Joe Biden Just Got Some Very Bad News

[Dragonlady]

View attachment 532348

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/21/06/gov2021-28.pdf

This memo isn't recent. It's from May. The title of this thread is that Joe Biden "just got some very bad news", and says

"Now a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is throwing a wrench in Biden’s plans. The IAEA says that they have not had access to data or measuring devices used to monitor Iranian nuclear material and equipment since February 23 of this year."

Memos released in February and May are not "Now", and neither speculates on when Iran will have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb.

Where is this memo that says they now have enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am not aware of any Syrian site involving anything nuclear that Israel has ever attacked?
Does not matter if reactors or enrichment facilities.
Blowing up uranium would contaminate thousands of square miles, killing and harming lots of innocent people.
It can't be allowed.
Anyone attacking reactors or enrichment facilities is a danger to the whole world.

The Shan of Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, but that has no jurisdiction then on the current Iranian government.
They have the same legal right of nuclear weapons as the US or Russia.
Actually more right, because the US not only used nuclear weapons on civilians, but also illegally invaded innocent countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
A guilty party like the US, really is in no position to judge anyone else.

I am not aware of any Syrian site involving anything nuclear that Israel has ever attacked?

Israel bombed the shit out of it.

Israel admits bombing suspected Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, warns Iran

Israel for the first time admitted that it bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 and said on Wednesday the strike should be a warning to Iran that it would not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

www.reuters.com

Does not matter if reactors or enrichment facilities.

Really? No difference between U-238 and U-235 and I-135, Cs-137 or Sr-90 ?

Blowing up uranium would contaminate thousands of square miles, killing and harming lots of innocent people.

Kill them how?

The Shan of Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, but that has no jurisdiction then on the current Iranian government.

You're lying. Iran didn't withdraw.

They have the same legal right of nuclear weapons as the US or Russia.

Prove it.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Yeah, when your blob tore up the deal, they no longer had to abide by the deal.... Blame your blob.

We should blame Stacy Abrams?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't know?
Not sure any of the sites could be called "military"?
But I think there were 7 or so.

I don't know?
Not sure any of the sites could be called "military"?

So the IAEA didn't inspect any military sites.

 

[Rigby5]

Esactly what gun controls has democrats placed in you? Name them.
You've had weapons since the the constitution and you have yet to use them for what you say but justify mass slaughter as collateral damage for freedom. Bullshit.

I disagree.
There have been thousands of federal gun control laws in the last 50 years, all of them completely illegal, and deliberately intimidating.
Like in snake, wolf, or bear country, everyone always used to have a rifle rack in the truck.
No more.
Now you just have people being killed by wild animals.
Now it is even a felony to drive by a school with a firearm locked in the trunk.
For the last 20 years, they have taken my finger prints with every gun purchase, and I have had to wait a week before picking it up.
Due to required changes, most firearms have also been forced up in price about a third.

And after all the illegal wars where our corrupt government has committed mass murder, like the Spanish American War, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., then clearly weapons should have already been used to end the corrupt government that controls us now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This memo isn't recent. It's from May. The title of this thread is that Joe Biden "just got some very bad news", and says

"Now a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is throwing a wrench in Biden’s plans. The IAEA says that they have not had access to data or measuring devices used to monitor Iranian nuclear material and equipment since February 23 of this year."

Memos released in February and May are not "Now", and neither speculates on when Iran will have enough enriched uranium to build a bomb.

Where is this memo that says they now have enough enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon?

This memo isn't recent. It's from May.

From your post it sounded like you didn't believe the OP.

The IAEA says that they have not had access to data or measuring devices used to monitor Iranian nuclear material and equipment since February 23 of this year."

That's weird, the IAEA said Iran notified them that after February 23, "no more implementation of voluntary transparency measures"

Was Iran lying?

The title of this thread is that Joe Biden "just got some very bad news"

It might have meant, Joe was just reminded of the bad news he got in February.

 

[Rigby5]

I am not aware of any Syrian site involving anything nuclear that Israel has ever attacked?

Israel bombed the shit out of it.

Israel admits bombing suspected Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007, warns Iran

Israel for the first time admitted that it bombed a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007 and said on Wednesday the strike should be a warning to Iran that it would not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

www.reuters.com

Does not matter if reactors or enrichment facilities.

Really? No difference between U-238 and U-235 and I-135, Cs-137 or Sr-90 ?

Blowing up uranium would contaminate thousands of square miles, killing and harming lots of innocent people.

Kill them how?

The Shan of Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, but that has no jurisdiction then on the current Iranian government.

You're lying. Iran didn't withdraw.

They have the same legal right of nuclear weapons as the US or Russia.

Prove it.

It was illegal and immoral for Israel to bomb any Syrian site, but clearly it was not yet fueled or hot.

{... the reactor was being constructed with help from North Korea and had been months away from activation. ...}

Yes, once blown up, there is no significant difference between starting with U-238 and U-235 and I-135, Cs-137 or Sr-90.
While some isotopes are not very deadly as far as radiation, they decay into others eventually. So the whole down wind area would be dangerous for a very long time. Anyone striking a fueled facility would be guilty of the worst possible war crimes.

Radiation from blowing up a hot reactor would kill people from radiation destroying their immune system, causing cancers, burns, etc.
Symptoms prior to death can include severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, rapid hair loss, infections, edema, high fever, and coma.

 

[Rigby5]

The Shan of Iran signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970, but that has no jurisdiction then on the current Iranian government.

You're lying. Iran didn't withdraw.

They have the same legal right of nuclear weapons as the US or Russia.

Prove it.

That is silly.
The Shah lost authority in 1979, and any treaty he signed became null and void.
He was a criminal.

I don't have to prove Iran as the same right to nuclear weapons as the US or Russia, it is intrinsic to the definition of law.
Equality before the law is the single most important aspect of law.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't know?
Not sure any of the sites could be called "military"?

So the IAEA didn't inspect any military sites.

The IAEA likely has not inspected since Trump ended the deal.
Why should they?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was illegal and immoral for Israel to bomb any Syrian site, but clearly it was not yet fueled or hot.

{... the reactor was being constructed with help from North Korea and had been months away from activation. ...}

Yes, once blown up, there is no significant difference between starting with U-238 and U-235 and I-135, Cs-137 or Sr-90.
While some isotopes are not very deadly as far as radiation, they decay into others eventually. So the whole down wind area would be dangerous for a very long time. Anyone striking a fueled facility would be guilty of the worst possible war crimes.

Radiation from blowing up a hot reactor would kill people from radiation destroying their immune system, causing cancers, burns, etc.
Symptoms prior to death can include severe nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, rapid hair loss, infections, edema, high fever, and coma.

It was illegal and immoral for Israel to bomb any Syrian site, but clearly it was not yet fueled or hot.

Why did Syria bury the site so quickly?

U.N. officials said the uranium contamination that turned up in soil samples collected at the site was a “chemically processed” form of the mineral that was not the enriched variety used to run nuclear power plants or as fissile bomb material.

Syria site hit by Israel resembled atom plant: IAEA

A Syrian complex bombed by Israel bore multiple features resembling those of a nuclear reactor and U.N. inspectors found "significant" traces of uranium at the site, a watchdog report said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Yes, once blown up, there is no significant difference between starting with U-238 and U-235 and I-135, Cs-137 or Sr-90.

Holy shit! That's gotta be the dumbest thing you've ever posted, and posting dumb shit is kind of your specialty.

While some isotopes are not very deadly as far as radiation, they decay into others eventually.

Really? How long does it take U-235 to decay into Cs-137 or I-135 or Sr-90? Link?

So the whole down wind area would be dangerous for a very long time.

How long does U-238 make an area dangerous?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That is silly.
The Shah lost authority in 1979, and any treaty he signed became null and void.
He was a criminal.

I don't have to prove Iran as the same right to nuclear weapons as the US or Russia, it is intrinsic to the definition of law.
Equality before the law is the single most important aspect of law.

The Shah lost authority in 1979, and any treaty he signed became null and void.

So any treaty Obama (or any President) signed became null and void when he left office?

He was a criminal.

So was Khomeini.

I don't have to prove Iran as the same right to nuclear weapons as the US or Russia,

Thank goodness, because you have no proof.

Equality before the law is the single most important aspect of law.

LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The IAEA likely has not inspected since Trump ended the deal.
Why should they?

The IAEA never inspected any military sites before Trump ended the deal.

 

[protectionist]

Yeah, when your blob tore up the deal, they no longer had to abide by the deal.... Blame your blob.

"no longer" ? So you think they were abiding by it, at ANY point in time, do you ? Interested in a bridge in Brooklyn ? Half price ?

 

[Rigby5]

It was illegal and immoral for Israel to bomb any Syrian site, but clearly it was not yet fueled or hot.

Why did Syria bury the site so quickly?

U.N. officials said the uranium contamination that turned up in soil samples collected at the site was a “chemically processed” form of the mineral that was not the enriched variety used to run nuclear power plants or as fissile bomb material.

Syria site hit by Israel resembled atom plant: IAEA

A Syrian complex bombed by Israel bore multiple features resembling those of a nuclear reactor and U.N. inspectors found "significant" traces of uranium at the site, a watchdog report said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Yes, once blown up, there is no significant difference between starting with U-238 and U-235 and I-135, Cs-137 or Sr-90.

Holy shit! That's gotta be the dumbest thing you've ever posted, and posting dumb shit is kind of your specialty.

While some isotopes are not very deadly as far as radiation, they decay into others eventually.

Really? How long does it take U-235 to decay into Cs-137 or I-135 or Sr-90? Link?

So the whole down wind area would be dangerous for a very long time.

How long does U-238 make an area dangerous?

You own quote says that the Syrian site contained no bomb or reactor materials.

While U-238 is the least reactive, blowing it up is still dangerously radioactive and will still decay into plutonium-239.
It just takes longer for some isotopes than others, to be more dangerous.
The point being that the quality of being fissile no longer matters if you have spread the atoms around with an explosion.

 

[Colin norris]

I disagree.
There have been thousands of federal gun control laws in the last 50 years, all of them completely illegal, and deliberately intimidating.
Like in snake, wolf, or bear country, everyone always used to have a rifle rack in the truck.
No more.
Now you just have people being killed by wild animals.
Now it is even a felony to drive by a school with a firearm locked in the trunk.
For the last 20 years, they have taken my finger prints with every gun purchase, and I have had to wait a week before picking it up.
Due to required changes, most firearms have also been forced up in price about a third.

And after all the illegal wars where our corrupt government has committed mass murder, like the Spanish American War, WWI, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., then clearly weapons should have already been used to end the corrupt government that controls us now.

I see you're just another redneck gun toting ratbag Republican still suffering trump defeat syndrome.
I reiterate what I said.

 

[Rigby5]

The Shah lost authority in 1979, and any treaty he signed became null and void.

So any treaty Obama (or any President) signed became null and void when he left office?

He was a criminal.

So was Khomeini.

I don't have to prove Iran as the same right to nuclear weapons as the US or Russia,

Thank goodness, because you have no proof.

Equality before the law is the single most important aspect of law.

LOL!

When a new US president is elected, the government does not change.
Just the current representative.
The legal obligations remain unchanged.
But the Shah was a criminal, for illegally suppressing the will of the people in 1953, with his military take over.

Khomeini was not a criminal, but requested by the Iranian people to return to Iran, after the Shah was defeated.

The only source of law is the inherent rights of individuals.
So if any country can legally have nuclear weapons, they all can.
The right of defense from aggression makes it so, and nuclear weapons are most defensive and least offensive, if they are possessed equally enough so that they become the ultimate deterrent.

 

[Rigby5]

I see you're just another redneck gun toting ratbag Republican still suffering trump defeat syndrome.
I reiterate what I said.

WRONG!
I am far more leftist than anyone here, and it is your right wing, redneck fascist like you who would enforce gun control so that the wealthy elite have a total monopoly on power, leaving the democracy with none.
People who pretend that democrats in favor of gun control are not just right wing, redneck fascists, are just totally disgusting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You own quote says that the Syrian site contained no bomb or reactor materials.

While U-238 is the least reactive, blowing it up is still dangerously radioactive and will still decay into plutonium-239.
It just takes longer for some isotopes than others, to be more dangerous.
The point being that the quality of being fissile no longer matters if you have spread the atoms around with an explosion.

You own quote says that the Syrian site contained no bomb or reactor materials.

Yes, I know.

While U-238 is the least reactive, blowing it up is still dangerously radioactive

How dangerous? Half as dangerous as I-135? 100th? 1,000,000th?
Put some numbers to your claim.

and will still decay into plutonium-239.

Ummm....U-238 will decay into Pu-239?
How does decay make an element heavier?
Sounds like you're talking out of your ass again.

It just takes longer for some isotopes than others, to be more dangerous.

How long does it take U-238 to be dangerous?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When a new US president is elected, the government does not change.
Just the current representative.
The legal obligations remain unchanged.
But the Shah was a criminal, for illegally suppressing the will of the people in 1953, with his military take over.

Khomeini was not a criminal, but requested by the Iranian people to return to Iran, after the Shah was defeated.

The only source of law is the inherent rights of individuals.
So if any country can legally have nuclear weapons, they all can.
The right of defense from aggression makes it so, and nuclear weapons are most defensive and least offensive, if they are possessed equally enough so that they become the ultimate deterrent.

When a new US president is elected, the government does not change.
Just the current representative.
The legal obligations remain unchanged.

Where do you get the idea that getting rid of the Shah changes any treaty Iran entered?
If they want to leave the NPT, they need to withdraw. Have they?

But the Shah was a criminal, for illegally suppressing the will of the people in 1953, with his military take over.

Like Khomeini illegally suppressed the will of the people.

Khomeini was not a criminal,

Why do you feel that way?

but requested by the Iranian people to return to Iran

Requested? Did they vote on it? How many votes did "return" get?

How many votes did "don't return" get?

So if any country can legally have nuclear weapons, they all can.

You're lying.

 

[Colin norris]

WRONG!
I am far more leftist than anyone here, and it is your right wing, redneck fascist like you who would enforce gun control so that the wealthy elite have a total monopoly on power, leaving the democracy with none.
People who pretend that democrats in favor of gun control are not just right wing, redneck fascists, are just totally disgusting.

I'm right wing and a fascist???
You haven't been here long or can't read.