuclear strikes. However, if we were to retaliate after they somehow attacked us with a nuke first, we'd nuke their capital and any other areas where there were military and political targets, with way broader of a scope. It would be two completely different types of missions.

You give Iran's leaders way too much credit, and you listen to too much corporate news. It's reducing your ability to think critically.

No US president is going to order a massive retaliation killing millions of civilians just because you would feel a desire for revenge. That would be as immoral and as insane as the Iranian attack had been. Going after any targets beyond Iran's nuclear program, leadership and military and supporting infrastructure would be an act of pure savagery that would not be tolerated by more than a few Americans no matter how angry we were.