Iran Update...

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Lawdy Han..... let that go.....:lol:

Why would you bury a facility deep in the ground and cover it with 30 feet of concrete if you were simply developing nuclear power. There's no need to enrich in a buried bunker.... use ur common sense. Iran themselves say different from you sir.

You are running out of sources that hold that position. I've just been ahead of the international learning curve...which is abysmally slow and not very steep.
I am trying to get a better understanding of this CJ, not really worried one way or another about it. I don't really see much difference between 300,000 people being killed by a bomb, or 300,000 people being killed due to a war. Whichever happens it won't be on our soil. And in the first one, American citizens are more safe.

http://www.us.areva-nc.com/Businesses/businesses_uranium_products_and_services/enrichement/usneeds.html

So I came across this, I just learned that we import most of our Uranium:

Currently, the United States imports a significant percentage of its uranium enrichment services. Half of America’s uranium enrichment services come from the Megatons to-Megawatts program, formed through a treaty with Russia. This program converts the nuclear material into fuel that is used for a peaceful purpose: generating electricity. After this treaty expires in 2013, a major source of the country’s enriched uranium will be gone.

I was trying to get a better understanding of how/where we do our enriching to figure out a possible answer to this: "There's no need to enrich in a buried bunker".

But there really is not much reason to, because a obvious answer to that could be, that we love to blow other peoples shit up. And if they did not put it into a bunker, we would have a easier time blowing it up with a drone. That holds true if it is a nuclear weapon or for a plant.


Again this is something that I am learning about, and not going to just jump onto the bandwagon of believing shit until I get better proof, and want to stick to reason.

So is there any real proof that they are going to make a bomb and not a power plant?
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
Well, if you can't see the difference.... I guess it all okay then. Whew...and I was worried...:lol:

Howbout actually answering the questions posted since your such the self proclaimed genius of RIU...

Why do you always dodge and deflect?

Answer the questions as asked. No bullshit opinions, no blatant lies. Just answer the questions, CJ. Is that so hard?

-How do you know Iran is enriching high grade uranium, specifically to be used in a nuclear BOMB?


Also answer Han's scenario, I laid out a similar one a few pages back. Essentially it boils down to;

-What would Iran gain from detonating a nuclear warhead on another nation?



I'm already gonna go out on a limb here and predict that you're just going to dodge and deflect again, even when the questions are right in front of your face, a second grader could get the concept of answering a question as asked.
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
Han, if you can't figure out why Iran shouldn't have nukes..... I can't bring you the rest of the way. You have a fatal flaw.

How about Nazi Germany? Okay for them? You mull it over...take ur time...
HAHAHAHA! This is the 5th time you've told someone you wouldn't answer their question because you're somehow above it. Oh my god! This is hilarious. Now I know you're screwing with us. It's the ultimate Cartman move - "screw you guys, I'm going home!"
 

CrackerJax

New Member
I've already answered it... pay attention.

I'll repeat YOUR posit.

It's okay for everyone to have nukes. That's your position.

Nazi Germany? Okay for them? Answer please and maintain your position.... please, enlighten the naive Cracker. :lol:

You all stand alone now..... if you read the report..... you stand alone. You have no more sources gentlemen which agree with your INANITY of logic.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
I've already answered it... pay attention.

I'll repeat YOUR posit.

It's okay for everyone to have nukes. That's your position.

Nazi Germany? Okay for them? Answer please and maintain your position.... please, enlighten the naive Cracker. :lol:

You all stand alone now..... if you read the report..... you stand alone. You have no more sources gentlemen which agree with your INANITY of logic.
Bro, you know there's a difference between nuclear weapons and nuclear energy, right?
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I have not been able to find anything that says it is a nuclear bomb and not a plant, except for you saying that there is a 30 feet cemented roof over the bunker they enrich in, which is easily explained that we will bomb it either way.

I am looking for direct evidence that it is a bomb and not a plant. Until then, there is no reason to go to war over this, especially if we would be doing it alone.
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
Something to peruse...

What does the US intelligence assessment say about Iran?
The National Intelligence Estimate plays down any early threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon. It assesses "with high confidence" that Iran did have a nuclear weapons programme until 2003, but this was discovered and Iran stopped it. The NIE adds: "We do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons." The assessment admits that Iran appears "less determined" to develop nuclear weapons than US intelligence had previously thought. It says that the earliest date by which Iran could make a nuclear weapon would be late 2009 but that this is "very unlikely".
What are the chances of an attack on Iran?
The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu constantly stresses what he sees as a potential existential threat from Iran. Israel has reportedly carried out a major air force exercise, seen as practice for a raid on Iran. It is sceptical that diplomatic means will force Iran to stop enrichment and does not want to let Iran develop even a theoretical capacity to make a nuclear bomb.
So the possibility of an attack, by Israel at least, remains.
Does everyone accept the NIE report?
No. Israel does not. The then Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert said on 12 February 2008 that Israel thought Iran was aiming to create "a capacity for non-conventional weapons." The present prime minister Mr Netanyahu takes the same view.
And in London on 5 March 2008, a senior British diplomat said: "Many of us were surprised by how emphatic the writers [of the NIE] were... I haven't seen any intelligence that gives me even medium confidence that these programmes haven't resumed."
Even the Director of US National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, appeared to backtrack on 28 February 2008, in evidence to the Senate Armed Forces Committee. In this evidence, he said that Iran had probably halted warhead design and weaponisation, but pointed out that Iran's continued enrichment of uranium meant that it was continuing with "the most difficult challenge in nuclear production." He said: "We remain concerned about Iran's intentions... Tehran at a minimum is keeping the option open to develop nuclear weapons."
What other pressure has there been on Iran?
On 17 October 2007, the US designated part of the Revolutionary Guard as a "supporter of terrorism" and the Guard as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction for its alleged work on ballistic missiles. The US imposed further sanctions on the Guards' commercial activities and on several Iranian banks. The EU has agreed to freeze assets of Iran's largest bank, Bank Melli, and to extend visa bans to more Iranians involved in nuclear and missile development.
Is it not too late now to stop Iran from acquiring enrichment technology?
Iran thinks so and has said so. Its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has called this a "great victory". According to Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, events have overtaken the current strategy and he thinks that Iran should now be allowed to undertake limited enrichment but under strict supervision. This approach has been rejected by the US and its supporters.
How soon could Iran make a nuclear bomb?
Experts believe that Iran could enrich enough uranium for a bomb within a few months. However, it has apparently not mastered the technology of making a nuclear warhead. In theory Iran could leave the NPT with three months notice and it would then be free to do what it wanted. However, by doing that it would signal its intentions and leave itself open to attack. If it tried to divert material for a bomb in secret and was found out, it would lay itself open to the same risk.
Mohamed ElBaradei has said that the threat of Iran developing a bomb has been "hyped."
Doesn't the Non-Aligned Movement support Iran?
The NAM, representing 120 nations, issued a statement in July 2008 supporting Iran's right to develop peaceful nuclear power. Iran said this reflected international support for its position. The statement did not directly criticise UN sanctions against Iran, though it said that any issues should be dealt within the IAEA. It also appeared to accept that there are some problems remaining when it said: "Diplomacy and dialogue through peaceful means must continue to find a comprehensive and long-term solution to the Iranian nuclear issue."
 

CrackerJax

New Member
In the end, all of the sources ... UN, State dept., IAEA, have belatedly admitted what was "common" knowledge to those already equipped with working BS filters.

Negotiations are POINTLESS and only give time to the enemy. Iran is an enemy, make no mistake. Any country which wishes to destabilize entire regions is an enemy. Throw in a crazy Islamic prophecy to boot, and the world is left with little options.

Iran is headed towards a dead end.... or we are.

I don't think they have any problems with a nuclear warhead.... they used KHAN, which gave Pakistan their nukes. The warhead is not hard to do...... any high school kid can put one together.

What is not being mentioned is Iran can ALREADY set off a low enrichment bomb.... dirty bomb. They keep saying "highly" enriched. Iran has a nuke right now.
 

Woomeister

Well-Known Member
Iran needs a coup because most Iranians dont want war, but the hardliners are unfortuntately in power...Abdullah Abdullah does not want war...
 

redivider

Well-Known Member
cracker jax is just an ignorant jew lover, like bush.... there's no getting to him.... why shouldn't iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? because if and when the US and Jewland needs more oil they want to invade another sovereign nation... and a nuclear armed nation is not too easy to invade.... why should iran have nuclear capability? so it can produce cleaner energy that doesn't depend on oil, so it can export larger amounts of the oil it produces, flood the market, and make oil prices plunge.... completely rational, intelligent argument, yet he will still contend that iran is a threat to the world.... ridiculous....

he doesn't understand this.... why? i have no idea.... the idea that iran will take a nuclear weapon and fire it towards israel, or the US is ridiculous, it would be suicide.... but it's the propaganda he believes....

he's probably got the same mentality that calls iraqui men fighting for their country terrorists.... he probably just says: well they strap bombs to themselves and kill americans, so they must be terrorists....
the only problem he has with that is that if his country was invaded by another nation he would not have the balls to kill himself for his country....

he's probably going soft on capital punishment now to not seem as such a whack job.... cracker jax, you probably argue that obama's health care reform will cost 1 trillion dollars in 10 years... but you refuse to admit the current system will cost 1.6 trillion dollars in the next 10 years....

you defend blindly the notion that being conservative christian , anti-muslim, pro-jew is the american way.... and refuse to admit that the US is a nation of immigrants... america is great because of the people that keep moving there to make their dreams come true... when you realize that white americans are going to be the minority soon you cringe, cry when you see billboards in spanish, pray to your god why a mosque is being erected in your town.... your pathetic....
 

CrackerJax

New Member
I agree, and the protests were a positive sign. They were crushed however, and with nary a peep from our President, who confoundedly recognized Mahmoud as the victor. CONFOUNDED is the nicest word I can think of.

There was a window of opportunity..... it's been closed.

RED.... it's become obvious that UR a troll. Keep ur personal prejudices to urself.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
i think he is asking an honest, legitimate question. starting to look like you don't really have an answer. and i just walked in the door. :neutral:
I'll answer it ONE MORE TIME.... :sad:

Nazi Germany.... okay for them to have nukes? How about Syria?.....

See we don't really want countries that develop nukes to ever use them.

According to your logic, we shouldn't even bother or care if North Korea has nuclear weaponry.....

You guys have a death wish.....

I've answered it three times already.....
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I am sorry, maybe I am wording it weird CJ.

I do not think it is ok for anyone to develop nuclear weapons. Period, I think that they should be stopped if that is the case.

But I am asking what evidence is there they they are developing a nuclear weapon and not a nuclear power plant? All the things that I have read have said that it is essentially the same process, but they could be wrong. I am asking what evidence is there that this is indeed a nuclear weapon and not a nuclear power program like they are saying it is?

I am not saying we should just trust them on their word, but we should also not invade a country based off of what if's. Especially if that war will end up with approximately the same amount of deaths as a nuclear weapon would.
 
Top