Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Jerusalem Post)   Iran is building 16 new nuclear processing plants and announces discovery of large new uranium deposits. Totally for peaceful purposes, of course   (jpost.com) divider line 232
    More: Scary, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, uranium deposits, uranium enrichment, Danny Ayalon, Caspian Sea, Sea of Oman, mining  
•       •       •

2522 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:21 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-23 02:06:10 PM  

traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one


That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.  They also lack the resources to make them, and who'd sell them one?  Even the most megalomanic tinpot dictator is unlikely to part with a nuke because dictators have something to lose.  Flaunting one may impress the masses but they're enthralled anyway; they may demand concessions from other countries but they're already wealthy anyway.  The upside is minimal and the downside (if I actually use the damn thing) is that Dragonchild's Great Imperial Palace will be turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Note I am NOT resorting to any sort of naive, kumbaya assumptions about human nature or intelligence.  Humans are basically stupid assholes.  I do believe North Korea wants a nuke, but the reason why North Korea would never deploy a nuke is because their dictators are greedy, selfish assholes at heart, and greedy people don't take risks if there's nothing to gain.

You know why Iran is hot for a nuke?  Because they saw what the U.S. did to Iraq, and they know they're next.  Iraq didn't have nukes and the GOP, being the Internet Tough Guys they are, went in basically knowing that they'd be largely unopposed.  Now the GOP is beating the war drums over Iran, so Iran knows they have to get a nuke before the U.S. invades them for, well, the assumption they have one.  Note the U.S. never invaded Pakistan even after knowing bin Laden was there.  We went in with a few SEALs who took the guy out leaving the power structure intact (despite their treachery), which is much preferable to the full-blown invasion treatment Iraq got.

If I was a country, I'd want a nuke too -- for the single, sole purpose of scaring the shiats out of the GOP.  You basically just get the thing and sit on it.  Mutually Assured Destruction works, but only if it's mutual.  It won't stop the various elite squad skirmishes, but governments that have nukes are basically immune to invasion.
 
2013-02-23 02:07:28 PM  
I thought STUXNET took care of that problem for us already?
 
2013-02-23 02:07:40 PM  
They must not have any hippies over there getting in the way of progress
 
2013-02-23 02:08:17 PM  
We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense
 
2013-02-23 02:08:39 PM  

oldfarthenry: One can almost hear the Israeli bomber jets revving up their engines right now.


If I was Iran I would that 30,000 Iranian Jews on every site
/For shiats and giggles
 
2013-02-23 02:11:13 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: oldfarthenry: One can almost hear the Israeli bomber jets revving up their engines right now.

If I was Iran I would put that 30,000 Iranian Jews on every site
/For shiats and giggles

FTFM
 
2013-02-23 02:15:20 PM  

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


Wow. GAT straight to the derp-mobile. Saudi Arabia has already been deemed the chosen one  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/13/us-saudi-arabia-arms-deal  .

Which is good because they respect international agreements on nuclear proliferation. Iran doesn't like that so along with NKorea and others they're proliferating nukes and upending the balance of power which leads to conflict. Iran doesn't like being in a subordinate position, but too farking bad. Maybe they should play be the rules if they want to be trusted with being the custodians of their realm. SArabia is playing by the rules and the Emirates in general have a very positive relationship with the West.

SArabia trusts the West's promise that we wont let Iran overtake them so SArabia isn't pursuing nukes. We should not break that promise.
 
2013-02-23 02:17:09 PM  

Vectron: Stops reading at "Jerusalem Post".

We get it, Jews. We're supposed to do something about this. Now, please stop bombarding us with war propoganda. I'm sure your US politicians will eventually get around to it.


Did you see the article about how we never call our mothers anymore?  The article went on to mention that she understands that we can be too busy to call the only person who was in labor for hours with such pain and how her back was never the same.  Not to mention her figure, you think she can eat like that now?  No, it's fine.
 
2013-02-23 02:17:20 PM  
And because of those deposits they just gained MVP status for trade and are our new best friends... just like they were during the 1970s.
 
2013-02-23 02:19:51 PM  

rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense


It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.
 
2013-02-23 02:19:57 PM  

TiiiMMMaHHH: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

I'm just going to leave this here..

[s3.amazonaws.com image 720x519]


... because crazy is crazy.  Criminal != crazy.
 
2013-02-23 02:20:48 PM  
I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.
 
2013-02-23 02:21:58 PM  

dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.  They also lack the resources to make them, and who'd sell them one?  Even the most megalomanic tinpot dictator is unlikely to part with a nuke because dictators have something to lose.  Flaunting one may impress the masses but they're enthralled anyway; they may demand concessions from other countries but they're already wealthy anyway.  The upside is minimal and the downside (if I actually use the damn thing) is that Dragonchild's Great Imperial Palace will be turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Note I am NOT resorting to any sort of naive, kumbaya assumptions about human nature or intelligence.  Humans are basically stupid assholes.  I do believe North Korea wants a nuke, but the reason why North Korea would never deploy a nuke is because their dictators are greedy, selfish assholes at heart, and greedy people don't take risks if there's nothing to gain.

You know why Iran is hot for a nuke?  Because they saw what the U.S. did to Iraq, and they know they're next.  Iraq didn't have nukes and the GOP, being the Internet Tough Guys they are, went in basically knowing that they'd be largely unopposed.  Now the GOP is beating the war drums over Iran, so Iran knows they have to get a nuke before the U.S. invades them for, well, the assumption they have one.  Note the U.S. never invaded Pakistan even after knowing bin Laden was there.  We went in with a few SEALs who took the guy out leaving the power structure intact (despite their treachery), which is much preferable to the full-blown invasion treatment Iraq got.

If I was a country, I'd want a nuke too -- for the single, sole purpose of scaring the shiats out of the GOP.  You basically just get the thing and sit on it.  M ...


Unless you take the pure size of the country in question.  Lets just say hypothetically that the U.S. wanted to invade Iran.  Even a Nuke capable Iran.  Assuming we fully commit to the war with all of our force to bare. The U.S. could steamroll all known military installations w/in a week.  The first wave would have to be strategic attacks on ICBM launch sites, I believe this could be done in a day or two.  Worst case scenario, Iran gets off a couple ICBM's and MAYBE they even hit their target.  National tragedy day, everyone mourns and it becomes another 911, and suddenly everyone is on board for a prolonged campaign in the middle east again.  Iran loses in every scenario, and U.S. endures even a direct hit.
 
2013-02-23 02:22:16 PM  

TiiiMMMaHHH: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

I'm just going to leave this here..

[s3.amazonaws.com image 720x519]


Wow, that would be so true. True that is if the mass shootings didn't occur where local, state and federal law prohibits the open, concealed or otherwise carry of any firearm.

But they do. They occur precisely in places where the bad guys(tm) know that law abiding citizens cannot take arms. They occour in workplaces where you'll get fired if you have a weapon, schools, and other 'safe zones' where no guns are allowed.

If these sub-human murderous swine really wanted to kill big numbers, they'd try sporting events, concerts or other locations where you don't even have to aim over-much. The Aurora shooter was an exception to the rule. He actually went someplace where he knew there would eb a target-rich envrionement. But even then he used darkenss to protect himself from anyone who might have shot back.

And why don't these attacks occur at sporting events, concerts, etc? Because there's armed security there. And armed security might perforate you before you can get away or cause too much damage. But think of the hundreds of potential targets in the crowd waiting to get into a college football game, as an example. Or in the lines waiting to get into a concert. Yet it's schools that get targeted. you get what, 20 or 30 targets then place locks down and the police swarm it. But at least you're safe til they get there because nobody is armed the. They can't be. By law.

Oh, and the laws against high-capacity magazines? I got news for you. There's also laws against Murder. How's that workin' out for ya?
 
2013-02-23 02:24:08 PM  

Hrist: GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.

You know, I would like to agree with you.  I'd be inclined to do so if I didn't know that culture there.  If Iran suddenly found themselves with decent nuclear missile capability, it'd go something like this.  "We're gonna take back that land we're 100% sure Israel stole from us.  If you resist we'll nuke your capital."  We might give in one or two times, then it's going to be nuclear war over something silly.


Iran is in Persia, and does not abut Israel.  Iraq, on the other hand, has been warring with Iran on and off for millenia.
 
2013-02-23 02:26:46 PM  
Well if it's anything like that picture of their new jet,ahahahah holy shiat it looked terrible even if it was a mock up,then I expect it'll unleash a horror of poorly photoshopped mushroom clouds.
 
2013-02-23 02:30:57 PM  

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


Yes, the U.S. used them and learned from that mistake.  ...Iran does have the right to develop Nukes for whatever their ambitions are.  Such is the privilege of any sovereign nation.  But so too, does any other nation have the right to choose to impede that progress.  If I'm playing a game of chess, I'm not going to simply allow my opponent to get a pawn across the board to get a queen just because I have one and they don't.
 
2013-02-23 02:32:44 PM  

Thallone1: TiiiMMMaHHH: clipperbox: GAT_00: Nukes make war less likely, not more.


an armed society is a polite society...

I'm just going to leave this here..

[s3.amazonaws.com image 720x519]

Wow, that would be so true. True that is if the mass shootings didn't occur where local, state and federal law prohibits the open, concealed or otherwise carry of any firearm.

But they do. They occur precisely in places where the bad guys(tm) know that law abiding citizens cannot take arms. They occour in workplaces where you'll get fired if you have a weapon, schools, and other 'safe zones' where no guns are allowed.

If these sub-human murderous swine really wanted to kill big numbers, they'd try sporting events, concerts or other locations where you don't even have to aim over-much. The Aurora shooter was an exception to the rule. He actually went someplace where he knew there would eb a target-rich envrionement. But even then he used darkenss to protect himself from anyone who might have shot back.

And why don't these attacks occur at sporting events, concerts, etc? Because there's armed security there. And armed security might perforate you before you can get away or cause too much damage. But think of the hundreds of potential targets in the crowd waiting to get into a college football game, as an example. Or in the lines waiting to get into a concert. Yet it's schools that get targeted. you get what, 20 or 30 targets then place locks down and the police swarm it. But at least you're safe til they get there because nobody is armed the. They can't be. By law.

Oh, and the laws against high-capacity magazines? I got news for you. There's also laws against Murder. How's that workin' out for ya?


Your entire argument is that the perps of mass shootings are aiming for the highest body count when in fact the only one mentioned that was actually going for body count rather then pyscho-revenge against a specific group was the aurora shooter...who you even admit did not target a crowd based on their inability to retaliate.

Nice try, derp again.  Guns are a stupid thing to have casually floating around a modern society.
 
2013-02-23 02:33:06 PM  
Didn't Lil Kim just set off a nuke test and directly threaten the USA.....nobody gives a shat
 
2013-02-23 02:36:57 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Iran is in Persia, and does not abut Israel. Iraq, on the other hand, has been warring with Iran on and off for millenia.


Shhh... he knows that culture there.
 
2013-02-23 02:40:21 PM  

ElLoco: Craftsman's pride. No craftsman worth his salt would just break down and buy something that he's been working years and decades to create for himself.


I think it's about bragging rights. That's all nukes are good for these days -- bragging rights for third world shiatholes. That, and deterring US invasions.
 
2013-02-23 02:42:04 PM  

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are.

The reason Israel is so terrified of a nuclear Iran is the above.   They don't want to see Muslim states as equals, they want to dominate them.


Err umm...

My concern is that Iran has no apparent controls on what leaves its borders. Much like Pakistan. We spend a boatload of cash on Pakistan to keep their nukes in place, and that's hard enough.

I'm not keen on paying Iran to do the same.
 
2013-02-23 02:42:41 PM  

A Terrible Human: Well if it's anything like that picture of their new jet,ahahahah holy shiat it looked terrible even if it was a mock up,then I expect it'll unleash a horror of poorly photoshopped mushroom clouds.


Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now
 
2013-02-23 02:45:10 PM  

Cream of Meat: Didn't Lil Kim just set off a nuke test and directly threaten the USA.....nobody gives a shat


Oh shiats are given, but let me remind you of the Serenity Prayer:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
 
2013-02-23 02:46:43 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: A Terrible Human: Well if it's anything like that picture of their new jet,ahahahah holy shiat it looked terrible even if it was a mock up,then I expect it'll unleash a horror of poorly photoshopped mushroom clouds.

Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now


Grounded does not mean disabled. Its a safety thing. Those precautions can be removed as the need increases.
 
2013-02-23 02:48:27 PM  

rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense


That's right, it makes sense because we're not bug farking nuts crazy.  There now, crawl back under your rock and we'll let you know when the shooting stops.
 
2013-02-23 02:50:02 PM  

indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.


There's these things called treaties. A bunch of countries get together, and work out the wording. Then, if they agree to it, they can ratify it internally.
Much like the laws in your city, these 'treaties' are how we all get along on this little planet.

Something called the Nonproliferation Treaty might be a valid concept here.
1. If you don't already have them, you may not pursue the construction of a nuclear weapon
2. If you already have them, you must work to reduce your inventory
3. If you already have them, you must not assist others to get them

Interestingly, such a treaty might contain specific wording to allow a signatory nation to back out. Iran (or some version of Iran) signed on to this 'treaty'.
If they wish to pursue building nuclear weapons, let them declare so publicly.
 
2013-02-23 02:51:05 PM  

drjekel_mrhyde: Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now


You mean the new one that is still in development? Oh, the horror!
 
2013-02-23 02:56:22 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: drjekel_mrhyde: Well our trillion dollar ones are grounded right now

You mean the new one that is still in development? Oh, the horror!


For the past 15 years?
 
2013-02-23 02:56:40 PM  

Blairr: rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense

It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.


Or, it could be that just because I have a gun doesn't mean it's a good idea for the drunk and crazy crackhead down the street to own one.  There's nothing hypocritical about that.
 
2013-02-23 02:59:37 PM  

mizchief: Mean while North Korea is testing actual nuclear weapons along with delivery systems and have stated that using them on the US is the purpose of these weapons and we are technically still at war with them. But yet, we do nothing about it. What make Iran's program so much more dangerous?


Do you really believe we are doing nothing about it?
 
2013-02-23 03:00:28 PM  

vygramul: Blairr: rappy: We are a bunch of f*cking hypocrites in America. We don't want anyone to have weapons yet we can have the most deadly weapons in the world. because that makes sense

It's called a monopoly of force and it's a central tenant to societal peace.

Or, it could be that just because I have a gun doesn't mean it's a good idea for the drunk and crazy crackhead down the street to own one.  There's nothing hypocritical about that.



It's crazy crackheads all the way down.
 
2013-02-23 03:00:53 PM  

Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.


No one sells nukes.
 
2013-02-23 03:02:18 PM  
We have already decided that only the US can be allowed to have uranium at will, and that all the other nations on Earth must get our permission first. Did Iran not get that memo?
 
2013-02-23 03:05:16 PM  
You're a bunch of f*cking sheep, you know that? You f*cks will buy anything they feed to you
 
2013-02-23 03:05:43 PM  

Uncle Tractor: Iran is not going to nuke Israel. Why? Because 20% of the israeli population is muslim. Not only that, the fallout from a nuke in Israel will almost certainly end up in a muslim country or five ...or maybe in Europe. The iranian leaders might be crazy, but they're not that crazy. After all, they've managed to stay in power ever since 1979


The Iranians don't give a flying fark about the 20% of muslims living in Israel or elsewhere. They didn't give a flying fark when Hizballah, iran's proxy terrorist organization,  was bombing northern Israel and hitting Arab villages. They especially don't give a fark since they are non-shiate muslims.

It's not as if muslims slaughtering other muslims is such a rarity in the past or at this moment in the Middle East.

GAT_00: A nuclear Iran is good for the Middle East.  There is no power balance in the region, as the US-Israel alliance dominates the region.  That is why it is so unstable.  A counterforce in a nuclear Iran will force Israel to start treating it's neighbors as equals, as they are


Yeah it's not as if Iran arms, trains, funds and support various fundamentalist terrorist organization with 'death to Israel' as a primary objective (not to mention Iran's own calls for Israel's destruction) and there is no risk whatsoever of any weapons of any kind leaving their borders. No sir.
I also suggest looking at other countries in the middle-east, not Israel. Start with Saudi-Arabia. If you think nukes in the hands of Iran's mullahs will bring stability to a region like the Middle-East where countries (other than Israel) have been fighting each other for centuries or before when they were a bunch of arab tribes slaughtering each other, than you should get some kind of award for your naiveté.
 
2013-02-23 03:07:55 PM  

rappy: You're a bunch of f*cking sheep, you know that? You f*cks will buy anything they feed to you


No kidding.  Someone says, "Israel is behind this," and people believe it.
 
2013-02-23 03:08:32 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-02-23 03:11:26 PM  

J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]


Why is Israel red on that map?
 
2013-02-23 03:12:46 PM  

dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
 
2013-02-23 03:16:02 PM  

vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.
 
2013-02-23 03:16:22 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: But while they seem to be working on it, 12 years later they still haven't set one off (it took the US less than 4 with 1940s tech, and nobody to buy any parts from).


The US' first nukes were made during the administration of a progressive, pro-science President.  Regressive religious fanaticism does have its few upsides.
 
2013-02-23 03:16:36 PM  
www.wizevents.com
 
2013-02-23 03:17:12 PM  

vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?


Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.
 
2013-02-23 03:17:33 PM  

George Babbitt: dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke


Suitcase nukes are quite high tech.  There's a reason the first nuke was so big we had to modify a B-29 to carry it.  Of course, "suitcase" is really kind of an exaggeration.
 
2013-02-23 03:18:25 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: Makh: I have a hard time believing they haven't already bought the nukes they want.

No one sells nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Actually, they do sell them, and then they get stolen as well when they wont sell.


I don't see where someone sold Israel a nuclear weapon.
 
2013-02-23 03:18:32 PM  
Country that has been continually meddled with by the US federal government since 1952 might be seeking the only thing that will stop the US federal government from farking with them. Then again it hasn't worked out that way for Pakistan.

I got a new way of 'dealing' with Iran. Leave them alone. That's all they want. Not to be farked with any more.

Want the present government of Iran to meet its natural demise? Leave them alone and then offer trade of any and all consumer goods.

Problem solved.

But people in the US government and some other governments (including the present government of Iran) need a problem to maintain their power. Thus this problem won't get solved.
 
2013-02-23 03:19:36 PM  

George Babbitt: vygramul: J. Frank Parnell: [25.media.tumblr.com image 720x655]

Why is Israel red on that map?

Because it's showing where U.S. Military bases are...oh wait...must just be the 51st State labeling.


It's amazing how many people assume that Israel provides some kind of base for us for imperialism.  Israel doesn't do anything of the sort.  At least, not in an tangible manner.  It's all just vague hand-waving.
 
2013-02-23 03:20:03 PM  

YouPeopleAreCrazy: indarwinsshadow: I know this isn't going to be popular, but, Iran has the right to nuclear weapons. They have the right to process nuclear material to make weapons and finally, America is the only country on the entire planet that's used nukes in anger against another country. I'm not saying we should be happy but, Russia has nukes, and it's not like they're friendly towards the west, China has nukes and again they're not fans of us, and finally North Korea has nukes. Iran isn't in the business of making us happy. They're in the nuclear war business. If America has them, and by their track record they're more of a threat to the world than Iran is, then most countries also have the right to possess nukes. It's just the way it is.

Yep, it's not going to sit well with a lot of Americans.

There's these things called treaties. A bunch of countries get together, and work out the wording. Then, if they agree to it, they can ratify it internally.
Much like the laws in your city, these 'treaties' are how we all get along on this little planet.

Something called the Nonproliferation Treaty might be a valid concept here.
1. If you don't already have them, you may not pursue the construction of a nuclear weapon
2. If you already have them, you must work to reduce your inventory
3. If you already have them, you must not assist others to get them

Interestingly, such a treaty might contain specific wording to allow a signatory nation to back out. Iran (or some version of Iran) signed on to this 'treaty'.
If they wish to pursue building nuclear weapons, let them declare so publicly.


Why?

In secret or in public, they can do as they choose. Treaties don't really mean anything after all. It's just a piece of paper that's unenforceable. Look at America's reaction to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Even though without 100% solid proof of WMD or collusion with the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 (and what about the duplicity of Saudia Arabia and Pakistan...your country hasn't ever taken either of those countries to war), America invaded Iraq and killed the people, the president, and the legitimate gov't. And have yet to answer for it. Your country invaded another country without provocation. So, again treaties aren't worth much are they?
They have the same rights as everyone else. America sure doesn't ask permission from anyone. Why should Iran?
 
2013-02-23 03:20:11 PM  

George Babbitt: dragonchild: traylor: But now that any crazy motherfarker can have one

That's anything but the truth.  These devices are and will always be large, complex and relatively easy to detect, making any sort of two-bit terrorist wanting one very unlikely to know how to handle it, let alone deploy it successfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke


A suitcase nuke is hardly the device needed to seriously attack a country.  Sure if you had a bunch of them you could do some damage sure, but bring down a country....I think not.  1st world governments have more hit points than that.
 
Displayed 50 of 232 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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