Translation to rest of world:

"Do something"

I think that its just a matter of time before the Israelis actually end up doing something.

So?

You need to enrich Uranium ore to use it in a nuclear power plant as well.

in related news, kim jong-il admits to being completely awesome, castro admits he is a hero to the people....

Bored Horde: You need to enrich Uranium ore to use it in a nuclear power plant as well.

I'll just ask this straight up, since its probably the best way to do it:

Do you believe Iran is enriching uranium for a nuclear power plant, or do you believe they are enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon?

Let's just save everybody some time and trouble and sell them some of our nukes.

KaponoFor3: I think that its just a matter of time before the Israelis actually end up doing something.

Bombing Iran's nuclear program would make Chernobyl look like a picnic. If (and a BIG if) Iran built a single nuke with their entire supply of uranium, it still wouldn't present a credible MAD scenario to counter Israel's nuclear armed submarines cruising around nearby.

Are you prepared to pay for the relocation of every single affected person in Iran? Are you prepared to pay for the massive contamination cleanup? If not, STFU and GBTW.

KaponoFor3: Do you believe Iran is enriching uranium for a nuclear power plant, or do you believe they are enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon?

I believe they're enriching uranium for a nuclear power plant, since even Israel is saying straight up that they only have enough ore for a single nuke (or to run their reactor)

Bored Horde: Bombing Iran's nuclear program would make Chernobyl look like a picnic. If (and a BIG if) Iran built a single nuke with their entire supply of uranium, it still wouldn't present a credible MAD scenario to counter Israel's nuclear armed submarines cruising around nearby.

True, but one bomb is one too many from the Israeli point of view (and I can't really blame them given Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah).

I'm not debating whether or not striking their nuclear facilities is the right thing to do -- because I'm not convinced that it is -- but I believe that the Israelis are fully planning to do so, consequences be damned.

Bored Horde: Are you prepared to pay for the relocation of every single affected person in Iran? Are you prepared to pay for the massive contamination cleanup? If not, STFU and GBTW.

Was there a huge contamination problem at Osirak (legitimate question, I've read books about the plant/strike but never heard of fallout damage).

KaponoFor3: Bored Horde: You need to enrich Uranium ore to use it in a nuclear power plant as well.

I'll just ask this straight up, since its probably the best way to do it:

Do you believe Iran is enriching uranium for a nuclear power plant, or do you believe they are enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon?

Well, considering they're enriching it at their nuclear power plant, I'm actually leaning more towards the former. It's possible, and even probably that Iran wants nuclear weapons. However, there are a few steps in between "centrifuges" and "launching shiat," to the point that I don't think they're much of a danger.

Well I hope we normalize relations with Iran so I can finally get the unicorn I was promised when I voted for Obama.

GoDawgs!: Well I hope we normalize relations with Iran so I can finally get the unicorn I was promised when I voted for Obama.

Just as long as you are OK with a Persian unicorn, apparently they are a bit smaller and faster than American unicorns.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Let's just save everybody some time and trouble and sell them some of our nukes.

I bet they're pissed that we gave them a crappy money press instead of the plans for nuclear weapons like we were planning.

/freedom yellow-cake

We covered this the other day. It's for their space program, damnit!

KaponoFor3: Was there a huge contamination problem at Osirak (legitimate question, I've read books about the plant/strike but never heard of fallout damage).

I don't think its ever been studied. Iraq isn't a great place to run around with geiger counters at the moment.

Apparently, the only two countries that are supposed to obey the UN are America and Israel.

vygramul: Apparently, the only two countries that are supposed to obey the UN are America and Israel.

Veto power on the security council is everything wrong with the UN.

Bored Horde: Veto power on the security council is everything wrong with the UN.

I agree. The concept of the Security Council was a great idea when, in the post WW-II period, the US, France, Britain, Russia, and China had their interests all relatively aligned. But once Russia/China got sideways with the US and realized that their interests were not aligned but rather at odds with one another, the Security Council essentially became worthless.

KaponoFor3: I agree. The concept of the Security Council was a great idea when, in the post WW-II period, the US, France, Britain, Russia, and China had their interests all relatively aligned. But once Russia/China got sideways with the US and realized that their interests were not aligned but rather at odds with one another, the Security Council essentially became worthless.

I don't mind the idea of an executive council comprised of elected members and the major world powers, but the veto power is why UN resolutions are always so toothless.

KaponoFor3: Just as long as you are OK with a Persian unicorn, apparently they are a bit smaller and faster than American unicorns.

Enriched unicorns actually *do* shiat rainbows, so I'm looking forward to this.

Bored Horde: Veto power on the security councilExisting is everything wrong with the UN.

Soooo their scientists could not perfect the "adorable puppy missle"?

KaponoFor3: Translation to rest of world:

"Do something"

I think that its just a matter of time before the Israelis actually end up doing something.

Would you rather see Iran stay under the rule of the mullahs, or not stay under the rule of the mullahs?

The veto power is the only thing that kept the UN going through the cold war. The League of Nations got nowhere, and this was the only reason all the major powers stayed involved. If Stalin could have the rest of the world force Russia to do things by decree, why would he ever have joined? Mao? Heck, even the US, which didn't join the League of Nations.

The UN has been largely toothless and certainly flawed. But given that we've not had a major power war in 50 years (I don't think that's true any other time in history), it's better than nothing. The UN has managed, despite those flaws, achieved some good.

KaponoFor3: I think that its just a matter of time before the Israelis actually end up doing something.

I'd think that the fact that these facilities have existed this long is proof that Israel doesn't view them as a threat.

Adjective Bird Whiskey: Let's just save everybody some time and trouble and sell them some of our nukes.

This is actually a really good bad idea. They'll have a cleaner weapon, and we can dial the yield clear down into the kt range. We'd know the precise size of their arsenal. It's one more world player who knows that they have exactly two options, talk and smoking crater in the ground no matter what. I highly doubt they'll hand it to terrorists; it has too much value as an object they could potentially hand to terrorists, if they were so inclined. (Doubles as the ultimate carrot for any armed group you're stringing along.)

Bored Horde: Veto power on the security council is everything wrong with the UN.

It's merely a time-out clock for keeping law-abiding nations out of your underhanded dealings for as long as you can play a council member.

GoDawgs!: KaponoFor3: Just as long as you are OK with a Persian unicorn, apparently they are a bit smaller and faster than American unicorns.

Enriched unicorns actually *do* shiat rainbows, so I'm looking forward to this.

And they're totally gonna be in Diablo 3.

BooBoo23: I'd think that the fact that these facilities have existed this long is proof that Israel doesn't view them as a threat.

They're a bloody useful press piece to stamp around when Israel's dirty laundry gets aired out.

vygramul: The UN has been largely toothless and certainly flawed. But given that we've not had a major power war in 50 years (I don't think that's true any other time in history), it's better than nothing. The UN has managed, despite those flaws, achieved some good.

Pax Romana, and the equivalent under Chinese imperial unified rule.

BooBoo23: I'd think that the fact that these facilities have existed this long is proof that Israel doesn't view them as a threat.

See I think that they have been kicking back and waiting for the US to do something, figuring good ol G-dub would just be itching at the fingertips to drop some haymakers on the Iranians. After McCain lost, they realized its either they do something overtly or covertly (which is still a possibility) to sabotage the project or they live with a Persian bomb. Given the public statements from their leadership, it doesn't seem like Option B is acceptable to them.

Obdicut: Would you rather see Iran stay under the rule of the mullahs, or not stay under the rule of the mullahs

I think that's pretty clear -- no mullahs please.

BooBoo23: I'd think that the fact that these facilities have existed this long is proof that Israel doesn't view them as a threat.

Or can't do anything about them without serious consequences. Then again...never back them into a corner. They aren't safe when they are given no options.

The Iranians attacked Osirak also. Goose/gander. They can STFU.

KaponoFor3: I think that's pretty clear -- no mullahs please.

If Iran is bombed by the US, or attacked by Israel, does it strengthen or weaken the hold of the mullahs on Iran?

KaponoFor3: I think that's pretty clear -- no mullahs please.

Then you don't want to attack Iran's nuclear program. This has already been discussed in detail.

In fact, you want to tell the Israelis that any aircraft seen heading towards Iran will be seen as hostile. Hah, there's a pipe dream if there ever was one.

Obdicut: If Iran is bombed by the US, or attacked by Israel, does it strengthen or weaken the hold of the mullahs on Iran?

Save the 20 questions game for the liberturdian treads.

Obdicut: If Iran is bombed by the US, or attacked by Israel, does it strengthen or weaken the hold of the mullahs on Iran?

I'm not advocating the bombing of the facilities, but I'm being realistic and saying that is one option that is clearly on the table for the Israelis, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

That being said, I think it is possible that if it is bombed, you get one of two responses: the population rallies around the flag like most populations do when they are attacked, or it causes further uprising against the mullahs with Iranian citizens pissed off that they are again dragging them into international conflict.

Bored Horde: Then you don't want to attack Iran's nuclear program. This has already been discussed in detail.

I am not advocating that, so yeah.

KaponoFor3: That being said, I think it is possible that if it is bombed, you get one of two responses: the population rallies around the flag like most populations do when they are attacked, or it causes further uprising against the mullahs with Iranian citizens pissed off that they are again dragging them into international conflict.

The second option there is a pipe dream on your part, I'm afraid.

Can you give any example from history of a country being bombed or attacked by an outside aggressor and reacting in that manner?

KaponoFor3: I'm not advocating the bombing of the facilities, but I'm being realistic and saying that is one option that is clearly on the table for the Israelis, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

Why would you bother saying something that's completely obvious, though?

what an iranian centrifuge might look like:

Obdicut: Can you give any example from history of a country being bombed or attacked by an outside aggressor and reacting in that manner?

Iraghanistan

At this point, what Middle Eastern power can we absolutely NOT let have nuclear technology? The Saudis? The Syrians? They already have it! Iraqi Civil War II: Coming To A Desert Near You Late 2010? It's not like things can get more tense than Israel, back to the sea, finger on the button.

/Why yes, I have been drinking.

Bored Horde: Iraghanistan

'cuz we totally need another one of those.

Iraghanistiran.

Bored Horde: Bombing Iran's nuclear program would make Chernobyl look like a picnic.

it would? that seems unlikely, unless it was bombed with an atomic weapon. otherwise, it's just an explosion that spreads radioactive material; it would be like a dirty bomb going off.

Obdicut: Why would you bother saying something that's completely obvious, though?

Oh well excuse me, I didn't know that Mr. Obdicut was the TF Politics Hall Monitor who I have to run my posts by for an obviousness check before I post.

Obdicut: Can you give any example from history of a country being bombed or attacked by an outside aggressor and reacting in that manner?

Not off the top of my head, but I have a sneaking suspicion that one exists. I'll try to think of one and let you know if I come up with one.

Occam's Chainsaw: At this point, what Middle Eastern power can we absolutely NOT let have nuclear technology? The Saudis? The Syrians? They already have it! Iraqi Civil War II: Coming To A Desert Near You Late 2010? It's not like things can get more tense than Israel, back to the sea, finger on the button.

/Why yes, I have been drinking.

If you were to pick a country most likely to give a nuke to terrorists, it would be Saudi Arabia.

Obdicut: Can you give any example from history of a country being bombed or attacked by an outside aggressor and reacting in that manner?

Sure...The Madrid bombings. I think that event shifted the power of the countries between parties.

f00f: it would? that seems unlikely, unless it was bombed with an atomic weapon. otherwise, it's just an explosion that spreads radioactive material; it would be like a dirty bomb going off.

Radioactive material that contaminates the land and water it touches, then makes groundwater undrinkable for everything downstream.

KaponoFor3: Oh well excuse me, I didn't know that Mr. Obdicut was the TF Politics Hall Monitor who I have to run my posts by for an obviousness check before I post.

You don't. You're free to state obvious things all day long. I don't have any power to stop you, nor would I want that power; while it's kind of silly to say obvious stuff, there's nothing really 'wrong' with it. I'm just wondering, why bother to say it? That's all I asked.

KaponoFor3: Not off the top of my head, but I have a sneaking suspicion that one exists. I'll try to think of one and let you know if I come up with one.

Then will you at least concede that possibility is vanishingly remote, and made incredibly more remote by the past actions of America towards Iran?


f00f: it would? that seems unlikely, unless it was bombed with an atomic weapon. otherwise, it's just an explosion that spreads radioactive material; it would be like a dirty bomb going off.

Um, that's kind of like what Chernobyl was like.

Bored Horde: If you were to pick a country most likely to give a nuke to terrorists, it would be Saudi Arabia.

I'd put Sudan pretty high on that list. Yemen?

I'd trust certain members of the House of Saud to have possession of a nuke. Saudi Arabia at-large? Hell no. And they're our "friends".