Iran steps up nuclear warhead work, Israel media reports (Reuters)

reply to post by TheRedneck


The info about enrichment is pretty much correct with some out of date information based on new advances. Iran is enrichning to the 20% level when they have absolutely no need to. They do not have any reactors that require it. Even the research reactors, which again you pointed out runs higher than normal, is beyond what they need.

Newer research reactors dont require the higher levels. Secondly Iran is in the process of building another heavy water reactor, an inefficient older design with the only benefit belonging to a weapons program.

Finally the amount of enrichment, the number of locations and centrifuges, exceed the needs for Irans programs. The research reactor they do have requires about 12%. There is absolutely no justification for the enrichment levels or the number of enrichment installations based on Irans nuclear energy program. Its a massive over kill and raises questions about why they need the amounts levels for the program they have?

The west, contrary to whats reported in Iranian media, has absolutely no issues with Irans right to peaceful nuclear power generation. The issue is the enrichment levels and ability to get to weapons grade levels.while keeping facilities hidden from the UN. Why does Iran need to enrich up over 50%, which they are threatening.

It does not resolve their issue and only gives the west more ammo about their true intentions of their program. Its almost as if Iran knows they are caught and will do all they can to somehow shift the blame to the west while claiming they "were forced to develop nuclear weapons" because of pressure from the west.

A peaceful nuclear energy program is not something to hide. As a matter of fact its a source of national pride. There is absolutely no reason to hide facilities, locations, enrichment etc etc etc if the program is peaceful.

Just nonstop propaganada, over and over again.

When Syria falls to their Bortherhood/CIA orchestrated bloodshed and terror and women are all shackled up in Burqa's, then they will turn to Iran, the last piece in theri puzzle.

Where are the world wide protests against having what is happening to Egypt and Libya happening to Syria now? Why don't people line up and stay, not go home even if armies show up, at their representatives offices with bullhorns saying, How Dare You Support These Fascist CIA Butchers of people and freedoms? And NO NOT ON MY WATCH!!!!

It has to be humanity standing up in a general strike and not sitting back down.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by gravitational

That diagram is of an implosion-type device. It uses EBW detonators, not a high-explosive charge, for detonation.

It also requires plutonium-239, which there are no reports of in Iran. Please read the post just above.

TheRedneck

"Fat Man" was an implosion-type device using plutonium-239. A subcritical sphere of plutonium was placed in the center of a hollow sphere of high explosives. Thirty-two pairs of detonators located on the surface of the high explosive were fired simultaneously to produce a powerful inward pressure on the core, squeezing it and increasing its density, resulting in a supercritical condition and a nuclear initiation.”
en.wikipedia.org...


"The principal materials used for fission weapons are U-235 and Pu-239”
www.fas.org...

by bombarding 238 U with neutrons one can produce the needed isotope 239 U.

"Plutonium can be obtained from special purpose plutonium production reactors, or as a by-product of commercial power or research reactors”
nuclearweaponarchive.org...

but seriously, Iran – a signatory to NPT – could have lay all speculations to rest and stop this escalation by simply letting inspectors in. they chose not to. They chose the path of deceit and manipulation.

Exactly: "Iran – a signatory to NPT – could have lay all speculations to rest and stop this escalation by simply letting inspectors in. they chose not to. They chose the path of deceit and manipulation."

reply to post by Xcathdra

Iran is enrichning to the 20% level when they have absolutely no need to. They do not have any reactors that require it. Even the research reactors, which again you pointed out runs higher than normal, is beyond what they need.

Untrue.

The Tehran reactor actually uses HEU, but has been converted to use 19.75% LEU. Oh, and it was supplied by the US, and HEU supplies were cut off after the revolution against Reza Shah, who was instituted with help from the US and was seen as a tyrant by the Iranian people.

Finally the amount of enrichment, the number of locations and centrifuges, exceed the needs for Irans programs.

Have you taken into account how many facilities could be taken out by future incarnations of Stuxnet?

Also, is that a decision we should even be making? I don't want someone telling me how much lumber I should buy or how much water I should use, primarily because no one except me is aware of my goals. They can't be.

Even when talking about such a serious subject as potential nuclear weaponry, I wholeheartedly reject this notion that things should be rationed because someone thinks someone does not need them.

Why does Iran need to enrich up over 50%, which they are threatening.

That threat was in response to threats of even more economic sanctions. Tit-for-tat. Just as Israel just threatened again to launch bombs into Iran. Why is one treated as a threat while the other is considered self-defense?

And the levels they threatened were specified as in order to provide fuel for nuclear-powered ships.

Its almost as if Iran knows they are caught and will do all they can to somehow shift the blame to the west while claiming they "were forced to develop nuclear weapons" because of pressure from the west.

Yes it is. That is exactly what the US wants you to think. If you knew the actual facts, as opposed to the fear-mongering and propaganda, you would not support the goal of removing Iran as a country.

And it's apparently working, unfortunately.

A peaceful nuclear energy program is not something to hide. As a matter of fact its a source of national pride. There is absolutely no reason to hide facilities, locations, enrichment etc etc etc if the program is peaceful.

"If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you want privacy?"

TheRedneck

reply to post by gravitational

Oh, dear...

Fat Man did use "high explosives", but a small amount. Today's implosion devices use even smaller amounts. To use an analogy, the primer for a rifle cartridge is classified as a "high explosive", even though it only has the power to ignite the powder.

If test explosions have been detected in an underground facility, they are much more powerful than those used to detonate an implosive device.

I thought I explained the difference in fuels above, but perhaps I was unclear... implosive primary charges use plutonium-239 almost exclusively. The reason is that there are simpler ways to detonate U-235. U-235 only requires two hemispherical tightly milled sections, each less than critical mass but over 1/2 critical mass, to be forced together under high pressure. This can be accomplished using chemical explosives (heavy and expensive to deliver), or by using a primary charge of plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 cannot be detonated from two sections because it tends to have a linear decay rate with respect to mass, tending to fizzle at 1/2 critical mass. Therefore, multiple smaller sections have to be forced together, a'la an implosive device as you referenced earlier.

All nukes use U-235 metal, but implosive devices use smaller explosive charges and plutonium-239 instead of high chemical charges to imduce secondary criticality.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Untrue.

The Tehran reactor actually uses HEU, but has been converted to use 19.75% LEU. Oh, and it was supplied by the US, and HEU supplies were cut off after the revolution against Reza Shah, who was instituted with help from the US and was seen as a tyrant by the Iranian people.

No their reactors do not use HEU at the upper levels.. We know this because Iran has submitted their nuke plants / info about them to the UN which anyone can access.

Their energy producing ones use 2%-5%. The only thing Iran needs a higher enrichment level for is their research reactor, which last I checked they had an old one in Tehran at the university and one other. Both are old designes and need about 12% enrichment.

Also reference your comment about the US giving it to them. Back in those days their was a UN program in place that allowed nations to to assist others in building a nuclear energy infrastructure. India was a major recpient of that aid and in the end they used it to establish a nuclear weapons program.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Have you taken into account how many facilities could be taken out by future incarnations of Stuxnet?

Done because Iran is not complying with treaty stipulations. Secondly those facilities were built and in operation long before stuxnet came into existence.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Also, is that a decision we should even be making? I don't want someone telling me how much lumber I should buy or how much water I should use, primarily because no one except me is aware of my goals. They can't be.

The comparison is without base or merit. They are not the same thing at all and you are intelligent enough to understand the difference. So please dont try to pull the comparing apples to klingon argument.

When a forest burns or a lake / waterway flood you don't have people 8 states away taking iodine pills. You also don't have that first state making statements everyday that their goal is to burn / clearcut surrounding states off the map.

Again the west / UN has stated Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power generation. We are not telling them they can't. What we are saying is comply with treaty stipulations.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Even when talking about such a serious subject as potential nuclear weaponry, I wholeheartedly reject this notion that things should be rationed because someone thinks someone does not need them.

No one needs nuclear weapons - period. Nuclear weapons are a defacto I win button. It allows nations to ignore doing whats hard - communication understanding diplomacy.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
That threat was in response to threats of even more economic sanctions. Tit-for-tat. Just as Israel just threatened again to launch bombs into Iran. Why is one treated as a threat while the other is considered self-defense?

If their program is not aimed at weapons why do they have the ability to enrich to that level? There is nothing in the civilian realm of nuclear energy that needs enrichment that high, with the exception of nuclear powered vessels. Even then the minatureization / technology to do just that is currently beyond Irans capabilities / technical means.

So again why do they need that ability?

Originally posted by TheRedneck
And the levels they threatened were specified as in order to provide fuel for nuclear-powered ships.

see my answer above. They ont have the technical means to do that. They dont have the minatureization technology to do that.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yes it is. That is exactly what the US wants you to think. If you knew the actual facts, as opposed to the fear-mongering and propaganda, you would not support the goal of removing Iran as a country.

And it's apparently working, unfortunately.

Its not and once again you are repeating information that is false. Iran, not the US nor Israel, is the one threatening to wipe a nation off the face of the planet. Anytime Iran has been discussed it deals solely with their nuclear program. Iran is the one who falsely reports the issue is with them having nuclear energy.

The issue is not nuclear energy - its ability to make a bomb and to comply with treaty stipulations.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
"If you are doing nothing wrong, why do you want privacy?"

TheRedneck

My point towards Iran exactly... Why the demand for privacy when they knew full well what was required when they decided to go down the road of nuclear energy.

Secondly it goes one step further in the fact Iran is required to diclose their program and they have not done that. They are constantly being caught with anomolies in their program, some of which they cannot explain. When the UN goes for answers, they get a brick wall.


Lastly - People need to read what the Ayatollah stated when it comes to nuclear weapons. If you read the entire statement you will see it revolves around the construction of nuclear weapons. It says absolutely nothing about developing the ability. They can develop a military nuke program and still be in compliance with what the Ayatollah said because they have not construction one.

If we look at the Quran you will find that its full of contradicitions. Unlike the bible / other religious texts the Quran was written by one person, not many. Depending on the page you will find an answer for one issue only to find out 6 chapters later the same issue is mentioned but the view of it changed. Anytime the Quran is in conflict with itself, thenew takes precedent over the old.

reply to post by Unity_99

When Syria falls to their Bortherhood/CIA orchestrated bloodshed and terror and women are all shackled up in Burqa's, then they will turn to Iran, the last piece in theri puzzle.

I take it you don't read up on who's fighting who in Syria.

Frankly, it's in Israel's interest that the fighting continues and neither comes away victor. The rebels are Islamists. Granted, Al-assad is by no means Israel's friend, but we could expect less bellicosity from him than from the people seeking power.

In any case, the "CIA orchestrated" nonsense is just proof of how dismally ignorant so many people here are. You confuse arming someone with weapons - which is what both the US/Israel are doing, with arming someone with ideology and ambition, which is what they have no control over. Again, they are Islamists; they have their own ideas about how the state of Syria should be run; they neither like that the fact that the state is too secular, nor do they like that they are ruled by a member of a religious minority - Alawi.

Where are the world wide protests against having what is happening to Egypt and Libya happening to Syria now?

Again more ignorance. Syria is not like Egypt or Libya. Syria's it's own situation. Unlike in Egypt, which had a very strong grass roots Islamist presence, and unlike in Libya, which is rather small population wise and remote from certain complicated areas, Syria's internal and external conditions preclude direct involvement of foreign forces, especially when Russia forbids any intrusion of NATO into Syria.

Russia, of course, is the historical backer of Syria's baathist/socialist government. And Syria has very close ties with Iran, another Shi'ite government.

reply to post by Xcathdra

If we look at the Quran you will find that its full of contradicitions. Unlike the bible / other religious texts the Quran was written by one person, not many. Depending on the page you will find an answer for one issue only to find out 6 chapters later the same issue is mentioned but the view of it changed. Anytime the Quran is in conflict with itself, thenew takes precedent over the old.

Just to give deeper meaning to that Quranic process; In Sufism, it's explained why the Quran does that. Islam recognizes two worlds - the ideal - symbolized by the first part of the Quran - and the practical, symbolized by the second. In usual human thinking, the ideal - what one wants and desires - is anterior in thought to the question of how to get it. Therefore, the Quran both states the ideal and the means in attaining it.

There is no black or white in Islam; there is no morality that must ineluctably be observed; there is only God's ideal for the world and mans means towards attaining it. Hence, the Islamic doctrine of Taqiyya - lying in order to advance the interests of Islam. In short, Islam takes advantage of the concept of the end justifies the means like no other. Islamists - strict observers of shari'a - are some of the most untrustworthy people on this planet. And it's not our fault for believing that; its their fault for forcing us to become aware of their paradoxical religious thinking, and taking precaution against in order to defend ourselves and our interests.


As for Iran's stance towards Israel. It really cannot be overstated, only understated, how pernicious a threat they are to Israel's existence. Some people like to temper Iran's threat by saying "they're a threat - just not an existential threat"; that is pure hogwash. What the hell is all this rhetoric supposed to mean, if not intimations of Iran's intent?


"The Zionist regime is an undesirable entity in the Middle East." - Mohammad Khatami

"The liberation of Jerusalem is our common goal, and we must not allow foreign plots and pressure to divide us. - Mohammad Khatami

“Enmity toward the Zionist octopus is among the chief mottos of the Iranian people.”
—Ayatolla Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, 6/3/08

"You can rest assured that we will not relinquish our right to enrich uranium, and we will do what we say." —Mohammed Khatami, former Iranian President, 5/20/05

“[The] countdown has begun for the destruction of the Zionist Regime.” —Gholan Ali Hadad-Adel, Iranian Parliament Speaker, 2/20/08

“The world arrogance and Zionism today are shivering from Muslim vigilance and are on the threshold of annihilation.”
—Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, Chief of the Judiciary, 10/20/06

“In the near future we will witness the destruction of the cancerous microbe Israel by the strong and capable hands of the nation of Hizbullah.” —General Mohammed-Ali Jafari, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp, 2/18/08

Are we misinterpreting these statements? Is not their evil intent towards Israel unequivocally apparent??

As I wrote earlier, the only thing more alarming then these clear threats against Israel is the flippancy of the western mainstream audience. They don't seem to care. They either doubt the veracity of the statements, or, they'll make an effort to extenuate them of any maleficent content.

reply to post by TheRedneck


The 'oh dear' was so necessary ?

You were saying that imploding type bomb does not use high explosives.
This was proven to be untrue. small amount...large amount, it's irrelevant.

The 'Perchin' site is suspected as a facility for test of a nuclear trigger. That trigger uses explosives among other components that need precise timing.
The not so long ago discovered Perchin site is undergoing a massive cleanup, after the inspectors were denied access. Why ?
The 27% traces of enriched uranium is what? Oops...an accident ?

Now, you may choose to play Iran's attorney and expert witness in nuclear energy all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that your client is playing games of deceit and manipulations, while threatening the annihilation of another country – a casus belli.

reply to post by Xcathdra

No their reactors do not use HEU at the upper levels.. We know this because Iran has submitted their nuke plants / info about them to the UN which anyone can access.

And I did... UN Contract 8866, dated 1967

Article 1, Section 1 states that the fuel for the research reactor will be supplied by the United States, in the amounts of 5585 g of 93% U-235, 4 g of 90% U-235, and 112 g plutonium. That's weapons-grade HEU, much greater than the 20% Iran has been producing.

Since then it has been revamped and is now capable of using 19.90% LEU. UN amendment to the above treaty agreement dated 1988.

Might want to check those facts. Iran does indeed have a research reactor that uses ~20% LEU.

Done because Iran is not complying with treaty stipulations.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Are you honestly saying that introducing a computer virus into another country's facilities by direct entry (stuxnet was not transmitted over a network) in order to sabotage those facilities is acceptable if there are allegations of treaty violations?

Seriously... you are not defending that!

Again the west / UN has stated Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear power generation. We are not telling them they can't. What we are saying is comply with treaty stipulations.

OK, let's look at this from violations of the NPT. Give me specific examples of violations.

No one needs nuclear weapons - period.

Are you suggesting US disarmament?

If their program is not aimed at weapons why do they have the ability to enrich to that level?

If I had the capital, I have the ability to enrich to weapons-grade HEU! Every nation on the planet has the ability... the question is not one of ability, but one of intent. And the rhetoric is coming from both sides, with no evidence Iran is proceeding in that direction.

They ont have the technical means to do that. They dont have the minatureization technology to do that.

I would be careful making such a statement. People are capable of more than others think quite often.

Iran, not the US nor Israel, is the one threatening to wipe a nation off the face of the planet.

False.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted that Israel would take action against Iran even if Washington objected.

Speaking to the Knesset last Wednesday, Netanyahu said that a key aim of his talks with US President Barack Obama had been to have Israel’s right to launch a military operation against Iran if it sees fit, acknowledged.

Source: wsws.org...

Took me a good 15 seconds to find that, and it was the first link on the first of many pages of results. It is one thing to express concern about a possibility of Iranian nukes, but quite another to dismiss so much evidence to convict them of doing the deed.

Again, if you can show me evidence - hard, reliable evidence - that indicates Iran is developing nuclear weaponry, I will support the sanctions and even military intervention if warranted. I will not support such based on innuendo, questionable claims (many which have proved false), and hand-wringing over "what if".

My point towards Iran exactly... Why the demand for privacy when they knew full well what was required when they decided to go down the road of nuclear energy.

I honestly don't know how to reply to that... the very concept of demanding an end to sovereign privacy and deeming resistance as evidence of wrongdoing is so alien to me.

Secondly it goes one step further in the fact Iran is required to diclose their program and they have not done that.

They signed the NPT of their own free will. Israel has not. From a truly objective standpoint, which appears more guilty, he who agrees to the contract but then questions specifics in it, or he who refuses the contract flat out?

I will not comment on your interpretation of the religious aspects, because that is beyond my limited understanding of the subject at this time. I can say your interpretation is not the only one I have heard.

TheRedneck

I hope Iran gets a bomb before they are sneak attacked by USA/israel. At least they will be able to get some pay back. Their new missiles can reach israel? If so, thats good as they will need to be like a mad dog and when they are attacked they can reply in the same way.
We know from the propanda that amad dinner jacket would love the excuse to wipe israel off the map. So heres hoping they are not pre emptively bombed by the greatest democracys in the world.

reply to post by illuminnaughty

At least they will be able to get some pay back. Their new missiles can reach israel?

So you're evil. That's nice to know. While Israel wants to attack their nuclear facilities - Iran intends on attacking civilian populations. The former is an act of defense - the latter, an act of genocide.

reply to post by Xcathdra

No one needs nuclear weapons - period.

Men are evil. Unfortunately, because of that, nuclear weapons are a necessary deterrent against enemies truculent towards diplomacy and reason. And no people care less about life than Islamists. Even the commis - as atheists - see this world as the only world, therefore the mutually assured destruction is good enough reason for them not to start a nuclear war. Islamists are a different breed; their religious thinking and attraction towards death and annihilation - the annihilation of the self in Allah and the annihilation of the body, in sacrifice, or shahidah, for the sake of Islam - is one and the same. Hence, the Islamic belief that a shahid is granted immediate entry into paradise; it's the ultimate sacrifice for Allah.

Unfortunately, for all non-Muslims such thinking and acting is absurdly frightening - and it is specifically this which so titillates Muslims. While we love life - they revel in loving death. And it is this which they consider their ultimate advantage.

Israel is a casebook example. Israel is surrounded by vicious enemies that want nothing more than it's annihilation. How else is Israel to ward them off, if not with the threat of a nuclear attack?

reply to post by gravitational

I was simply disappointed that my explanation was obviously not clear.

Yes, if you want to get technical, Iran has EBW detonators, considered "high explosives", which can supply the high timing required for an implosion device. They've had them for some time. The point, however, was that these could not have been detectable from an underground facility. But if you want to use semantics... I own high explosives.

I guess I should allow anyone who wishes to come inspect my bathroom cabinet.

Semantics and turning the argument away from the points debated does no one any good. Evidence of high explosives used in an underground test facility can not indicate nuclear development of an implosion-type nuclear weapon, because high explosives of that magnitude are unnecessary in the development or operation of such.

Parchin... that one I will admit bears investigation. It could be used for implosion testing; it is obviously designed for explosives testing. As I read the IAEA report to the UN, inspectors have been granted access not one but twice and found nothing incriminating, however.

The 27% traces of enriched uranium is what? Oops...an accident ?

Yes. Trace amounts described in the report as "particles". Please read the thread; I already explained that.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


So those 7 quotes given in my earlier post, Iran's status as a shi'ite theocracy, the shi'ite doctrine of Imam Mahdi and the state of chaos needed to facilitate his arrival, and it's nuclear program, dont combine into a credible threat against the Jewish state???

What about the hadith which says before the end of times the Muslims will square off against the Jews?

I don't think there's a single thing that can be said to satisfy your skepticism towards Iran's nuclear program as long as you look at Iran from your own secular perspective, and not from their religious fundamentalism. We may not agree with their thinking - obviously - but understand that it IS THEIR thinking. It is their metaphysical ethos which Israel is most threatened by. Forget everything else. First, understand them as a different breed of human, unlike what were used to dealing with in the west, with our traditions of rational secularism. The science, the technology, don't let that mislead you into thinking that they follow the same patterns of thought that we do. They do not. They openly avow shi'ite Islam, and yet when we talk about Iran's nuclear program, no one considers this a relevant issue - when it is the MOST RELEVANT of subjects. All they need do is reconcile their ultimate aims with satisfying our western prejudices.

People falsely assume that Iran wouldn't attack Israel because they would risk a counter-attack. SO??? Have you not noticed the Islamic proclivity towards self-sacrifice? Iran could inflict a death-blow on Israel with one nuclear attack, while Iran could absorb a counter-strike that would kill 10-20 million.

Originally posted by dontreally
Israel is a casebook example. Israel is surrounded by vicious enemies that want nothing more than it's annihilation. How else is Israel to ward them off, if not with the threat of a nuclear attack?

I agree! Let's ask for our billions in military aid back from them!

To date, the United States has provided Israel $115 billion in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance...

Source

After all, they have nukes. Why do they need military aid??

I suppose the same reasoning can be used to apply as justification for the U.S. violating the NNPT by not following the disarmament statutes, right? We're surrounded by all kinds of... wait... oceans...


Also, I would love to know where you got your info on Iran intending to attack civilians. That would be awesome, as then maybe I could enjoy some conformity with my peers in being whole-heartedly anti-Iran.

Anyways, excuse my off-topic rant there. Not even going to touch the rampant generalized, illogical prejudice against all muslims in your latest post.

reply to post by jlm912

Also, I would love to know where you got your info on Iran intending to attack civilians. That would be awesome, as then maybe I could enjoy some conformity with my peers in being whole-heartedly anti-Iran.

Are you kidding? Who are your peers? The vast majority of people I know - and the vast majority of posters at this website - are anti-Israel and pro-Iran. You are already conforming!

Anyways, excuse my off-topic rant there. Not even going to touch the rampant generalized, illogical prejudice against all muslims in your latest post.

You mustn't be very educated in this area, as I said Islamists - not all muslims. I suppose that misunderstanding occurred by you not knowing what Islamism is.

reply to post by dontreally

I find it amazing that this issue cannot be discussed without placing the participants in a box.

I do not dispute that Iran could be seen as a dangerous destabilizing force based on those comments you posted. I dispute the apparent stance that the West must attack Iran because of claims of nuclear proliferation that are based on nothing more than conjecture and skepticism of actions that would not be (and have not been) questioned in other countries.

You claim Iran is building a nuke? Show me the evidence! Is that so hard?

Until some evidence is presented that indicates some reasonable degree of confidence that Iran is indeed working toward nuclear weaponry, I will accept that they are not. I will also support, in the spirit of Ronald Reagan, "trust but verify".

First, understand them as a different breed of human...

I WILL NOT!!!!!!

Just as I will not consider one of darker skin a "different breed of human" or one of a different sexual persuasion a "different breed of human". Is that what this is all about? Racism? Fear of those who are different?

I'm sorry, but that invalidates your entire post for me...

TheRedneck

Definitions of Muslim:

noun: a believer or follower of Islam
adjective: of or relating to or supporting Islamism

Definitions of Islamist:

noun: a believer or follower of Islam

I'm sorry, but yes, I'm unaware of the thinly-veiled difference, but go on, enlighten me.