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 234
    More: Scary, Atomic Energy Organization, Iran, uranium deposits, uranium enrichment, Danny Ayalon, Caspian Sea, Sea of Oman, mining  
•       •       •

2511 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Feb 2013 at 1:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
2013-02-23 03:20:45 PM
 
2013-02-23 03:25:53 PM

indarwinsshadow: They have the same rights as everyone else. America sure doesn't ask permission from anyone. Why should Iran?


They don't.  But like I said before, so too do other governments have the right to try and impede that progress.
 
2013-02-23 03:25:59 PM

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


Try reading your own citations.  The "suitcase nuke" is a term popularized by corporate media wanting to sell a scare.  The weapons are technically small enough to fit in a suitcase -- a BIG suitcase -- but they are still extremely heavy.  The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds -- not exactly your typical carry-on, yet not much more destructive than a well-designed car bomb.  It's experimental tech, only first-world nations have them and there are massive downsides in trying to get one.

That's all from your own link BTW.
 
2013-02-23 03:27:57 PM
Too bad for everyone else.

Sovereignty is Sovereignty .

Build whatever you want and utilize your own resources.

As long as nothing goes into the air, you're golden.  If you start going all missile-launchy, you're screwed, and someone else is going to take over your country.
 
2013-02-23 03:28:33 PM

vygramul: 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.


I should have ticked the sarcasm button on, sorry.

You're right, there is no benefit to the U.S. that comes from the 'alliance' with the the 'State of Israel'.
 
2013-02-23 03:28:58 PM

George Babbitt: http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=2658


We were talking about the selling of an actual nuke.  Not plans, yellowcake, advice, or building a nuke plant for someone.
 
2013-02-23 03:29:22 PM

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

No one sells nukes.


Watch a movie for once, and get some culture. Errybody knows they sell those things like used cars in the Eastern block. Not to mention those unaccounted ones in the desert Israel misplaced (Ben Whofleck will save us from Iran and the Nazi terrorists though).
 
2013-02-23 03:30:37 PM

George Babbitt: vygramul: 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.

I should have ticked the sarcasm button on, sorry.

You're right, there is no benefit to the U.S. that comes from the 'alliance' with the the 'State of Israel'.


I didn't say there was no benefit.  But I will grant it's been a weird history, from the US threatening embargo in '56 to the US becoming it major arms supplier after the '67 war.
 
2013-02-23 03:30:39 PM
They'll need some of this
s7.postimage.org
Oh, so mellow..
 
2013-02-23 03:35:33 PM

Kimpak: indarwinsshadow: They have the same rights as everyone else. America sure doesn't ask permission from anyone. Why should Iran?

They don't.  But like I said before, so too do other governments have the right to try and impede that progress.


I agree with you that other gov'ts (those friendly toward American interests) do have that right. Canada for instance is being invited by Admiral Bill McRaven, commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command to join a global task force to fight common interests. Personally, I strongly disagree with any force that superscedes Canadian interest or fails to protect Canadian international policies. I think it would be used to re-enforce American business interests.
 
2013-02-23 03:36:32 PM

drjekel_mrhyde: For the past 15 years?


Yes. Building high tech stuff takes time.

A380 Design start, 1988 First flight, 2005
Eurofighter Formal proposal, 1979. First flight, 1994
etc, etc, etc for pretty much every other military and commercial aircraft deployed in the last 40 years.
 
2013-02-23 03:39:23 PM

indarwinsshadow: 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.


I seem to remember someone else, often quoted here, saying that. And being soundly ridiculed for it.
 
2013-02-23 03:40:28 PM
The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory
 
2013-02-23 03:43:41 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: I seem to remember someone else, often quoted here, saying that. And being soundly ridiculed for it.


And that was a work of imaginative fiction too, Soundly debunked.
 
2013-02-23 03:43:59 PM

J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory


Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.
 
2013-02-23 03:47:49 PM
"Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us."

I'd like to suggest a corrollary: "Nuclear war will happen when the leaders of a state enjoy the perks of power less than they hate another."

Which is to say that I believe that nuclear weapons are the great fixative, which is why the Iranian regime is fixing them. Once the Iranians have the bomb, no more jasmine revolutions, no more stuxnet- everything switches over to preventing nuclear war by making sure that the governments of the nuclear powers remain as stable, with well organized C3 systems, as possible. However....

My father was an officer in the US West German command, in charge of nuclear artillery... in his opinion, nuclear ambiguity, especially with regards to command structures, is the great threat to world peace.

 So there's a line of deterrence- if a nuclear command appears to be too unstable or de-centralized, it suddenly goes from being deterrence to an incentive to attack so as to knock out a perceived attack.

 At a certain point, we're going to have to develop a strategic doctrine for reacting to anonymous terrorist nuclear strikes...and at that point, it's either fast extinction (instant nuclear war) or slower extinction (tit for tat retaliations gradually escalating to armageddon).

 Right now, it's a race between climate change and nuclear winter as to what will be the capstone on the great achievement of humanity: The Sixth Great Extinction.
 
2013-02-23 03:48:12 PM

A Shambling Mound: J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory

Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.


I'm rather curious myself.
 
2013-02-23 03:49:52 PM

J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory


Cluster nukes?
 
2013-02-23 03:50:04 PM
If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.
 
2013-02-23 03:51:08 PM
Nukes are only bad when the U.S. has them.
 
2013-02-23 03:52:47 PM

J. Frank Parnell: The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki only did about a 1 mile radius of heavy damage, and those were wooden buildings. If even the biggest nuke ever made was dropped on a city it would have much less effect on modern concrete and steel buildings. Nukes aren't nearly the world enders you see in movies. Would be far simpler to just use lots of conventional explosives if you want to do as much damage as possible.

/obligatory


Majority of people die from flash burns in the secondary radius. People are just affraid of the radioactive dust.
 
2013-02-23 03:54:14 PM

A Shambling Mound: Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.


It's all true. I've written it out a few times here before, which is why i added the '/obligatory', but i am considering just copy/pasting it in the future.

If someone can prove to me that nukes are just like they are in movies, with a single nuke leveling a city, please go ahead, but in reality it's a lot like the hollywood myth that guns make people fly backwards and do backflips when shot.
 
2013-02-23 03:54:26 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


Well do the jet the US have look like this?
i.imgur.com
I mean look at that. There is also a video of it "flying" but it doesn't show the take off or landing and it seriously looks like an rc plane.
 
2013-02-23 03:54:50 PM

vygramul: 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.


The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.
 
2013-02-23 03:56:40 PM

George Babbitt: vygramul: 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.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.


That's not the proposition being discussed.  The assertion was that people would sell nukes, obviating the need for the means.  No one sells nukes.
 
2013-02-23 03:57:21 PM

Kimpak: 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.


It's not like a nuke needs to create a giant hole to destroy lots of acreage...
 
2013-02-23 03:59:06 PM

dragonchild: George Babbitt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

Try reading your own citations.  The "suitcase nuke" is a term popularized by corporate media wanting to sell a scare.  The weapons are technically small enough to fit in a suitcase -- a BIG suitcase -- but they are still extremely heavy.  The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds -- not exactly your typical carry-on, yet not much more destructive than a well-designed car bomb.  It's experimental tech, only first-world nations have them and there are massive downsides in trying to get one.

That's all from your own link BTW.


You're average grunt is required to carry a 50 pound ruck sack in basic. Two guys = 100 pounds.
 
2013-02-23 03:59:37 PM
The problem that comes up when these tinpot countries like NK and Iran get nuclear weapons is response time. You know there's a chain of command and responsibility for those things once they're developed and added to the military hardware of that country. If only the Dear Leader, for example, has the codes and authorization, if he vanishes in a fireball then the nuclear weapons are useless. So someone down the command line also has launch authority with the order to do so if the Dear Leader suddenly blows up or whatever.

Now suppose there's a power shortage in Iran that blacks out Tehran. The responsible commander is suddenly out of communication with his superior; if tensions are high with other countries, he doesn't know if there was a surprise attack that 'decapitated' their nuclear control authority. What does he do? I think the more likely country to pull the trigger in that case would be NK; they are so paranoid and isolated just about anything could set them off over there. It's not hard to think that Iran could get that way as well if their weapons get deployed.

/that scenario is why there's a direct phone line between the WH and Kremlin
 
2013-02-23 03:59:46 PM

vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: 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.

I should have ticked the sarcasm button on, sorry.

You're right, there is no benefit to the U.S. that comes from the 'alliance' with the the 'State of Israel'.

I didn't say there was no benefit.  But I will grant it's been a weird history, from the US threatening embargo in '56 to the US becoming it major arms supplier after the '67 war.


I miss Ike.
 
2013-02-23 04:02:20 PM

vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: 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.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.

That's not the proposition being discussed.  The assertion was that people would sell nukes, obviating the need for the means.  No one sells nukes.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nucl ea r-weapons

"Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons"
 
2013-02-23 04:04:14 PM

J. Frank Parnell: A Shambling Mound: Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.

It's all true. I've written it out a few times here before, which is why i added the '/obligatory', but i am considering just copy/pasting it in the future.

If someone can prove to me that nukes are just like they are in movies, with a single nuke leveling a city, please go ahead, but in reality it's a lot like the hollywood myth that guns make people fly backwards and do backflips when shot.


Why does it need to level the city? It disrupts all regular emergency services, communication, and causes massive death via flash burns and primary blast radius. Plus the added hotness of halflife. A conventional bomb does little to cause devistation outside its primary blast radius. Its the added nasty secondary shiat that scares people obviously.
 
2013-02-23 04:04:15 PM

Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.


Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.
 
2013-02-23 04:04:29 PM

YouPeopleAreCrazy: indarwinsshadow: 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.

I seem to remember someone else, often quoted here, saying that. And being soundly ridiculed for it.


I'm not sure what you're talking about. Without a frame of reference it just looks like --blank---- to me. I never said you had to agree. I said what I said because most of you are American, or American supporters. You only see one side of the argument (your own) without considering that other countries will pursue their own interests contrary to what you wish or want. And their policies are no more hostile that America's pursuit of it's foreign policies and business interests.
 
2013-02-23 04:04:58 PM

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

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'll give Iran a thumbs up for that, if for nothing else.


which is why i don't buy Operating Systems
 
2013-02-23 04:06:11 PM

Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.


Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.
 
2013-02-23 04:06:40 PM

George Babbitt: vygramul: George Babbitt: vygramul: 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.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.

That's not the proposition being discussed.  The assertion was that people would sell nukes, obviating the need for the means.  No one sells nukes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nucl ea r-weapons

"Revealed: how Israel offered to sell South Africa nuclear weapons"


There's an awful lot of conjecture in that.  There's plenty of reason to think Israel and South Africa developed nuclear weapons cooperatively.
 
2013-02-23 04:06:42 PM
iran is stupid enough to detonate a nuke or two. i dont want them having nuclear devices. israel wont stand for it either nor will any of the other powers that beits ok. stuxnet 2.0 is ready.
 
2013-02-23 04:08:03 PM

Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.


I'm sure you believe it.

And just like every other bigot, you know Jewish holidays better than most Israelis.
 
2013-02-23 04:08:44 PM

George Babbitt: vygramul: 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.

The French and the British both supplied all the means to build nukes.



Kennedy fully intended to put a stop Israel's nuclear ambitions.


But times change.
 
2013-02-23 04:11:04 PM

indarwinsshadow: Jews were almost exterminated by fantics in WWII, and face a legitimate threat by Iran. I don't blame them for wanting to protect their people. But tying it to Purim? Dude, break out the tinfoil.


He's a bigot, dude.  Amos shows up in just about any thread that mentions Jews.  He claims he's anti-Zionist, but his hostile commentary can be found well outside threads that have anything to do with Israel.
 
2013-02-23 04:11:43 PM

George Babbitt: You're average grunt is required to carry a 50 pound ruck sack in basic. Two guys = 100 pounds.


Because the best way to deploy a weapon is to split it into two parts?
 
2013-02-23 04:18:40 PM

J. Frank Parnell: A Shambling Mound: Please tell me you are either joking, being intentionally obtuse or simply re-posting copy pasta I haven't seen before.

It's all true. I've written it out a few times here before, which is why i added the '/obligatory', but i am considering just copy/pasting it in the future.

If someone can prove to me that nukes are just like they are in movies, with a single nuke leveling a city, please go ahead, but in reality it's a lot like the hollywood myth that guns make people fly backwards and do backflips when shot.


I can't "prove" anything to you because no one has ever detonated a modern nuclear weapon in a population center, but at least now I know you're just being intentionally obtuse. Thank you for the clarification.

Read this, maybe it will help: The effects of a nuclear attack on the Rio Grande valley
 
2013-02-23 04:20:15 PM

indarwinsshadow: I'm not sure what you're talking about. Without a frame of reference it just looks like --blank---- to me. I never said you had to agree. I said what I said because most of you are American, or American supporters. You only see one side of the argument (your own) without considering that other countries will pursue their own interests contrary to what you wish or want. And their policies are no more hostile that America's pursuit of it's foreign policies and business interests.


An international treaty. Does it actually mean something (an agreement between countries), or is it 'just a piece of paper'?

Countries A, B, C, and D sign a piece of paper that supposedly benefits them all in some way. When it becomes inconvenient, can Country C just blow it off with no repercussions? Or should Country C officially tell A B, and D that they are blowing it off?

Do international treaties mean anything? Do laws mean anything?
 
2013-02-23 04:32:31 PM

vygramul: Amos Quito: Any Pie Left: If they were serious about peaceful nuclear power, they'd choose thorium and the world would have to shut up.

Israel has been doing their best to con the US (or whoever) into BOMBING THE SHIAT out of Iran for over 20 years. The nukes are just their endlessly recycled excuse for age-old blood lust.

The animosity between "Israelites" and "Persians"  goes back thousands of years (see the Biblical book of Esther)

Coincidentally, TODAY begins the Jewish holiday of PURIM, which (coincidentally) commemorates the Jews' victory over PERSIANS that (supposedly) wanted to do them wrong oh so long ago.

Old hatred dies hard - and Israel STILL has a hard-on for Iran.

Purim. Today. Coincidence.

I'm sure you believe it.

And just like every other bigot, you know Jewish holidays better than most Israelis.



www.jpost.com

Actually I didn't realize that Purim begins today until I saw the "special logo" at the top of TFA.

/And Israelis are about as likely to "forget Purim" as Americans are to forget New Years
//Gonna' be a lot of drunken Jews tonight
/// Blessed be Mordechai, cursed be Haman!


Shalom and cheers!
 
2013-02-23 04:32:39 PM

Kimpak: 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?


Nothing effective. This has been going on since before we attacked Iraq under the guise of going after weapons of mass destruction. Seems like our priorities are out of order.
 
2013-02-23 04:35:49 PM

dragonchild: George Babbitt: You're average grunt is required to carry a 50 pound ruck sack in basic. Two guys = 100 pounds.

Because the best way to deploy a weapon is to split it into two parts?


"The bare warhead -- with no deployment technology whatsoever -- weighs 50 pounds and had a yield of 0.2kt.  Tack what you'd need to actually deploy the thing and it goes up to 100 pounds."

You think a bomb as to be fully assembled long before it is detonated?
 
2013-02-23 04:35:57 PM
But do they have aluminum tubes?
 
2013-02-23 04:36:18 PM

TappingTheVein: 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.


The iranian government, you mean?

Maybe not, but they do care about not being the first country to nuke / irradiate another muslim country. They also care about not irradiating Europe (crazy but not republican crazy).

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

FIFY
 
2013-02-23 05:06:34 PM

vygramul: 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.


Not on behalf of the US, anyway.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
Displayed 50 of 234 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 »






Report