The real nuclear threat versus fantasy Iranian ICBMs

Discussion in 'Iran' started by DeadCanDance, Dec 2, 2007.

  1. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127

    In other news....

     
  2. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Fantasy until the day they unveil one. The IAEA says Iran is enriching unranium. That's your pet project. What more do you need?

    Oh, I know .... a big friggin' hole in the ground where a city once stood.:rolleyes:
     
  3. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Does the USA have nuclear weapons? Is the USA is compliance with IAEA? Is the USA allowed to have such weapons and Iran not allowed to have such weapons? Why or why not?

    Please. No personal attacks. I’m not anti-USA but I am pro-fairness.
     
  4. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127
    I can almost smell the fear coming off of you.

    Let me explain a few military realities, while you change your pants.

    Only two adversaries of the United States have ever developed the technical capacity for a viable delivery system (i.e., ICBM) capable of hitting the united states. USSR and China. A nuclear delivery system of that capacity is an extremly complex and costly technical problem. Even if Iran wanted to make ICBMs capable of suborbital flight - missles that could circumvent the planet - to hit us on the other side of the world, they are many, many years, perhaps decades away, from making that happen.

    Okay, so Iran could probably never hit us with nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your lifetime. Wouldn't they just give their nuke to al qaeda, you ask? Don't make me laugh. The Shia government of Iran is not about to hand their nukes over to enemies of the state. The fundamentalist sunnis of al qaeda would just as soon cut a persian Shia's head off, as spit on his grave. I give the iranians more credit for not being stupid, than you.


    That leaves us with prioritizing the problem. In my view, Iran enriching uranium is only a problem if it can be verified that they intend to have nuclear weapons-grade uranium. A good reason to keep pressure on them to comply with all IAEA requests and inspections. As far as enriching civilian-grade uranium - even President Bush says they have a right to civilian nuclear power. That is enshrined in international law. So, in terms of priorities, while cons are shitting their diapers over iran, the real potential of a nuclear attack on us comes from blackmarket uranium from the poorly guarded stockpiles of the former soviet union. And guess what? When bush came into office he downgraded the US government assistance to the eastern bloc to secure their stockpiles, and now Bush is talking about cutting port security for the United States.
     
  5. Gunny
    Offline

    Gunny Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Messages:
    44,689
    Thanks Received:
    6,753
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    The Republic of Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,770
    Using the bogus "fear" accusation is as weak as it sounds. Protecting one's self against attack is just using logic and common sense. So is not letting fanatics possess nuclear weapons.

    On one hand you say only two nations have developed delivery systems, then you turn right around and point out one of those nations as being a threat for have unsecure weapons on the black market.

    Which is it?

    And of course you want to blame Bush. LMAO.
     
  6. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127
    I see. You have no comment on the misdirected priorities of your president.

    I will assume therefore, that you see Iran - a nation for which there is no evidence of weaponized uranium, or nuclear delivery platforms - as a greater threat and worthy of more posts, than the actual and real threat of existing and real enriched weapons-grade uranium that has made its way onto the black markets from the former soviet states. A problem that bush and his followers have either downgraded or ignored.


    Can we get a new president now?
     
  7. Alpha1
    Offline

    Alpha1 NAVY

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,719
    Thanks Received:
    193
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +193
    Yeah...nothing to worry about....

    why worry about Iran enriching their own uranium in any quantity they need...
    even as they work to develop the Shahab 7 missile (9300 Mile range)

    we need to worry about AQ getting their hands on that 500 GRAMS of enriched uranium the Russian hoods are peddling...they could take it back to
    their caves and mount it on a camels ass where one big big Allah induced fart
    might hurdle it across the sky to land in Chicago....or AQ might sail that 500 GRAMS into the heart of NY on one their camel dung fired subs.....
    So lets get our priorities in order.....fear AQ not Iran....

    moron reasoning at its best....
     
  8. DeadCanDance
    Offline

    DeadCanDance Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,414
    Thanks Received:
    127
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +127

    This is sad. Its not my job to educate you on how terrorists could use stolen enriched uranium stolen from the former USSR to make low tech radiological devices, or dirty bombs. "Hurling it from the caves" is so stupid, its not worth addressing.

    Google is your friend, if you care to turn off the Limbaugh show and learn.
     
  9. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,116
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,491
    Yes. Yes. Yes.
    Because Iran is a signatory to the NPT, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.
     
  10. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,116
    Thanks Received:
    1,747
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,491
    How does any of this lessen the threat posed by a nuclear-capale Iran?
     

Share This Page