If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Iran to enrich Uranium to 60% levels if nuclear talks fail. Uranium is solely for "peaceful" purposes such as "nuclear submarines", which is sure to get a "peaceful" response from Israel in the form of a nice bouquet of missiles   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 137
    More: Unlikely, Iran, uranium enrichment, states with nuclear weapons, research reactor, Bushehr, Iran nuclear, Press TV, missiles  
•       •       •

2000 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Oct 2012 at 11:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-03 11:57:38 AM
Its always the first country to develop the big nasty weapon that uses them. Its not the mentality of the people. Then everyone looks back in hindsight and goes... wow... that was bad. Also, a naval base was attacked and we gave the Japanese the chance to surrender.
 
2012-10-03 11:58:17 AM
 
2012-10-03 11:59:20 AM

Rent Party: wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.

And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.


Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.
 
2012-10-03 12:00:29 PM

LL316: wedun: In fact, if you think about it, the US has been nothing but shiatty and belligerant to Iran for as long as it's been a modern state.

When did it become modern?


1925. The US threw that all away in 1953.

/ History. It's a thing!
 
2012-10-03 12:00:38 PM
As the world's foremost nuclear superpower, and the only country to ever actually use nukes in a war, how exactly do we get the moral authority to tell other people not to have nukes?
 
2012-10-03 12:02:27 PM

Twilight Farkle: fireclown: threadjackistan: It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.

And they would have it. IIRC, the attack at Osharak involved the US lending them F15s with extended range fuel tanks, and we did hook them up with those bunker busters about a year ago. But more importantly, I argue that it could happen tomorrow because it already has.

It's happened twice, actually, most recently in 2007.


Wow, they attacked a single unprotected target in Syria too? Which is even closer to Israel than the Iraqi reactor? Wow, you're right. I'm wrong. All my knowledge of aircraft ranges is wasted because you feel in your gut that them Israelites can do anything because Jesus.

/sarcasm

Please stop comparing apples and firetrucks.
 
2012-10-03 12:06:18 PM

AntonChigger: Rent Party: wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.

And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.


That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.
 
2012-10-03 12:09:55 PM

Rent Party: AntonChigger: Rent Party: wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.

And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.

That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.


How many times have we toppled other democracies?
 
2012-10-03 12:11:21 PM
I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?
 
2012-10-03 12:13:10 PM

Rent Party: 60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.


Weapons that use a plutonium core as a primary stage use U-235 that has been enriched from 40% to 80% as the secondary stage. You wouldn't make a primary stage out of 60% U-235, but to say that it isn't 'weapons grade' is inaccurate. The US nuclear weapons arsenal uses U-235 that has been enriched 40% to 80%.

As stated above, there are only a limited number of uses for 60% enriched U-235, and civilian power generation is not one of them.

Source

Uranium with enrichments ranging from 40% to 80% U-235 has been used in large amounts in U.S. thermonuclear weapons as a yield-boosting jacketing material for the secondary fusion stage.
 
2012-10-03 12:14:17 PM

Rent Party: AntonChigger: Rent Party: wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.

And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.

That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.


You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?
 
2012-10-03 12:15:59 PM

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: AntonChigger: Rent Party: wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.

And the list of countries that have used nuclear weapons in hostility has exactly 1 nation on it.

60% enrichment isn't weapons grade. This is the same "Iran moments away from teh bombz!" hysteria we've been hearing since the 80s.

Yeah, one nation, 67 years ago, to end a world war. Yeah, so unstable.

That doesn't change the facts. Japan is still constitutionally prohibited from deploying active military forces as a result of that war. We have conducted military operations ranging from deployment of air forces to downright invasions over 80 times since then.

So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?


THIS. Also, I'm still trying to figure out exactly which democracies we are a risk to...
 
2012-10-03 12:20:16 PM

xanadian: I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?


Already answered up thread, but it's 3% to 5%. Naval reactors (the kind used to power the U.S. and Russian submarine fleet) use much more highly enriched uranium (as highly enriched as is needed for weapons) because in those reactors space and weight is a major issue. Hence Iran's sudden (bullshiat) claim that all they want is a couple of nuclear submarines. It's the only other reason to have uranium enriched to that level.
 
2012-10-03 12:21:50 PM

threadjackistan: Twilight Farkle: fireclown: threadjackistan: It's only relevant if you've never looked at a map. Israel simply lacks the ability to meaningfully reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities using conventional weapons without massive US support.

And they would have it. IIRC, the attack at Osharak involved the US lending them F15s with extended range fuel tanks, and we did hook them up with those bunker busters about a year ago. But more importantly, I argue that it could happen tomorrow because it already has.

It's happened twice, actually, most recently in 2007.

Wow, they attacked a single unprotected target in Syria too? Which is even closer to Israel than the Iraqi reactor? Wow, you're right. I'm wrong. All my knowledge of aircraft ranges is wasted because you feel in your gut that them Israelites can do anything because Jesus.

/sarcasm

Please stop comparing apples and firetrucks.


I don't claim that going for the trifecta is a good idea, merely that they've done it before. Everybody remembered Iron Eagle II, very few people noticed the events of 2007. (Fortunately, nothing is obscure on Fark... wait, it might have been a what?!)

In addition to the extra distance and hostile airspace, there's another big difference: the earlier strikes were on unfueled reactors, which are little more than empty buildings. Iran's reactors are fueled. Even if the target was located right next door and the mission were technically feasible, a strike on a fueled/operating reactor is guaranteed to produce more than mere diplomatic fallout. It's a bad idea for reasons beyond the logistical difficulties. For this reason, I also I disagree with fireclown in that I don't think they'd have massive - or any - US support.
 
2012-10-03 12:28:58 PM

AntonChigger:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

How many times have we toppled other democracies?


We tipped over Iran in 1953, which led directly to the situation we have right now.

But since you asked.

Guatemala in 1954 (The 50s were a busy time for us)

The Congo in the early 60s.

Brazil in 1964

Ghana in 1966

Chile in the early 70s

And that's just what the Church Committee covered.
 
2012-10-03 12:30:36 PM

Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?


So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?
 
2012-10-03 12:34:08 PM

Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?

So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?


What aggression? Did we instigate some kind of unprovoked attack against a military base of theirs?
 
2012-10-03 12:37:00 PM
The only aggression that really spring to mind was something from '88, after one of our ships took collateral damage from them mining the sea Praying Mantis
 
2012-10-03 12:37:35 PM

Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll


He ain't allow. US (and Israel) are the 2 most dangerous nations for the sovereignty of any other nation.
 
2012-10-03 12:37:35 PM
Funny how the only country to ever use nukes telling someone else they aren't allowed to have nukes.
 
2012-10-03 12:38:27 PM

super_grass: fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.


And the midwest can go with it too.
 
2012-10-03 12:38:43 PM

Abuse Liability: Rent Party: Abuse Liability:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

You seem to forget who the aggressor of that war was. So, in essence, you're just pissed we retaliated and then sanctioned them. Oh, it was nuclear? Because killing millions with a bomb vs. say... through other types of military action is OK? Yes, I believe we're the more responsible country in this scenario. In fact, we helped rebuild all of Europe including Japan after the bombing Marshall Plan Truman Doctrine. Would Iran do the same?

So, who is the aggressor now? Over 80 countries have had American military action on their soil since the war. If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?

What aggression? Did we instigate some kind of unprovoked attack against a military base of theirs?


We supported the violent overthrow of multiple governments, many of them democratically elected. We did this either through covert action (Iran, 1953) or overt action (Nicaragua, 1980s).

And the example we set in Iraq (Whoops! Wrong country, sorryboutthat!) should make any state populated with brown people nervous. It seems the only thing we pay attention to lately when we decide to take military action against someone is whether they are a nuclear power, and how much oil they're sitting on (see, Korea, North).

The best thing America can do to stop nuclear proliferation is to stop acting like the worlds biggest asshole so smaller states don't think they need them to deter us.
 
2012-10-03 12:39:15 PM
The research ("TRIGA") reactor at Univ. Wisconsin -- Madison used 70% enriched FLIP fuel when I was there about 10 years ago. Pretty sure that was for peaceful purposes.
 
2012-10-03 12:40:11 PM

Rent Party: If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?


Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?
 
2012-10-03 12:40:59 PM

liam76: Rent Party: If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?

Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?


10 years of invasion and occupation of Iraq is just "hostility?"

See how that works?
 
2012-10-03 12:41:20 PM

GranoblasticMan: super_grass: fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.

And the midwest can go with it too.


jshine: The research ("TRIGA") reactor at Univ. Wisconsin -- Madison used 70% enriched FLIP fuel when I was there about 10 years ago. Pretty sure that was for peaceful purposes.


HOLY SHIAT! I was only joking, but I was right! The midwest is developing nuclear weapons.

We need a preemptive strike.
 
2012-10-03 12:42:12 PM

GranoblasticMan: super_grass: fark it, let the mideast burn.

Nothing of value will be lost.

And the midwest can go with it too.


You shut your whore mouth, the midwest is an awesome part of this nation

/Smug assholes like you piss me off
//From california
 
2012-10-03 12:43:10 PM

xanadian: I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?


Depends on the design. If you use heavy water, you don't need to enrich the fuel at all (of course, "enriching" the heavy water is also difficult & expensive).

If you use regular water as a moderator & coolant, then the amount of enrichment affects the size of the core you can use. Smaller cores have a greater surface area - to - volume ratio, so they "leak" more neutrons and harder to drive to criticality. If you built a large reactor, you can get by with just a few percent enrichment, but if you want a reactor thats smaller, you need to go higher.
 
2012-10-03 12:44:21 PM

GranoblasticMan: jshine: The research ("TRIGA") reactor at Univ. Wisconsin -- Madison used 70% enriched FLIP fuel when I was there about 10 years ago. Pretty sure that was for peaceful purposes.

HOLY SHIAT! I was only joking, but I was right! The midwest is developing nuclear weapons.

We need a preemptive strike.



The Midwest has had nuclear weapons for a long time.
 
2012-10-03 12:45:13 PM

Rent Party: AntonChigger:
So the point isn't that we're a stable democracy, it's that we are an aggressive risk to other democracies.

How many times have we toppled other democracies?

We tipped over Iran in 1953, which led directly to the situation we have right now.

But since you asked.

Guatemala in 1954 (The 50s were a busy time for us)

The Congo in the early 60s.

Brazil in 1964

Ghana in 1966

Chile in the early 70s

And that's just what the Church Committee covered.


While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.

/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over
 
2012-10-03 12:45:37 PM
 
2012-10-03 12:48:43 PM

AntonChigger:
And that's just what the Church Committee covered.

While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.


Hey wait a gaddam minute! You can't do that! Now what am I supposed to do?


/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over


If we aren't we are certainly part of the discussion on who is.
 
2012-10-03 12:50:13 PM

xanadian: I'm just curious, but what enrichment levels are needed for generally efficient power production?


It depends.

For nuclear bombs, you need over 20% and sophisticated weapons usually use over-85% enriched material. For dirty bombs, you can get away with a lot less because the aim is not to blow things up, but irradiate people and things. For power generation, you don't need much unless you are doing it the old-fashioned way, with enriched uranium, graphite-moderated reactors.

Different types of nuclear reactors run on different fuels, but 2%-3% enrichment is just fine for enriched uranium reactors. If your aim is simply to heat water, you can, in theory, dump a lot of unenriched uranium or other radioactive material into a hole in the ground and draw off hot water for heating and steam turbine electrictiy generation. Nobody does this on a commercial scale, but a Thorium reactor is a possibility and in the pre-production stages, and it need not be much more complex than a sealed cannister that is leak-proof and able to withstand heat and pressure changes.

At least 2% enrichment is necessary for enriched uranium reactors. The concern with 65%, which is well below bomb-making levels, is that once you have reached that level of enrichment, it's a short jog to 95%. Enrichment takes place in centrifuges, that work on the same principle more or less as the cream separator on dairy farms. The process is repeated until the desired level of concentration of Uranium-235 is reached from feedstock of Uranium-238, which is more stable and not very useful for bombs and power generation.

Iran does not have the bomb, there's not a lot of real evidence it is actively seeking the bomb, and it says it does not want the bomb. In fact, top Imans have declared a fatwa (ruling, judgement) that nuclear weapons are immoral. It is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty club (the USA has not ratified formally), which proclaims the right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. If it weren't for politics, Iran getting the bomb would be no more of an issue than Canada getting it.

In fact, many American Realist political observers are non-Zionists and are not worried if Iran gets the bomb. They think it would stabilize the politics of the region. After all, Israel, Pakistan and India are all known to have the technology and the weapons. Pakistan and India have tested explosions. Making bombs is not the hard part. It's testing them often enough to make sure they'll work when used that takes the real resources. If Iran has the bomb, it would be a lot less nervous, and a lot of other countries would be more nervous, making them easier to deal with. The Saudis are said to have their oil fields booby-trapped against the risk of invasion plans (for US invasion plans, see the 1973 plans drawn up by the Nixon administration), but nuclear weapons would make them worry enough to allow the US to pressure them a bit more on terrorism, Israel and other issues, notably oil, human rights and such.

With its centrifuges crippled by the Stuxnet virus, which everybody is pretty sure was an Israeli-American co-production to some degree or other, Iran's ability to produce enough weapons-grade material is delayed, but not prevented. And everything Israel and the USA does pushes Iran towards getting the bomb. Only credible assurances of safety from pre-emptive strikes against its reactors (mostly research reactors, including the one that the USA gave the Shah, along with 75 pounds of uranium to play with) would fail to drive Iran towards a pre-bomb threshold with enough enriched uranium to build a bomb in less than a year.

Almost any advanced and wealthy nation could, in a pinch, have the bomb in a year, including Canada, which has the uranium, the technology, basic delivery systems, etc, and only lacks the will to go nuclear.

As for terrorist level weapons (simple, crude dirty bombs to disperse radioactive materials in order to kill or frighten a population the size of a city), you don't need national resources for that. The resources of a small university, a mid-sized corporation or a well-funded terrorist group would be sufficient.

As the Professor points out in The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad, a man who is unafraid to die is pretty much untouchable by those who are, including the police. In the story, the Professor, who is a sort of Ted Kazinsky type on steroids, mets the top cop in London in a narrow alley. Both of them know that that the Professor has a very small but beatifully made bomb in his pocket and can blow them both to Kingdom Come in a trice. What to do? What to do? The idea of Mutual Assured Destruction is not new. The Mexican Standoff has been around longer than Mexico, which is ancient.

Robert Frost said that good walls make good neighbours, but a good nuclear deterrant is also effective except in cases of real irrationality, and most of the world's apparent irrationality is just politics and economics continued by other means.
 
2012-10-03 12:55:45 PM

Rent Party: liam76: Rent Party: If nukes were a reasonable response to Japanese hostility in 1945, why are we so butthurt about Iran wanting them in response to American aggression now?

Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?

10 years of invasion and occupation of Iraq is just "hostility?"

See how that works?


Yeah, you make a dumb comment of Japan's actions being "hostility" I call you out on it and you pull a comparison ot Iraq that doesn't have fark all to do with what I am saying.

As fro 10 years of occupation they have had elections in 05, and they haven't told us to leave.

/not that I think we should be there.
 
2012-10-03 12:58:25 PM

Rent Party: AntonChigger:
And that's just what the Church Committee covered.

While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.


Hey wait a gaddam minute! You can't do that! Now what am I supposed to do?


/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over

If we aren't we are certainly part of the discussion on who is.

Indeed, and see what I did there? Its called admitting ignorance, a skill sadly lost on just about everyone these days. Instead of continuing to argue, I admit I'm wrong, learn from it, and move on.

/I'm republican too, freaky I know
 
2012-10-03 01:01:34 PM

AntonChigger:
Indeed, and see what I did there? Its called admitting ignorance, a skill sadly lost on just about everyone these days. Instead of continuing to argue, I admit I'm wrong, learn from it, and move on.

/I'm republican too, freaky I know


[speechlessmal.gif]

Jeezus. And I thought I'd seen everything.
 
2012-10-03 01:01:45 PM
if handled correctly ....it could all be over in a flash
 
2012-10-03 01:02:37 PM
Well said Brantgoose. I won't quote you because I don't feel like scrolling down even further, but well said.

I've been trying to make the point that we are the less irrational of the two countries being discussed here on this thread. Most of the examples (if not all) Rent Party has posted were either in defense of another country (north korea/south korea), or some subversive reason (99% of the time to 'appropriate' that countries resources), but usually a mixture of the two. That may be cold, calculated and selfish, but it's better than a country whose clergy (i.e., people who actually run the country), talk about genocide. Its just too much Germany circa 1945 for me.
 
2012-10-03 01:07:25 PM

BullBearMS: I'll just make this information available again, since there seems to be a prolonged campaign to pretend this never happened:


I think you are misreading what was said, both in the article this thread is linked to and in the Panetta article. Everyone knows that Iran is not currently enriching uranium to a level capable of being used in a nuclear weapon. So far, everything Iran has produced has been below the 20% threshold (enrichment beyond 20% is commonly referred to as 'Highly Enriched Uranium' or HEU).

However, they are developing the centrifuge technology that will allow them to enrich uranium well in excess of 20%, and that uranium will be weapons grade. That is why the 'threat' in the linked article to enrich to 60% is so serious. 60%, while not capable on it's own of creating a weapon, is certainly 'weapons grade' in that it is used in nuclear weapons. Also, the biggest barrier to enrichment technology is getting over 20%. There is another technological hurdle to overcome at roughly 60% (and another at roughly 80%) but those challenges are minor compared to the challenges of getting from 20% to 60%. If Iran starts producing 60% enriched uranium, it's a clear signal that they will be capable of producing much more highly enriched uranium shortly thereafter.

That is the 'nuclear capability' that we (and lets be honest here, no one else in the world) wants them to have. Europe doesn't want, the rest of the middle east doesn't want it, even the Russians and the Chinese aren't wild about it.
 
2012-10-03 01:09:50 PM

liam76:
Pearl Harbor and the gruesome island hopping war that followed was just "hostility"?

10 years of invasion and occupation of Iraq is just "hostility?"

See how that works?

Yeah, you make a dumb comment of Japan's actions being "hostility" I call you out on it and you pull a comparison ot Iraq that doesn't have fark all to do with what I am saying.



Yes, I know what you're saying. You're saying "But it's not hostility when we do it!"

Hmmm... I wonder what our decade of occupation in Iraq might have to do with anything Iran related...

www.the-bastard.com


As fro 10 years of occupation they have had elections in 05, and they haven't told us to leave.


They asked us to leave, formally, in 2008. The SOFA was hugely unpopular in Iraq as it didn't require our exit fast enough. Remember GWB getting that shoe tossed at his head? That's what he was doing over there.
 
2012-10-03 01:15:14 PM

AntonChigger: Rent Party: AntonChigger:
And that's just what the Church Committee covered.

While it seems that Congo kinda moved from one democracy to another, the rest seem legit. I capitulate to your superior knowledge on this subject matter, sir.


Hey wait a gaddam minute! You can't do that! Now what am I supposed to do?


/Farkin cold war, stained everyone's hands
//Still don't believe the US is the primary aggressor on this planet, now that the cold war is over

If we aren't we are certainly part of the discussion on who is.
Indeed, and see what I did there? Its called admitting ignorance, a skill sadly lost on just about everyone these days. Instead of continuing to argue, I admit I'm wrong, learn from it, and move on.

/I'm republican too, freaky I know


I'm in the same boat. I can respect Rent Party's argument and even concede that we're aggressive assholes. I'll even agree to the point that we 'bully' Iran. However, My point was that we don't threaten genocide, if given nuclear capability and this makes us the more STABLE (read - less likely to use a nuke). I believe it is in our best interest to make sure Iran does develop nuclear weapons.
 
2012-10-03 01:15:46 PM

Abuse Liability: Well said Brantgoose. I won't quote you because I don't feel like scrolling down even further, but well said.

I've been trying to make the point that we are the less irrational of the two countries being discussed here on this thread. Most of the examples (if not all) Rent Party has posted were either in defense of another country (north korea/south korea), or some subversive reason (99% of the time to 'appropriate' that countries resources), but usually a mixture of the two. That may be cold, calculated and selfish, but it's better than a country whose clergy (i.e., people who actually run the country), talk about genocide. Its just too much Germany circa 1945 for me.


Most of the examples I listed happened because of the religious fear of Communism, even if democratically elected by the people of that nation. The most egregious example of that religious fear was Nicaragua, where the Sandinista government was elected in 1984, was openly socialist, and dumped most of the nations resources into Nicaragua through schools, hospitals, gender equality, and other commie things. Reagan's support of the Contra rebels (who rape and murder nuns for fun and profit) had everything to do with that religious dogma.

Today, rather than trembling at the very mention of evil communism, we wet our pants at the knowledge that there is a terrorist under every bed, and keep that aggression going.

We spend more on our military than the next 25 nations combined. And 24 of them our our allies.

Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?
 
2012-10-03 01:16:00 PM
*not
 
2012-10-03 01:16:39 PM
Silly Iran, white people are the only ones that get to have nukes.
 
2012-10-03 01:18:11 PM

Rent Party: Abuse Liability: Well said Brantgoose. I won't quote you because I don't feel like scrolling down even further, but well said.

I've been trying to make the point that we are the less irrational of the two countries being discussed here on this thread. Most of the examples (if not all) Rent Party has posted were either in defense of another country (north korea/south korea), or some subversive reason (99% of the time to 'appropriate' that countries resources), but usually a mixture of the two. That may be cold, calculated and selfish, but it's better than a country whose clergy (i.e., people who actually run the country), talk about genocide. Its just too much Germany circa 1945 for me.

Most of the examples I listed happened because of the religious fear of Communism, even if democratically elected by the people of that nation. The most egregious example of that religious fear was Nicaragua, where the Sandinista government was elected in 1984, was openly socialist, and dumped most of the nations resources into Nicaragua through schools, hospitals, gender equality, and other commie things. Reagan's support of the Contra rebels (who rape and murder nuns for fun and profit) had everything to do with that religious dogma.

Today, rather than trembling at the very mention of evil communism, we wet our pants at the knowledge that there is a terrorist under every bed, and keep that aggression going.

We spend more on our military than the next 25 nations combined. And 24 of them our our allies.

Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?


Rome let their gaurd down and disbanded much of their military as well. That worked out well for them.
 
2012-10-03 01:19:21 PM

Rich Cream: How about Iranian Jews who even refuse payment to expatriate to Israel? Are they just self-loathing? 


*shrug* And a lot of American women vote Republican. Go figure.
 
2012-10-03 01:20:13 PM

Abuse Liability:
I'm in the same boat. I can respect Rent Party's argument and even concede that we're aggressive assholes. I'll even agree to the point that we 'bully' Iran. However, My point was that we don't threaten genocide, if given nuclear capability and this makes us the more STABLE (read - less likely to use a nuke). I believe it is in our best interest to make sure Iran does develop nuclear weapons.


We don't really disagree that much. I would posit that our fundamental difference lies in the fact that while we don't threaten genocide per se, when your invasion and occupation of a nation that didn't pose a threat to you kills 500,000 innocent people, the difference is only one of definition.

Despite the means, the end is still the same.
 
2012-10-03 01:22:20 PM
 
2012-10-03 01:24:03 PM

wedun: Abuse Liability: amoral: I would rather Iran have nukes than the US. They are more stable and less aggressive.

That is one awful troll

The list of countries invaded and ruined by the United States is larger than the list of countries invaded and ruined by Iran.


This list of countries invaded and then given back to their inhabitants is longer for the U.S. than any nation in world history. Throughout history, when an invasion takes palce, the invading country stays and attempts to posess the property they invaded. Be careful what you wish for when you wish for the U.S. to stop being a military force to reason with. Without the US, we could easily get back to a situation where nations randomly invade others, and just keep them.

You say the United States ruined them. I doubt the inhabitants of Japan, Germany, Italy, Panama, many pacific island nations, etc... would say the same.
 
2012-10-03 01:24:30 PM

Abuse Liability:
Just exactly what do you think we're supposed to do with all that stuff?

Rome let their gaurd down and disbanded much of their military as well. That worked out well for them.


And in fact (because I suck at the internet) had Rome kept their legions, you know, *in Rome*, rather than spread out all over the goddamn globe, they might have been better prepared to repel the Visgoths.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report