Author Topic: Iran has enriched uranium (Read 1500 times)

Seagoon · « **Reply #30 on:** April 11, 2006, 11:08:18 PM »

Hi Raider,

Quote

Originally posted by RAIDER14
The U.S. probaly won't do a Nuclear strike probaly just some F117s with bunker busters and B-52 bombing and then the ground troops

The problem with that scenario is that any strike on an active reactor inevitably becomes a Nuclear strike. To take out Iran's Nuclear capabilities via a series of conventional strikes would create a lot of little Chernobyls throughout the country with all the attendant fallout and widespread radiation poisoning. There is also no way we could prevent the wind from carrying contamination to surrounding countries, including Iraq with all of its US personel.

Additionally, those strikes would inevitably provoke a state of war between the US and Iran, provoke an Opec Oil Embargo and put the worldwide Jihad into top gear. It wouldn't be a one time strike kind of thing. The thing to do would have been to prevent them from building reactors in the first place. But with friends like Russia and Pakistan...

In any event, strike Iran and you have a World War with Islam, and I don't believe we have the stomach for that (then again I have serious doubts whether we have the stomach for much more of the limited war either). So what's left? Wait for Iran to develop several A-bombs and pray they don't actually nuke Israel? I'm not a bookie, but I can't see them not using them since from their position its a win-win proposition. As much as I hate to say it, at this point I think it will take the development and use of a nuke by Iran to galvanize America and the West to commit. The best case scenario might be the Iranians attempt to nuke Israel and the Patriot and Arrow systems shoot down the missile in flight. But that's an awfully big gamble.

Pei · « **Reply #31 on:** April 12, 2006, 01:01:43 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by indy007
Well, yes. It's historically accurate. A democratic society normally needs to be attacked to generate the political will neccessary for conflict. Precedents? Trade Embargos/Impressment, USS Maine, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11.

It costs alot of lives.

Interesting to note that there are doubts over whether two of those mentioned were actually attacks.

Boroda · « **Reply #32 on:** April 12, 2006, 07:40:02 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Nothing will be done UNTIL and AFTER these weapons are used by whomever the Iranians choose to supply.

Boroda may see them as no threat at all until they are in Muslim Chechen hands and used against Moscow, for instance.

Chechen hands?! Are you kidding? Iran fights Moslim extremists in trans-Caucasus, they, together with Russia, supported Armenia in a war against Azerbaijan, they don't host Chechen leaders like US and UK and they don't train and give medical treatment to Chechen terrorists as Turkey (NATO member).

Boroda · « **Reply #33 on:** April 12, 2006, 07:52:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Come now Boroda, considering RUSSIA BUILT THE IRANIAN REACTORS which I would personally class as inconceivably more stupid than merely giving them schedules, how on earth can you make the above statement?

"How do I spell - Iran or Iraq?"

There were rumours about General Staff providing sat recon information, including take-off times and ETAs to Yugoslavia in 1999, and I hope it is true... Shame that Yeltsin and his gang didn't have the guts to ship modern SAMs to Yugoslavs.

Saddam is quite another story.

As for the reactor - 90% of all the media hype we see now is a simple matter of copetition for Iranian nuclear contracts. Officially competitors are Russia and France, but I doubt that US will refuse from such a deal if it was offered. You guys have a big history of such deals, just remember how much of German industry was owned by US companies during WWII. It's capitalism, you guys seem to seriously believe that it's good for everyone.

Quote

Originally posted by Seagoon
Recently released documents indicate that Russia supplied Saddam with schedules for American spy satellites, why shouldn't we assume they would do the same for their clients next door?

I think it's obvious: one head is good, but two are better. We are much closer to Iran, and we shouldn't deny the possibility of lauch against us. I am 100% sure that any detected launch anywhere will be immediately reported to all nuclear-capable countries and possible targets. Just as any undeclared US ICBM launch now will be immediately reported to Iran, while our Strategic Missile Corps will run the launch preparation sequence.

Boroda · « **Reply #34 on:** April 12, 2006, 07:55:55 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pei
Interesting to note that there are doubts over whether two of those mentioned were actually attacks.

I am especially interested in a number of US casualities in a Tonkin Bay accident

And wasn't it proven that USS Maine was blown up from inside?...

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #35 on:** April 12, 2006, 08:10:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
It's pretty obvious that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect itself from "democratisation", they can do quite good without them - but there is a threat...

Yes we see just how well it protected the Soviet state from
"democratisation"

Yeager · « **Reply #36 on:** April 12, 2006, 08:12:01 AM »

I am especially interested in a number of US casualities in a Tonkin Bay accident
====
they were all killed by yellow russians in north vietnam uniforms.

And wasn't it proven that USS Maine was blown up from inside?.
====
Yes, russian spies infiltrated the US navy and set off explosives inside.

At least thats what my history book said.....

russians are the ones trying to incite Iran into war. russians are the reason the world is in trouble.....always been that way. We need to bomb russia before they bomb us....

Boroda · « **Reply #37 on:** April 12, 2006, 08:16:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yes we see just how well it protected the Soviet state from
"democratisation"

It still saves us. I just came to work from the street and didn't see occupational army patrols, and in my life I heard air-raid sirens only during civil-defence trainings.

DREDIOCK · « **Reply #38 on:** April 12, 2006, 08:30:38 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
It still saves us. I just came to work from the street and didn't see occupational army patrols, and in my life I heard air-raid sirens only during civil-defence trainings.

Last time I checked. Doesnt your country now practice a more democratic form of government?

You even honor us with your own version of our 4th of July(How sweet of you)

National holiday: Independence Day, 12 June (1990)

We dont have to occupy you. Your occupying yourselves

Face it. The soviet era is gone, history, see ya, aloha, adios,adieu, adios, arrivederci, auf wiedersehen, au revoir, bye, bye-bye, cheerio, good-by, goodby, good-bye, goodbye, good day, sayonara, so long

And your nukes ddint stop or save you from it;)

Boroda · « **Reply #39 on:** April 12, 2006, 08:57:21 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Last time I checked. Doesnt your country now practice a more democratic form of government?

You even honor us with your own version of our 4th of July(How sweet of you)

National holiday: Independence Day, 12 June (1990)

We dont have to occupy you. Your occupying yourselves

Face it. The soviet era is gone, history, see ya, aloha, adios,adieu, adios, arrivederci, auf wiedersehen, au revoir, bye, bye-bye, cheerio, good-by, goodby, good-bye, goodbye, good day, sayonara, so long

And your nukes ddint stop or save you from it;)

"Independance day" was celebrated as a day since when nothing depends on us

Now it is oficially called "Russia's day" or whatever - I don't care. Idiotic holiday.

About "more democratic form of government" - I don't care. I don't worship "democracy" irrationally as a sacred idol.

We didn't get bombed. Thanks to our nuclear weapons. That's all. Current regime isn't completely bought by the enemy, only for maybe 50%.

Bogie603rd · « **Reply #40 on:** April 12, 2006, 09:24:30 AM »

Anyone consider the "Underwater-cruise-missile" and this nuke.... Although its rather slow... makes me wonder why they want both an underwater missile and nukes. Their ready for war, they realize no matter what the world does it will work against them. The only thing the world can do is wait to be attacked before they can attack.

Iran is obviouslly going to use that to it's advantage to attack strong countries capable of invading Iran and capturing the entire country. Also, those hundreds of tons of enriched Uranium. How much is required to make 1 nuke?

Boroda · « **Reply #41 on:** April 12, 2006, 12:33:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bogie603rd
Anyone consider the "Underwater-cruise-missile" and this nuke.... Although its rather slow... makes me wonder why they want both an underwater missile and nukes. Their ready for war, they realize no matter what the world does it will work against them. The only thing the world can do is wait to be attacked before they can attack.

Are you speaking about the US?

Quote

Originally posted by Bogie603rd
Iran is obviouslly going to use that to it's advantage to attack strong countries capable of invading Iran and capturing the entire country. Also, those hundreds of tons of enriched Uranium. How much is required to make 1 nuke?

Hundreds of tons?

So far they got some ore "enriched" to 3.5%. It's not even enough to make heat-emitting elements for nuclear power stations.

Do you also know that they badly need more electricity? Or maybe US will some day declare that other nations using electricity are a direct threat to American interests? What's next, fire? wheel?

Iceman24 · « **Reply #42 on:** April 12, 2006, 12:54:19 PM »

There will NEVER be a US president who srikes with nuclear weapons. Its political suicide. The main job of any politician is to get elected again, if they were to use nukes they would never see public office again.

Pooface · « **Reply #43 on:** April 12, 2006, 01:04:45 PM »

nukes are a big nono, for everyone really...

but iran, and certainly it's leader really needs to be sorted out. of course, you could always do it the british way, and instead of blowing stuff up and attacking the entire country like the americans always do, you could just make sure the president of iran and all of his islamic extremist members of cabinet die of 'natural causes'.

nothing a good assassin cant do better than an entire army, and you dont have the big fight, both politically and physically that a full-on invasion causes. if you do it right, the iranians may not even realise the guys are being assassinated

lol, dont i sound like some crazy terroist bastard now eh? lol

NattyIced · « **Reply #44 on:** April 12, 2006, 01:16:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Iceman24
There will NEVER be a US president who srikes with nuclear weapons. Its political suicide. The main job of any politician is to get elected again, if they were to use nukes they would never see public office again.

Bush can't get re-elected.