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.

(The Big Story)   A graph obtained from an Iranian computer simulation suggests that they are interested in playing a game of Global Thermonuclear War. Or a nice game of chess. Hard to tell, really   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 150
    More: Scary, nuclear warfare, Iranians, U.S. state abbreviations, Iran, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, International Atomic Energy Agency, uranium enrichment, David Albright  
•       •       •

4861 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 4:25 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 04:49:03 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Rev. Skarekroe: That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.

No there isn't. Not one that doesn't involve cheating.

You can not lose every time, though.


Correct.

There is a trick to playing were you can win every single time if you're opponent doesn't know the trick you are using. If they know the counter, it's a draw, every single time.

The computer knows the counter moves(or can simulate all possible moves, it isn't a very large set).

Cat's game. Every. Single. Time.
 
2012-11-27 04:49:40 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: I'm not saying you're wrong: Likely hood it would settle down the region... But there is always the crazy factor in human behavior


Arguably, if this was a big issue then Iran would be continuously firing missiles at Israel. Well, directly doing so with their MRBMs instead of supplying Hamas with shiatty Grad rockets. And again, Pakistan and India went to war quite a bit with each other before they got nukes. The situations aren't that dissimilar.
 
2012-11-27 04:49:59 PM  

Headso: vernonFL: Whats next? A Hindu on the Moon?

A rat done bit my sister अभिलाषा.
(with Kshatriya on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Kshatriya's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Kshatriya's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Kshatriya's on the moon)


don't get me started on a Heron binge.
 
2012-11-27 04:50:45 PM  

meat0918: There is a trick to playing were you can win every single time if you're opponent doesn't know the trick you are using.


Is the trick the "rules of tic-tac-toe"?
 
2012-11-27 04:55:03 PM  

impaler: meat0918: There is a trick to playing were you can win every single time if you're opponent doesn't know the trick you are using.

Is the trick the "rules of tic-tac-toe"?


More or less.

You'd be surprised how many people don't see the pattern of moves and lose every single time until you explain step by step how you have won every game.

Or maybe I've only played against really, really, really short sighted people that don't see beyond one or two moves.
 
2012-11-27 04:58:16 PM  

Relatively Obscure: Rev. Skarekroe: That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.

No there isn't. Not one that doesn't involve cheating.

You can not lose every time, though.


I assure you that you can. Though if you were *both* trying to lose for some reason things might get stale-matey again.
 
2012-11-27 04:59:00 PM  

meat0918: impaler: meat0918: There is a trick to playing were you can win every single time if you're opponent doesn't know the trick you are using.

Is the trick the "rules of tic-tac-toe"?

More or less.

You'd be surprised how many people don't see the pattern of moves and lose every single time until you explain step by step how you have won every game.

Or maybe I've only played against really, really, really short sighted people that don't see beyond one or two moves.


Or you type extraordinarily well for an 8 year old?
 
2012-11-27 05:00:14 PM  

meat0918: Relatively Obscure: Rev. Skarekroe: That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.

No there isn't. Not one that doesn't involve cheating.

You can not lose every time, though.

Correct.

There is a trick to playing were you can win every single time if you're opponent doesn't know the trick you are using. If they know the counter, it's a draw, every single time.

The computer knows the counter moves(or can simulate all possible moves, it isn't a very large set).

Cat's game. Every. Single. Time.


Obviously, you've never watched "Donald Duck in MathMagic Land". Because if you had, you would know the secret to winning at Tic-Tac-Toe
 
2012-11-27 05:01:27 PM  
Umm... if that is from Iran, why is all the text on the graph in english?
 
2012-11-27 05:02:02 PM  

BeesNuts: meat0918: impaler: meat0918: There is a trick to playing were you can win every single time if you're opponent doesn't know the trick you are using.

Is the trick the "rules of tic-tac-toe"?

More or less.

You'd be surprised how many people don't see the pattern of moves and lose every single time until you explain step by step how you have won every game.

Or maybe I've only played against really, really, really short sighted people that don't see beyond one or two moves.

Or you type extraordinarily well for an 8 year old?


Actually, this is making me kinda depressed that I know adults that play tic-tac-toe worse than 8 year old kids (and aren't purposely losing against kids).
 
Bf+
2012-11-27 05:03:35 PM  
Mr. President, we cannot allow a graph gap!
 
2012-11-27 05:03:55 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Then there are guys like Hitler- who decides to farking take down Germany with him.

MacManara noted that Castro was more than willing to start World War III over the Cuban Missle Crises..The Russians held back.

While I understand that smaller countries wanting the great leveler- (north Korea, Iran, and Iraq being called Axis of evil by w Bush, caused them to restart their programs. Especially since W Bush invaded Iran on a cherry picked intel.)

I'm not saying you're wrong: Likely hood it would settle down the region... But there is always the crazy factor in human behavior


If by 'MacManara' you mean 'McNamara', then...kinda. More like, Castro's appraisal of what the US would and wouldn't do was less balanced and intelligent than Kruschev's. As you would expect from someone who was younger, less educated, vastly less experienced, and from a third-rate tropical island, not one of the world's traditional power players.

Yes, it's true that the spectre of a non-rational nuclear player is far more terrifying of a non-rational conventional player. But by the same token, because it is so terrifying, everyone takes it a lot more seriously.
Consider the history of the past 200 years:

1815: International peace-keeping was a joke prior to the Napoleonic Wars. However, after they were finished, the Congress of Vienna set up a system that prevented a major (ie, the Crimea doesn't count) war among the Great Powers (the Franco-Prussian war is more rightly the war of German independence under this view than an inter-power war) for a century.

1918: After the Great War steps were taken to make sure war never happened again. Unfortunately, they added reparations into the mix, thus destabilizing that possibility.

1945: Things Get Nuclear. Enter the UN, followed by a whole host of other letter-based organizations: NATO, WTO, G-20, G-8, etc etc. All more or less aimed at the same thing: to make damn sure that nothing like WWII ever happened again. And it has worked. Instead of border disputes and sparring armies, we get lawsuits in the WTO. No, it's not a perfect system, but by and large it works: pressure is continually eased, and so can never mount into a massive catastrophe.

In short, there's a reason people focus so much on the small crazy exceptions like Best Korea and Ahmadinnerjacket: they're the exceptions now, not the rule. The extreme outliers, even.

Think about it: when was the last time you heard about a symmetrical war, ie a war between two real powers? 1973? Korea? When was the last time two regional powers fought? The last India-Pakistan war?

The only wars these days are 1) internal disputes like Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc, 2) low-grade insurgencies like FARC, and 3) asymetric conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Ossetia, Sierra Leone, etc. Big wars don't exist, small wars are dying off, and what few insurgencies there are really qualify more as especially violent police actions. The only real difference between Afghanistan and northern Mexico right now is that one involves Muslims and opium and the other involves Zetas and cocaine.
 
2012-11-27 05:04:21 PM  

whistleridge: I don't know why everyone is fussing so much. They won't use them.........all it would do is guarantee an immediate Israeli response, international occupation of Iran, and the utter destruction of the current Islamist state there. They know that. They don't want that. And Tel Aviv isn't worth it.


Exactly. The idea that the second Iran gets a nuke they will launch it at the first convenient target simply because they can is the stupidest idea ever. It makes no sense, it's the equivalent of committing suicide. And the idea that they would let such tech fall into terrorist hands is just as stupid, the radiation signature will still lead right back to them. Once they have one, which will happen eventually whether it's in 10 years or 100 years, it's in their best interest to make sure it never goes off if they want to continue existing as a country.
 
2012-11-27 05:04:36 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-27 05:07:21 PM  

impaler: Does anyone know if it's common for scientists (especially outside the US) to rate nuclear power in kT/sec?


well, if it comes from a textbook, sure. Back in undergrad some of the diagrams still used horsepower and Fahrenheit, its considered something of a rite of passage to torture the students with oddball units.
 
2012-11-27 05:07:28 PM  
Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency? And if you say either, "one is our friend," or, "they need them to deter an enemy that possess them," that is not enough reason.
 
2012-11-27 05:10:56 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency?


Allow me to introduce you to my friend, Mr. Boogeyman. Together we are able to use fear to get people to do whatever we want.
 
2012-11-27 05:12:46 PM  
Holy shiat. What happens if they combine their photoshop technology with their graphing technology?
 
2012-11-27 05:13:17 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency? And if you say either, "one is our friend," or, "they need them to deter an enemy that possess them," that is not enough reason.


One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.
 
2012-11-27 05:14:02 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency? And if you say either, "one is our friend," or, "they need them to deter an enemy that possess them," that is not enough reason.


No one I can think of (beyond Pakistan and it's supporters) believes that Pakistan having them is in any way, shape, or form good, but once they have them, what can you do? Same thing with India.

As someone else said, this is 70 year old technology we are dealing with here. The only hurdles are money and time.

I'm just amazed the US is still the only country that has detonated not one but two nukes against an enemy target (and a civilian populace to boot) and we have not had one other government or other organization use them in even a military setting since they were developed. Sure lots of tests, but no actual use.

Is MAD truly that paralyzing of a deterrent? And thank goodness if it is.
 
2012-11-27 05:17:30 PM  

LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.


What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?
 
2012-11-27 05:22:39 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: It is a tragedy to see so much of nuclear science dedicated to finding new ways to destroy each other. If all of that time and money had been spent researching something useful to mankind, I wonder what advancements we could have made in space by now. Or medicine, or engineering. Hell, why does anyone bother to make/maintain nukes anymore? We as a race have enough conventional weapons to blow us up 100x over already.

History tells us that the parties involved weighed the implications of using atomic bombs heavily before pulling the trigger. Their intention was indeed valid and understandable, but I dare say that they had no idea the kind of Pandora's box they were opening by ending the war a few months sooner.


If we hadn't developed nuclear bombs and stockpiled them hundereds of millions more of us would have killed each iteration in wars since WW2.

Anti-bomb is anti-human.
 
2012-11-27 05:23:02 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good


When has anyone ever said that this is good?
 
2012-11-27 05:24:08 PM  
I smell bullshiat. Zionist propaganda
 
2012-11-27 05:24:48 PM  

birchman: What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?


How about attack a neighbor and threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere? Not saying it would happen but it's hardly impossible.
 
2012-11-27 05:24:50 PM  
wasn't the whole world already operating under the assumption that they were working on a bomb?
 
2012-11-27 05:29:32 PM  

neenerist: birchman: What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

How about attack a neighbor and threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere? Not saying it would happen but it's hardly impossible.


Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.
 
2012-11-27 05:30:08 PM  

birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?


I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.
 
2012-11-27 05:34:21 PM  

SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.


images.fineartamerica.com
Yuh fired!
 
2012-11-27 05:34:33 PM  

SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.


Don't invade us or we'll nuke ourselves!

Having a nuke and having an effective long range nuclear delivery system are two completely different animals my friend.
 
2012-11-27 05:36:51 PM  

birchman: Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.


I honestly never considered the 'u r stoopid' defense. You're the living embodiment of Clausewitz.
 
2012-11-27 05:39:53 PM  
My GOD!!!! They've figured out how to plot a function on a graph.
 
2012-11-27 05:40:38 PM  

Bf+: Mr. President, we cannot allow a graph gap!


i.stack.imgur.com
 
2012-11-27 05:41:58 PM  

birchman: neenerist: birchman: What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

How about attack a neighbor and threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere? Not saying it would happen but it's hardly impossible.

Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.


Yeah, it's not like Iranian leaders are constantly claiming that Bahrain is Iran's 14th province or anything...

/Nuclear blackmail and annexation of neighboring shia arab states is the most likely outcome of a successful Iranian nuclear program
 
2012-11-27 05:47:18 PM  

birchman: SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.

Don't invade us or we'll nuke ourselves!

Having a nuke and having an effective long range nuclear delivery system are two completely different animals my friend.


You don't need long range to hit an army that's invading your borders, you just need enough range to hit their marshalling areas and/or supply lines in neighboring countries (with the added benefit of also nuking the country aiding your invaders). Unless the invasion is entirely airborne, that is, but no one's ever pulled that one off on any large scale.

As a backup option, you can have just enough range to be able to hit something the invader isn't willing to see destroyed. Then you essentially just hold that hostage, like North Korea does with Seoul.
 
2012-11-27 05:47:33 PM  

neenerist: birchman: Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.

I honestly never considered the 'u r stoopid' defense. You're the living embodiment of Clausewitz.


Unless you think that sailing a nuke over to the US on a pirate ship undetected, somehow getting it onshore, and detonating it somewhere inside our borders is a foolproof plan, your idea is stupid. There's not much else to argue about. Let's not even get into the fact that, while tragic, such a plan wouldn't really put a dent in our ability to turn their entire country into a shiny glass parking lot in a matter of minutes. They know this just like everyone else does.
 
2012-11-27 05:49:23 PM  

SpaceButler: birchman: SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.

Don't invade us or we'll nuke ourselves!

Having a nuke and having an effective long range nuclear delivery system are two completely different animals my friend.

You don't need long range to hit an army that's invading your borders, you just need enough range to hit their marshalling areas and/or supply lines in neighboring countries (with the added benefit of also nuking the country aiding your invaders). Unless the invasion is entirely airborne, that is, but no one's ever pulled that one off on any large scale.

As a backup option, you can have just enough range to be able to hit something the invader isn't willing to see destroyed. Then you essentially just hold that hostage, like North Korea does with Seoul.


Why are we invading Iran again?
 
2012-11-27 05:50:44 PM  

birchman: your idea is stupid.


The US neighbors Iran? Is that you, Mitt?
 
2012-11-27 05:52:09 PM  

neenerist: birchman: your idea is stupid.

The US neighbors Iran? Is that you, Mitt?


Is the US a nation that might interfere if Iran attacked one of its neighbors?
 
2012-11-27 05:53:09 PM  

neenerist: birchman: your idea is stupid.

The US neighbors Iran? Is that you, Mitt?


You said "threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere"

If we interfere, then I guess retaliation against nations that interfere means, well, us. Right?
 
2012-11-27 05:53:30 PM  

GAT_00: whistleridge: From the Afterword:

That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.


Wasn't the original material from Oak Ridge gas diffused?
 
2012-11-27 05:54:13 PM  

birchman: Unless you think that sailing a nuke over to the US on a pirate ship undetected, somehow getting it onshore, and detonating it somewhere inside our borders is a foolproof plan,


Most of the population is on the coasts. You don't have to ever take it off the ship. Just put it in the Hudson.
 
2012-11-27 05:54:34 PM  

impaler: birchman: Unless you think that sailing a nuke over to the US on a pirate ship undetected, somehow getting it onshore, and detonating it somewhere inside our borders is a foolproof plan,

Most of the population is on the coasts. You don't have to ever take it off the ship. Just put it in the Hudson.


Good luck with that.
 
2012-11-27 05:59:24 PM  

birchman: Good luck with that.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-27 06:09:22 PM  

birchman: Why are we invading Iran again?


Well, you'd have to ask the various political figures and nations who've rattled their sabres Iran-wards in recent years. Personally, I think it's a tragically stupid idea without any redeeming merits, and that the sabre-rattling has itself probably been a major factor in motivating Iran to try to develop nuclear weapons.

More advanced nations have basically put Iran in a position where its government's options are to (A) severely undermine their own power and standing both domestically and regionally by allowing foreigners unfettered access to their research facilities and meekly submitting to any related demands, or (B) actually develop a nuke in order to gain some leverage in negotiations over sanctions, and to get other nations to stop threatening invasion. (B) would probably also bring added power and status regionally, as a bonus.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but from their current situation, I can't see any good reason why Iran's government wouldn't try to develop nuclear weapons and then just sit on them, like every other nuclear nation since 1945 has done.
 
2012-11-27 06:26:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Is the US a nation that might interfere if Iran attacked one of its neighbors?


Is Iran limited to threatening the US if they interfere?

/must remember to wear the lawyer hat here. We are serious(ly limited) Fark.
 
2012-11-27 06:34:46 PM  
Pretty much the moment Iran revealed that they were enriching uranium beyond 5%, they were announcing to the world they were intent on making a nuke.
 
2012-11-27 06:39:17 PM  

zarberg: GAT_00: whistleridge: From the Afterword:

That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.

Wasn't the original material from Oak Ridge gas diffused?


Uranium hexafloride, which was used to enrich the uranium, which was then centrifuged if I remember right.
 
2012-11-27 06:39:49 PM  
Wanting a bomb is not the same as wanting a "global thermonuclear war." They most likely want it as a deterrent.
 
2012-11-27 06:47:30 PM  

Befuddled: Pretty much the moment Iran revealed that they were enriching uranium beyond 5%, they were announcing to the world they were intent on making a nuke.


No. They went up to 20% to make rods (which aren't used in bombs) so they could power a medical research reactor. They tried to buy the 20% rods to power the reactor, but were blocked from doing so. So they made their own to power the reactor. From what I understand all their other rods are produced at lower than 5%. They did try to sell some 20% rods (for use in reactors), but again were blocked.

So when you said, "pretty much", I think you were trying to say, "they didn't announce to the world that they were intent on making a nuke, but I'm going to claim that anyway."

Why make anything up? Why not deal with the reality of the situation? Are you trying to scare other people? Are you scared of Iran? Did you not actually look into why they went about 5% purity yourself? Do you have a motivated interest in misrepresenting the facts?
 
Displayed 50 of 150 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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report