Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 12, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
there is currently no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program (which is pretty hard to hide).

Of course there's no evidence the Iranians are working on nuclear weapons. Once you over look their unceasing and expanding efforts to enrich the nuclear explosive material and once you overlook their efforts in developing an ICBM system, demonstrated to be successful just a month ago, sure there's not a shred of evidence they're enriching uranium and making ICBM's.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 12, 2009

obvious Child said:
Well, you are talking to people who have backed Bush and his utter failure to frankly do anything about terrorist nuclear weapon proliferation.

Yeah, so many cities have been so utterly destroyed by terrorists with nukes in their carry-on luggage it's just too discouraging to talk about it.

And I haven't even begun to mention all those tewwible shoe-nukes. Oh my.

Why didn't Bush do anything to prevent those tragedies?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 12, 2009

Arch Enemy said:
Based on the fact that America's the only country in the history of civilization to use an atomic weapon, and not just one, but two......

Right.

The US has proven it's ability to use nuclear weapons responsibly.

Can't say that about Iran, a nation that encourages muslims the world over to load their kids up with high explosive and go to the mall...

obvious Child · Mar 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Yeah, so many cities have been so utterly destroyed by terrorists with nukes in their carry-on luggage it's just too discouraging to talk about it.

By that reasoning, Pre-911, we shouldn't have bothered with cabin security on planes.

And I haven't even begun to mention all those tewwible shoe-nukes. Oh my.

Generally, it's a bad idea to mock someone who has shown a long history of detailed understanding of such a problem. Hence, cut your antics out.

Russia has literally thousands of ready to use nuclear weapons without the security protocols built into US weapons. They can take a warhead off of a missile after either breaking into the silo or merely bribing the poorly paid guard. And they can use it without having to use a PAL. During the Yeltsin era, over a 100 nuclear weapons went missing. Russia just lost count of them. Furthermore, Russia is sitting on thousands of tons of HEU as are its former satellites. The Belgrade facility which Ted Turner help secure with funding had enough highly enriched uranium to build several gun types and was secured with a single rusty pad lock. No guards. Just a run of the mill pad lock. The biggest problem with building a gun type weapon is getting the enriched material. FSU states are sitting on huge quantities with virtually no protection from theft. And we know that Bin Laden has attempted to get nuclear weapons either by building a gun type or by outright theft from FSU states. Furthermore, the prevalence of car bombs has made it exceptionally easy to sneak a weapon in and use it against a city. Coupled with international shipping that is cheap, reliable and ubiquitous the danger goes even higher. A terrorist doesn't even need to get the weapon on to our shores. Merely have it timed to go off as the ship enters a large port could kill millions. And lining the cargo container with lead will defeat radiation detectors. The risk is astronomical. It's partially a reason I believe there's a God. Nothing else has stopped the Terrorists from hitting us.

Why didn't Bush do anything to prevent those tragedies?

Good question. Why did Bush attempt to defund the CTR? Why did Bush refuses to act on plans to accelerate the conversion of Russian warheads to MOX? Why did the Bush administration do nothing to secure sites containing HEU and plutonium across the planet? Why did Bush do nothing to promote the thorium fuel cycle which exponentially eliminates proliferation threats?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 12, 2009

obvious Child said:
By that reasoning, Pre-911, we shouldn't have bothered with cabin security on planes.

Sorry, I don't waste time on the sarcasm codes, if you can't see it, you don't see it.

obvious Child said:
Generally, it's a bad idea to mock someone who has shown a long history of detailed understanding of such a problem. Hence, cut your antics out.

Which long history of which problem?

I'm pretty certain I know more about the construction of nuclear weapons than anyone else here. I understand those problems fully and can tell when Iran's loading up another oxcart of manure to throw to the Western butt-lickers that WANT TO BELIEVE Iran's stated peaceful intentions.

I understand Iran's continued irrational urge to destroy Isreal. Actually, I can't it's irrational, but they have it nonetheless. But what's not debatable is that Iran has been exporting terrorism ever since the religious fanatics took over the place, and it's not debatable that it's stupid to let them continue their nuclear weapons program....it's even more stupid to deny they have one.

Pakistan has nukes....why? Because India has them.

India has them....why? China, in large part, and Pakistan, too, with which they've had a number of wars.

Iran wants nukes because...why? They're nuts. With the successful establishment of a democratic republic in Iraq, the opportunities for peaceful economic development across the entire region have never been greater...but Iran is still developing nuclear weapons.

No sane person can see any reason to trust them.

obvious Child said:
Russia has literally thousands of ready to use nuclear weapons without the security protocols built into US weapons. They can take a warhead off of a missile after either breaking into the silo or merely bribing the poorly paid guard. And they can use it without having to use a PAL. During the Yeltsin era, over a 100 nuclear weapons went missing. Russia just lost count of them. Furthermore, Russia is sitting on thousands of tons of HEU as are its former satellites. The Belgrade facility which Ted Turner help secure with funding had enough highly enriched uranium to build several gun types and was secured with a single rusty pad lock. No guards. Just a run of the mill pad lock. The biggest problem with building a gun type weapon is getting the enriched material. FSU states are sitting on huge quantities with virtually no protection from theft. And we know that Bin Laden has attempted to get nuclear weapons either by building a gun type or by outright theft from FSU states. Furthermore, the prevalence of car bombs has made it exceptionally easy to sneak a weapon in and use it against a city. Coupled with international shipping that is cheap, reliable and ubiquitous the danger goes even higher. A terrorist doesn't even need to get the weapon on to our shores. Merely have it timed to go off as the ship enters a large port could kill millions. And lining the cargo container with lead will defeat radiation detectors. The risk is astronomical. It's partially a reason I believe there's a God. Nothing else has stopped the Terrorists from hitting us.

Think we should nuke Russia tonight?

The terrorists don't have nuclear weapons. Let's see...."oh, Obama...er Osama, can I borrow one of the bombs today? I want to go visit New York."

"NO. Allah says you can't. Go borrow the airplanes."

Yeahl, right. If the terrorists had a functioning bomb in their mitts, they would have blown up London, Singapore, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, New Orleans, Miami, or Jerusalem long before now. I mean, they do it to prove their dicks are bigger, which, I hear, really impresses the 72 virgin goats they get up there in Paradise, and who can have a dick bigger than the guy who rides the bomb to heaven, just like Slim Pickens?

obvious Child said:
Good question. Why did Bush attempt to defund the CTR? Why did Bush refuses to act on plans to accelerate the conversion of Russian warheads to MOX? Why did the Bush administration do nothing to secure sites containing HEU and plutonium across the planet? Why did Bush do nothing to promote the thorium fuel cycle which exponentially eliminates proliferation threats?

Because Bush is an idiot.

Go ahead, refute that one.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The US has proven it's ability to use nuclear weapons responsibly.

How does dropping 2 atomic weapons where 270,000 people were killed (including innocent civilians) considered responsible?

I won't go into the debate of whether it was necessary or not, but I wouldn't use the word "responsibly" to describe it.

obvious Child · Mar 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No sane person can see any reason to trust them.

You really should post that to someone who made such an argument.

Think we should nuke Russia tonight?

Where did you get that notion?

The terrorists don't have nuclear weapons.

Actually we don't know that.

Yeahl, right. If the terrorists had a functioning bomb in their mitts, they would have blown up London, Singapore, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, New Orleans, Miami, or Jerusalem long before now. I mean, they do it to prove their dicks are bigger, which, I hear, really impresses the 72 virgin goats they get up there in Paradise, and who can have a dick bigger than the guy who rides the bomb to heaven, just like Slim Pickens?

So you're just as a hyperpartisan as others here?

Btw, you haven't addressed my post.

Because Bush is an idiot.

Go ahead, refute that one.

Why would I? I agree. Bush is an idiot.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 12, 2009

TheNextEra said:
How does dropping 2 atomic weapons where 270,000 people were killed (including innocent civilians) considered responsible?

It saved the lives of at least one American serviceman.

That's pretty responsible of the President, don't you agree?

You simply MUST agree that in time of war the President is under no obligation to protect the lives of the enemy at a cost to our own people, right?

TheNextEra said:
I won't go into the debate of whether it was necessary or not, but I wouldn't use the word "responsibly" to describe it.

I like using words properly.

Sorry you don't feel the same way.

How about if you considered fact that all projections regarding the invasion of the Japanese home islands was going to cost over five million casualties on both sides (i mean total)? Does your awestruck mind suddenly see the light and realize that the use of the bomb was the best option?

Probably not. Most people who freak out over what we did to Hiroshima aren't capable of being objective about it. Never mind that we killed more jap civillians with incendiaries than with nukes....certainly people just can't figure out that dead is dead, they get all tangled up in the how, as if dying in a firestorm caused by a nuclear flashpoint is different than dying in a napalm storm.

What I want to see is an Iran that can't build a nuclear bomb.

Unlike you people, I don't want those weapons in the hands of terrorists or crazy nations.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You simply MUST agree that in time of war the President is under no obligation to protect the lives of the enemy at a cost to our own people, right?

Using that logic, AL-Qaeda is justified to kill civilians as long as it helps their cause and saves the lives of their people.

Sorry, but that simply is not the case.

If our now Ex-President Bush decided to nuke the Middle East to save the lives of the service members that have died, that still would be wrong.

It seems you are the kind of person that doesn't mind civilians killed as long as it is your side doing it, but cries foul when the other side does it.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 12, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Using that logic, AL-Qaeda is justified to kill civilians as long as it helps their cause and saves the lives of their people.

Intersting.

Which nation is al Qaeda working for?

Oh. No one's claiming them.

When they get a nation, they can stop being considered mere fanatic murders...and we can bomb their nation to sometime before the stone age.

TheNextEra said:
If our now Ex-President Bush decided to nuke the Middle East to save the lives of the service members that have died, that still would be wrong.

Even I don't think Bush was stupid enough to think he could save the lives of men who've already died. Why would you think this?

IMO Mecca should have died a flaming thermonuclear death on the afternoon of 9-11-2001, and the ashes scattered with more nukes to ensure that the "holy city" was evenly distributed all over the word.

I'm easy. Their sneak attack kills thousands of US citizens, our response kills millions. It's what happens when the rats bite the lion.

TheNextEra said:
It seems you are the kind of person that doesn't mind civilians killed as long as it is your side doing it, but decries when the other side does it.

Nah, it's a matter of justice.

Perhaps you noticed that Japan didn't issue a declaration of war in 1941?

But we magnamanimously gave them multiple opportunities to surrender, all of which they refused.

How much warning did the muslims give the US when they stole some airplanes and used them as weapons?

Oh, that's right.

None.

(Here's the expectant wait for someone to proclaim BUSH KNEW BUSH KNEW AND DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. Yawn. An argument as empty as the head that will post it. Rather than me responding, do something useful, state exactly what you FEEL Bush should have done and what you FEEL the total cost to the nation would have been if your plan was implemented.)

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
How much warning did the muslims give the US when they stole some airplanes and used them as weapons?

I do believe they said get out of the Middle East did they not? And no I don't agree with that, but your logic condones such an action by Al-Qaeda.

As for the Bush knew thing, he knew that it was a possibilty of terrorists using planes, that should have at least warranted elevated levels at airports should it not?

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 12, 2009

TheNextEra said:
I do believe they said get out of the Middle East did they not?

And their national embassy contacted our government in what fashion?

Oh, they didn't. Al qaeda was acting as the armed forces of Afghanistan, and Afghanland sent absolutely no warning whatsoever that they were declaring war on us.

TheNextEra said:
As for the Bush knew thing, he knew that it was a possibilty of terrorists using planes, that should have at least warranted elevated levels at airports should it not?

As predicted, nothing useful comes out of the "BUSH KNEW IN ADVANCE" crowd.

TheNextEra · Mar 12, 2009

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
And their national embassy contacted our government in what fashion?

It's called the news. If the President can't watch the news, then there are more problems at hand.

Any idiot could see it was a threat. The problem is the U.S. underestimated them. BIG MISTAKE.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
As predicted, nothing useful comes out of the "BUSH KNEW IN ADVANCE" crowd.

Bush DID know that there was a legitimate threat. He may not have known which airport, but it did warrant elevated levels. Again, the fact Clinton and Bush underestimated the enemy is the problem, but then you are one of those that blame Clinton for everything and give Bush a free pass right?

scourge99 · Mar 13, 2009

TheNextEra said:
I do believe they said get out of the Middle East did they not? And no I don't agree with that, but your logic condones such an action by Al-Qaeda.

As for the Bush knew thing, he knew that it was a possibilty of terrorists using planes, that should have at least warranted elevated levels at airports should it not?

Your attempts to ignore the vast differences between stateless militias and internationally recognized uniformed militarys in the matter of waging war is disturbing.

TheNextEra · Mar 13, 2009

scourge99 said:
Your attempts to ignore the vast differences between stateless militias and internationally recognized uniformed militarys in the matter of waging war is disturbing.

The only thing disturbing is the fact you canont read what was said earlier. The comment said earlier was that civilian deaths is ok as long as if warning (as obscure as it can be) is ok as long as it saves lives on YOUR side. This comment was not made by me.

Way to jump in and put your foot in your mouth. Scourge yourself to another thread or pay attention.

scourge99 · Mar 13, 2009

TheNextEra said:
The only thing disturbing is the fact you canont read what was said earlier. The comment said earlier was that civilian deaths is ok as long as if warning (as obscure as it can be) is ok as long as it saves lives on YOUR side. This comment was not made by me.

Way to jump in and put your foot in your mouth. Scourge yourself to another thread or pay attention.

Civilian deaths caused by the targeting of infrastructure are discouraged in total war scenarios between STATES but are tolerated under certain circumstances. Attacks by stateless militias are dastardly and usually nothing but pathetic attempts to gain publicity for self righteous causes. States can be held accountable for their actions and thus allow equal and fair reciprocation during conflict where as stateless militias cannot.

TheNextEra · Mar 13, 2009

scourge99 said:
Civilian deaths caused by the targeting of infrastructure are discouraged in total war scenarios between but are tolerated under certain circumstances.

I bolded this part. For emphasis. Who determines these "circumstances", the U.S.? Gimme a break.

The fact is you are for killing civilians as long as it approves YOUR agenda, but then you say others are not allowed to have the same agenda.

I keep consistent by saying the deliberate targeting of civilians is wrong. You, however, do not. The dropping of the two atomic bombs deliberately targeted civilians.

There is no getting away from the truth.

Khayembii Communique · Mar 13, 2009

How about if you considered fact that all projections regarding the invasion of the Japanese home islands was going to cost over five million casualties on both sides (i mean total)? Does your awestruck mind suddenly see the light and realize that the use of the bomb was the best option?

Surrender was on the table; there was no need for either nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki or for any such invasion.

The Potsdam Declaration was initially rejected on the grounds that it was unconditional, but this did not mean that the Japanese were not willing to discuss the terms of surrender; it meant that the allies (particularly the US) were not interested in pursuing that as an option.

In fact, Japan was in discussions with the USSR about possible conditions of surrender, and Tōgō even openly expressed a willful desire to surrender by the emperor, but just that they could not accept surrender unconditionally. In the end, the only condition that they required in order to accept the Potsdam Declaration was retaining the emperor.

Even many Allied commanders recognized this.

Intersting.

Which nation is al Qaeda working for?

The statement still definitely stands, as the means by which the President has "his people" declared is about as arbitrary as that of any non-state group, including al Qa'ida.

As for the Bush knew thing, he knew that it was a possibilty of terrorists using planes, that should have at least warranted elevated levels at airports should it not?

The main fault for the gap in intelligence is due to failures on the part of the NSA to pass information they had on to other groups (the CIA and FBI). This failure prevented them from being able to "connect the dots".

As for "elevated levels of airport security," in case you haven't noticed airport security is pretty terrible and probably wouldn't have mattered.

and we can bomb their nation to sometime before the stone age.

Your contempt for innocent civilians is pretty disgusting.

scourge99 · Mar 13, 2009

TheNextEra said:
I bolded this part. For emphasis. Who determines these "circumstances", the U.S.? Gimme a break.

The powers at be of course. The conglomeration of states of a majority of the world have agreed that uniformed state military is required for certain rights such as those specified in the Geneva Conventions.

What? Were you hoping for me to say God or something? :lol: Sorry, but no objective authority exists. Only those which wield the power of our time does and luckily the ones who do have created a rational and logically consistent (for the most part) set of rules regarding warfare.

TheNextEra said:
The fact is you are for killing civilians as long as it approves YOUR agenda,

Whats my agenda? Scorched earth polices have been tolerated since time immemorial including in WW2 as legitimate military operations as long as the conflict between states has escalated to a defensible point. Nothing is set in stone but the guidelines are established nonetheless.

TheNextEra said:
and the but then you say others are not allowed to have the same agenda.

Stateless militias do not have the same rights as recognized state militarys, you are correct. I would hope this would never change for obvious reasons but perhaps you look forward to such a day?

The rapid increase in destructiveness and miniaturization of devastating weaponry has only exacerbated this threat.

TheNextEra said:
I keep consistent by saying the deliberate targeting of civilians is wrong. You, however, do not. The dropping of the two atomic bombs deliberately targeted civilians.

So Hiroshima contained no military value at all? Is that your assertion? There was someplace better to drop a nuclear weapon to force a Japanese surrender or to cripple the Japanese? Please enlighten me on a better place to bomb with the 2 and ONLY nuclear weapons we possessed, oh great military strategist.... the clock is ticking:mrgreen:

obvious Child · Mar 13, 2009

TheNextEra said:
I keep consistent by saying the deliberate targeting of civilians is wrong.

Are you against deliberate targeting of civilian services?

Because that's what we did against Milosevic. We bombed Serbia back to the stone age by destroying bridges, water, communications, electricity, power plants, transformers, many things a society views as necessary to living a civilized life.

scourge99 · Mar 13, 2009

Khayembii Communique said:
Surrender was on the table; there was no need for either nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki or for any such invasion.

Hmmm, me thinks you don't understand( or purposely downplay) how divided the Japanese leaders were about surrender.

A coup against the emperor was attempted to ensure surrender was not an option. And remember it didn't take 1 bomb, it took two. REPEAT: not ONE bomb, TWO!!! Do I need to repeat it again. Perhaps the first bomb was a joke?

Surrender was considered by the Japanese but a fight to the bitter end was still a favored alternative by most of the military.

Khayembii Communique said:
The Potsdam Declaration was initially rejected on the grounds that it was unconditional, but this did not mean that the Japanese were not willing to discuss the terms of surrender; it meant that the allies (particularly the US) were not interested in pursuing that as an option.

I was under the impression that when you are winning you dictate your terms to the enemy, not the other way around. Perhaps you are confused on the goals of the US during WW2?

Khayembii Communique said:
In fact, Japan was in discussions with the USSR about possible conditions of surrender, and Tōgō even openly expressed a willful desire to surrender by the emperor, but just that they could not accept surrender unconditionally. In the end, the only condition that they required in order to accept the Potsdam Declaration was retaining the emperor.

Even many Allied commanders recognized this.

yes, yes.:roll: The leaders had talks about surrender. Whoop-de-****in-do. Talk is cheap.

Who doesn't contemplate and lay out possible plans for surrender in such a scenario?

Ethereal · Mar 13, 2009

The fact is you are for killing civilians as long as it approves YOUR agenda, but then you say others are not allowed to have the same agenda.

Nobody has placed any importance on the origin of the agenda. The only relevant factor is the reasoning behind the agenda. If the agenda is rational and just then it is obviously more legitimate than an agenda which is crazy and evil.

You can make an appeal to moral relativism if you like, but I think Western civilization has a better grasp of right and wrong than does the rest of the world. In the grand scheme of things, I'm much more comfortable with Western society dictating the necessity and legitimacy of utilizing nukes. Not sure why that is such an objectionable thought to some.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 13, 2009

TheNextEra said:
It's called the news. If the President can't watch the news, then there are more problems at hand.

Any idiot could see it was a threat. The problem is the U.S. underestimated them. BIG MISTAKE.

Bush DID know that there was a legitimate threat. He may not have known which airport, but it did warrant elevated levels. Again, the fact Clinton and Bush underestimated the enemy is the problem, but then you are one of those that blame Clinton for everything and give Bush a free pass right?

As predicted, you still can't come up with an answer to the question.

Typical.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 13, 2009

TheNextEra said:
The only thing disturbing is the fact you canont read what was said earlier. The comment said earlier was that civilian deaths is ok as long as if warning (as obscure as it can be) is ok as long as it saves lives on YOUR side. This comment was not made by me.

What's disturbing about stating facts, outside of the other fact that you can't refute it, because it's a fact?

We were at WAR with Japan. We were at war with an enemy who's first action was an underhanded cowardly sneak attack, and whose later actions at Bataan and other places showed the value they placed on the lives of those they capture, and whose resolve to die to last man at Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and elsewhere convinced their enemy that the war could only be ended by the sternest means possible.

Now, you can't claim ignorance and say that the US should have fired bombed more cities like Kyoto, forever and ever, until they finally gave up at some untold cost to them and us. That wasn't practical.

But we toasted two their cities with two bombs, and poof! they surrendered like a shot.

But, you want to argue that killing five million or more people is somehow less horrible than frying 1/20th of that in a mircowave, that's your problem.

Sane people disagree with you.

As for al qeada, they're criminals, not a national military, and come under different rules.

Scarecrow Akhbar · Mar 13, 2009

scourge99 said:
Civilian deaths caused by the targeting of infrastructure are discouraged in total war scenarios between STATES but are tolerated under certain circumstances.

Depends on the extent of the war, true.

scourge99 said:
Attacks by stateless militias are dastardly and usually nothing but pathetic attempts to gain publicity for self righteous causes. States can be held accountable for their actions and thus allow equal and fair reciprocation during conflict where as stateless militias cannot.

"Stateless militia" - a fancy term for "criminals".

Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Scarecrow Akhbar

TheNextEra

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

Scarecrow Akhbar

TheNextEra

Scarecrow Akhbar

TheNextEra

Scarecrow Akhbar

TheNextEra

scourge99

TheNextEra

scourge99

TheNextEra

Khayembii Communique

scourge99

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater

scourge99

Ethereal

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar

Scarecrow Akhbar