Thought Iran Was 5-10 Years From A Bomb

[Paulie]

This is only true of all the particlar isntances of a country developing nulear power are simialar.
Do you believe that to be true?

Not quite sure exactly what that meant, but i'll take a guess. I believe that we hold nations accountable when they possess nukes, but why do we not talk up pre-emptive invasions of NK? Pakistan? India?

Because such an idea is completely inane.

If we're going to go to war against anyone who tries to acquire nuclear power, based on selling it the American public as a hostile nation, then we should have gone to so many other wars. That's the logic I was challenging.

We talked many nations out of it that have been very hostile towards us...Libya, NK, for example. NK can actually REACH us with nukes that are READY. Why aren't we gearing up for war? I mean, shit, we've already BEEN in NK...and now they have deployable nukes with U.S.-range. Alot of good that conflict did, huh?

Why is this relevant when the dicsussion revolves around nuclear weapons?

Why don't you tell us exactly how you would forsee Iran using a nuke, assuming they achieved that goal, and then I'll state the relevance.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I believe that we hold nations accountable when they possess nukes, but why do we not talk up pre-emptive invasions of NK? Pakistan? India?

Because their posession of nuclear weapons does not necessitate such a thing.
And... who is talking about an invasion of Iran?

If we're going to go to war against anyone who tries to acquire nuclear power, based on selling it the American public as a hostile nation, then we should have gone to so many other wars. That's the logic I was challenging.

The logicical fault here is 'because we did/might go to war with nation X over Y, then we must go to war with ALL nations over Y'.

We talked many nations out of it that have been very hostile towards us...Libya, NK, for example. NK can actually REACH us with nukes that are READY. Why aren't we gearing up for war? I mean, shit, we've already BEEN in NK...and now they have deployable nukes with U.S.-range. Alot of good that conflict did, huh?

Blame Truman and Ike.
Oh -- Clinton/Carter, too.

Why don't you tell us exactly how you would forsee Iran using a nuke, assuming they achieved that goal, and then I'll state the relevance.

1: A missile launched a (pick your target)
2: A warhead suggled into (pick your target) by one of their terrorist appendages.

 

[Warner]

Grrrrr.....

Iran is years away from having a viable bomb.

Read my post above - Iran does not have significant native supplies of uranium ore. It takes tons (lots of tons) of ore to make enough U235 to build just one bomb. All the native uranium supplies of Iran can make maybe 1 or 2 fissionable devices. Then they have to test them, so if one test goes perfectly they might be able to build one bomb. And of course that bomb would be HUGE. Not something that can be loaded into one of Iran's missiles.

Bottom line - as long as we can contain Iran's external sources for uranium their bomb program is a pipe dream. And if after they've tested a couple of A-bombs they are somehow able to get several 10's of tons of uranium ore and have sufficient time to refine and process it into bombs without us noticing it they are going to have a bomb no matter what we might do anyway.

There is plenty of time before we must take action against Iran. Right now this is all politics, nothing more.

If Iran really wanted viable WMD's why would they not instead develop chemical or even bio weapons? They are more than capable of doing so, such programs would be nearly impossible to stop, and the resulting weapons would be much more usable within only a few years.

The whole Iran-Nukes issue is just fear mongering of the worst kind.

 

[Paulie]

Grrrrr.....

Iran is years away from having a viable bomb.

Well, being as how the timetable seems to be changing on a weekly basis now, how do we really even know anymore.

Right now, all we know is WE DON'T KNOW.

Is that worth another trillion dollar military offensive?

Read my post above - Iran does not have significant native supplies of uranium ore. It takes tons (lots of tons) of ore to make enough U235 to build just one bomb. All the native uranium supplies of Iran can make maybe 1 or 2 fissionable devices. Then they have to test them, so if one test goes perfectly they might be able to build one bomb. And of course that bomb would be HUGE. Not something that can be loaded into one of Iran's missiles.

I'm at odds with the fact that right now we are unwilling to even have a one-on-one, much less a multi-lateral sit-down discussion with Iran. What a slap in the face to diplomacy, considering how much aggression internationally that's been avoided through its use.

Considering what you said though, if Iran brought out a secret bomb they'd been working on, and tested it, then we would now know their capabilities.

What would be in it for them to aggressively use the only other one they may have been able to build? Why do people think they're that stupid? How does Iran benefit by using one nuke they were lucky enough to get away with building, and then subsequently being annhiliated for doing so?

 

[Paulie]

Because their posession of nuclear weapons does not necessitate such a thing.

Why does ONE country's possession necessitate a possible military offensive, and another's not? Pakistan has never even been an ally of the US until after 9/11, and that's because we threatened to bomb the fuck out of them if they didn't become one.

And... who is talking about an invasion of Iran?

The administration, the media, neo-cons in general.

They aren't saying it's inevitable yet, although it can be implied from the rhetoric.

The logicical fault here is 'because we did/might go to war with nation X over Y, then we must go to war with ALL nations over Y'.

Well how is our security maintained by only taking military action against CERTAIN nuclear countries, but leaving other one's to freely pursue a program that may or may not be a threat to America?

1: A missile launched a (pick your target)
2: A warhead suggled into (pick your target) by one of their terrorist appendages.

The relevance of their military capabilities domestically is this:

If Iran were to do such a thing, how would they expect to protect themselves from the inevitable onslaught of retaliation? Meaning, why would they go about doing it to begin with?

Cheney himself has already said that the next terrorist attack that may happen will automatically be blamed on Iran, with ensuing military retaliation.

Why would Iran tempt that? What's in it for them, as a sovereign and prosperous nation? They already have us by the balls with their oil supplies and our oil demands. They could seriously damage us economically without even having to fire a shot.

 

[Warner]

First Iran has to build a test bomb. This thing would be bigger than a one ton truck and would look like a rat's nest of wires and tubes. If the test goes very well (unlike NK's test) the would then be ready to build a second test bomb, this time in a deliverable package. This would also need to be tested... and walla they're out of uranium.

So all we need to do is make sure Iran is unable to import uranium and this whole thing is really a non-issue. Iran knows this and their nuke program is just politics or possibly a smoke screen for a chem or bio program that is their real objective.

I don't see what is to be accomplished by talks with Iran. ImANutJob's word is meaningless both because he is a liar and because he is not really the head of state. Only the most rudimentary agreements can realistically be worked with Iran.

We are better off to cut them off from the rest of the world in every way possible for as long as possible and await some kind of internal change in Iran. What we need to do is get Europe and China on board on such a program.

 

[Warner]

...

Why would Iran tempt that? What's in it for them, as a sovereign and prosperous nation? They already have us by the balls with their oil supplies and our oil demands. They could seriously damage us economically without even having to fire a shot.

You seem to be asking: Why would an insane man would act irrationally?

Is this a rational question?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why does ONE country's possession necessitate a possible military offensive, and another's not?

This should be obvious.
If not -- then please make a case for why we need to invade the UK to take out its nukes.

The administration, the media, neo-cons in general.

Please provide an exmple of the administration making the case for an invasion of Iran.

Well how is our security maintained by only taking military action against CERTAIN nuclear countries, but leaving other one's to freely pursue a program that may or may not be a threat to America?

I pointed out your lgical flaw. Dont expect me to fix it, too.

The relevance of their military capabilities domestically is this:
If Iran were to do such a thing, how would they expect to protect themselves from the inevitable onslaught of retaliation?

You were discussing Iran having no ability to project conventional military force onto the US. Not sure how this is relevant.

Meaning, why would they go about doing it to begin with?

Because they're islamofascist fruitcakes?

Cheney himself has already said that the next terrorist attack that may happen will automatically be blamed on Iran, with ensuing military retaliation.

Cite?

 

[Paulie]

You seem to be asking: Why would an insane man would act irrationally?

Is this a rational question?

Insane? How do you know he's insane? Because the media portrays that?

Isn't that part of the fearmongering you just alluded to earlier?

His open letter to the American people seems pretty god damn rational to me.

Cheney is more insane then Ahmadinejad ANYDAY.

 

[Annie]

Insane? How do you know he's insane? Because the media portrays that?

Isn't that part of the fearmongering you just alluded to earlier?

His open letter to the American people seems pretty god damn rational to me.

Cheney is more insane then Ahmadinejad ANYDAY.

The Cheney/Ahmadinejad comparison is too cute by half, but please explain the rationality you find in the letter to the American people?

 

[doniston]

Absolut ignorance will of course save us. Sure thing Iran is a perfect country to have the bomb. Moron.

Anc so the moron brays again.----kettle/pot/black

 

[doniston]

That's funny, because these days I feel like people who think like YOU are morons.

With logic like the Bush admin's, and YOURS, we ought to just strong arm ANYONE who possesses or attempts to possess the technology to develop nuclear power.

Why don't we just declare war on half the world, and force every American citizen over 16 years old to fight the whole fucking thing?

YOU'RE the moron, RGS. YOU ARE. You're afraid of a third world country that has no susbstantial readily deployable army, much less a navy or air force to even MAKE it to the US.

It's pathetic.

Agreed

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Agreed

Remind us of your stellar intellect and how no one can be retired from the military medically.

 

[Paulie]

Remind us of your stellar intellect and how no one can be retired from the military medically.

Remind us how that even remotely relates to the discussion.

 

[manu1959]

Remind us how that even remotely relates to the discussion.

same way your post does....

 

[Paulie]

same way your post does....

I've been discussing the topic of this thread for a while. Haven't you noticed? Out of nowhere, RGS comes out of left field and questions a poster on something that wasn't even being discussed in the thread. So I called him out on it. Would you like to contribute to the thread?

 

[doniston]

Remind us of your stellar intellect and how no one can be retired from the military medically.

still riding a dead horse, I see.---- or should I say7, still being a jackass???

 

[manu1959]

I've been discussing the topic of this thread for a while. Haven't you noticed? Out of nowhere, RGS comes out of left field and questions a poster on something that wasn't even being discussed in the thread. So I called him out on it. Would you like to contribute to the thread?

why not stay on topic and not rise to the bait then....you want to claim the moral high ground....stay there then....

as for the topic.....how far is iran from the bomb....who cares.....except israel of course.....and israel has proven to be able to take care of itself....

now why is everyone worried.....are you afraid bush will invade iran?....with what...all the troops are in iraq....and if the dems win they will all be moved to afganistan....

anything else you want to know.....

 

[DeadCanDance]

Well not really, I didn't believe it. Seems now others won't either, now the UN is saying a year to a year and a half. I love the headline, I don't know why I bothered to read it, sounded more like Iran was making things difficult. My headline is better:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/w...3462c8a2ce886e&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Well not really, I didn't believe it. Seems now others won't either, now the UN is saying a year to a year and a half


I can't find a single statement in the ACTUAL UN report that says that. Can you? Maybe I missed it. But, I did a word search.

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...eportNov15.pdf


I suspect what the NY Times did, was insert their own comment, that in theory a centrifuge cascade of that capacity, might be able to produce weapons grade uranium in 18 months. In theory. Which requires a whole host of assumptions about the regimes intent, technical capacity, and ability to keep any alleged military activities covert.


I also suspect you, Fox News, and the NY Times are caught up in war fever again. Just like in 2002, where you saw monsters under every bed.


You should have really learned not to let yourself get duped into another war, like you did with Iraq. It pays to actually read what the IAEA reports say. Corporate american media has a real bad record in questioning BushCo.'s claims about imminent threats and mushroom clouds.

 

[Paulie]

Well not really, I didn't believe it. Seems now others won't either, now the UN is saying a year to a year and a half


I can't find a single statement in the ACTUAL UN report that says that. Can you? Maybe I missed it. But, I did a word search.

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...eportNov15.pdf


I suspect what the NY Times did, was insert their own comment, that in theory a centrifuge cascade of that capacity, might be able to produce weapons grade uranium in 18 months. In theory. Which requires a whole host of assumptions about the regimes intent, technical capacity, and ability to keep any alleged military activities covert.


I also suspect you, Fox News, and the NY Times are caught up in war fever again. Just like in 2002, where you saw monsters under every bed.


You should have really learned not to let yourself get duped into another war, like you did with Iraq. It pays to actually read what the IAEA reports say. Corporate american media has a real bad record in questioning BushCo.'s claims about imminent threats and mushroom clouds.

You'll never get through to some people. The effect of 9/11 has left so many people without the ability to think critically. At this point, some people just assume all muslim nations are probably doing something evil behind the scenes. It sure doesn't help that the media prays on that, and eggs it on.

The media was always historically supposed to be our watchdog. Now, all they really are is just another arm of the government. Corporate acquisitions and centralization have greatly contributed to it.