The real nuclear threat versus fantasy Iranian ICBMs

[DeadCanDance]

Black market for contraband Uranium from the former Soviet Republics

BRATISLAVA, Slovakia: This week's arrests of three men who allegedly tried to sell contraband uranium for US$1 million (€680,000) underscores how a shadowy black market for nuclear components has survived despite tightened security at nuclear facilities worldwide, experts said Thursday.

Slovak police said the material, believed to have originated in the former Soviet Union, was highly dangerous and could have been used in a radiological "dirty bomb" or other terrorist weapon.

Although U.N. and independent experts suggested the uranium may not have been anywhere near that lethal, officials tracking the illicit global trade in radioactive materials said the arrests pointed up the risk of nuclear substances falling into terrorist's hands.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/29/europe/EU-GEN-Slovakia-Nuclear-Arrests.php#end_main

In other news....

Bush Admin proposes Cutting Counterterrorism funding

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press.

One program on the chopping block: port security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/01/AR2007120100311.html

 

[Gunny]

In other news....

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.

 

[mattskramer]

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.

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.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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.

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

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.

 

[DeadCanDance]

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?

 

[Alpha1]

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....

 

[DeadCanDance]

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....

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

How does any of this lessen the threat posed by a nuclear-capale Iran?

 

[maineman]

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....

There is a wonderful novel you should read... and I recommend it:

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/5th-Horseman-Collins-lapierre/dp/0671243160/ref=ed_oe_h[/ame]

 

[DeadCanDance]

How does any of this lessen the threat posed by a nuclear-capale Iran?

I already explained it's an issue of priorities. I really don't want to have to type it all over again:

http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=628133&postcount=4

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already explained it's an issue of priorities. I really don't want to have to type it all over again:

Aha.

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

Military realities? Where?

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.

Iran doesnt need to be able to hit the US for a nuclear-capable Iran to be a serious threat -- Iran can hit Israel, all of the middle east, and all of Europe, presently.

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.

You forget:
Iran funds/supports several Shia terrorist groups, the most notable of which is Hezboulah. Why do you suppose the Iranian government would not give a nuke to their terrorist appendage, and why do you suppose that appendage woudl not use it on Israel?

 

[mattskramer]

Is America allowed to have nukes and Iran not allowed to have nukes?
If so, then why is this? Won’t someone explain this to me?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is America allowed to have nukes and Iran not allowed to have nukes?
If so, then why is this? Won’t someone explain this to me?

It -has- been explained to you, using terms you should be able to understamnd (since they're YOUR terms).

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.

 

[mattskramer]

It -has- been explained to you, using terms you should be able to understamnd (since they're YOUR terms).

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.

Thanks. I’m not very knowledgeable about the NPT so I looked it up on my favorite reference guide. It looks like the USA is also a signatory to the NPT. So, again, I’ll ask what the difference is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is an international treaty to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, opened for signature on July 1, 1968. There are currently 189 countries party to the treaty, five of which have nuclear weapons: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the People's Republic of China.

Besides, America used nukes at least twice. How many times has Iran used nukes? It would seem that the other nations of the world might need to keep close tabs on America too. Anyway, back to my question. Why is the USA allowed nukes and Iran not allowed nukes when both nations signed the NPT?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks. I’m not very knowledgeable about the NPT so I looked it up on my favorite reference guide. It looks like the USA is also a signatory to the NPT. So, again, I’ll ask what the difference is.

The difference is that states that signed the treaty who already had nuclear weapons get to keep them, whereas those that did not have them when they signed the treaty agreed to NOT seek them. You did actually LOOK at the treaty, right?

That, and allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds.

Besides, America used nukes at least twice.

Quite fortunately, too.

It would seem that the other nations of the world might need to keep close tabs on America too.

This is aninine.
If the nuclear arsenal of the US is the biggest problem the world faces, the world is in pretty darned good shape.

Why is the USA allowed nukes and Iran not allowed nukes when both nations signed the NPT?

You ask this as if it hasn't been answered.

 

[mattskramer]

The difference is that states that signed the treaty who already had nuclear weapons get to keep them, whereas those that did not have them when they signed the treaty agreed to NOT seek them.

Okay. So it was due to lucky timing. I got it.

Wouldn’t the treaty allow other nations to inspect America to make sure that we are following the rules and not getting more nukes – so that we don’t proliferate nukes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. So it was due to lucky timing. I got it.

The NPT was created/signed in 1968, and would never have been signed by any of the nuclear-capable states if it would have required divesting themselves of their arsenals. There's no luck involved in it at all.

The idea that allowing them to have nukes is no different that giving a gun to a severely depressed schizophrenic who is off his meds. Certainly, you can appreciate that argument, yes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wouldn’t the treaty allow other nations to inspect America to make sure that we are following the rules and not getting more nukes – so that we don’t proliferate nukes?

Read the treaty, then ask the questions.
There's nothing in it that states that pre-treaty nuclear-capable states cannot build more nukes.