reply to post by jlm912
Google is your friend.
Define:Islamism = Islamic militancy or fundamentalism
Google definitions
Islamism = POLITICAL Islam
Iran steps up nuclear warhead work, Israel media reports (Reuters), page 8
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 02:46 PM by dontreally
reply to post by TheRedneck
That is specious reasoning.
Are you saying context is a box? Are you saying we could be more objective by decontextualizing Iran's threat to Israel???
That may be OK for you - but IF YOU WERE THREATENED - you would want to know everything about the party that is threatening you.
The box they live in is relevant. What is irrelevant is removing the box and speaking about Iran's threat to Israel as if religion had nothing to do with it.
The degree of their abrasive rhetoric towards Israel warrants action, regardless of any imagined lack of evidence.
Iran's nuclear facilities are underground, in areas where IAEA inspectors have not been allowed to visit. It is nothing but insanity to hold to the side of caution when the consequences are apocalyptic for Israel.
Again, you may not care, as you don't seem to have tender feelings for Israel, but for Israeli's and for rational human beings who recognize the level of threat - and the dire consequences - it is better to err by attacking their nuclear facilities than to squander time and allow Iran to eliminate the "zionist enemy", most likely through transporting a Nuke to Hezbollah.
Furthermore, a nation which speaks with such bellicosity against another nation should NOT BE ALLOWED, period, to pursue nuclear technology. And if they do, it's imperative that it be done with the full oversight of the IAEA - which has not been granted.
That's a low blow. You know full well that my comments were in regard to their intellectual-spiritual paradigm, and not the color of their skin. They are a different breed in their RELATIONSHIP with reality; nothing at all to do with skin color.
The fact that you took the conversation there shows me what kind of person you are.
I find it amazing that this issue cannot be discussed without placing the participants in a box.
That is specious reasoning.
Are you saying context is a box? Are you saying we could be more objective by decontextualizing Iran's threat to Israel???
That may be OK for you - but IF YOU WERE THREATENED - you would want to know everything about the party that is threatening you.
The box they live in is relevant. What is irrelevant is removing the box and speaking about Iran's threat to Israel as if religion had nothing to do with it.
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".
The degree of their abrasive rhetoric towards Israel warrants action, regardless of any imagined lack of evidence.
Iran's nuclear facilities are underground, in areas where IAEA inspectors have not been allowed to visit. It is nothing but insanity to hold to the side of caution when the consequences are apocalyptic for Israel.
Again, you may not care, as you don't seem to have tender feelings for Israel, but for Israeli's and for rational human beings who recognize the level of threat - and the dire consequences - it is better to err by attacking their nuclear facilities than to squander time and allow Iran to eliminate the "zionist enemy", most likely through transporting a Nuke to Hezbollah.
Furthermore, a nation which speaks with such bellicosity against another nation should NOT BE ALLOWED, period, to pursue nuclear technology. And if they do, it's imperative that it be done with the full oversight of the IAEA - which has not been granted.
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?
That's a low blow. You know full well that my comments were in regard to their intellectual-spiritual paradigm, and not the color of their skin. They are a different breed in their RELATIONSHIP with reality; nothing at all to do with skin color.
The fact that you took the conversation there shows me what kind of person you are.
edit on 14-8-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason
given)
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 02:59 PM by Xcathdra
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.
The program in questions was / is called atoms for peace. It was the program I referred to that was setup with the cooperation of the US with the UN back in the day to assist countries in developing nuclear energy programs.
As for supplying Iran you are trying to make it into something it is not. If you remeber one of the proposlas floated to Iran was to have enrichment done by another country and then sent back to Iran. That was suggested to allow Iran to keep their program, which they are entitled to, without the problem of enrichment and ambiguity.
The material supplied is accounted for and designated, making it easy to track. Irans enrichment program is not easy to track because they stonewall the UN. Secondly Highly Enriched Uranium has a minimum 20% threshhold to be considered highly enriched. The enrichment ability is the problem, and has always been the problem. Secondly without a trigger you have nothing but a dirty bomb. The trigger was the issue behind the UN's request to access one of the military locations where the testing was supposedly taking place. That request has been denied by Iran several times now and the site is being cleaned up.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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!
As a matter of fact I am... If you think Iran does not engage in similar actions towards other countries then you are just not paying attention.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
OK, let's look at this from violations of the NPT. Give me specific examples of violations.
NPT / IAEA requirements -
* - Failure to report facilities to the UN that are connected to their nuclear program.
* - Refusal to allow inspectors into certain facilities linked to their program.
* - Unable to account for missing uranium.
* - Enriching uranium at levels not declared (more than 20%).
* - Iran has been caught purchasing items that are dual use that can be used in a nuclear weapons program.
* - Failure to allow UN inspectors access to scientists invilved in the program.
* - Iran approaching businesses in Norway to acquire missile technology.
* - Iran has been caught working with the North Koreans.
* - Iran has been caught using 3rd parties to acquire material for their program that is prohibited.
* - Iran has been caught by the UN with software that allows computer testing of detonation designs for nuclear weapons.
etc etc etc etc.......
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Are you suggesting US disarmament?
Absolutely
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.
A nation must have the ability to enrich uranium and the higher you go the more refined the process needed. Irans ability to enrich to higher levels and their constant threats towards Israels existence pretty clearly spells out their intent.
Again no one is threatening to wipe Iran off the map. Israels concern is the nuclear program. So no the rhetoric is not coming from both sides. The issue is Irans ability to construct a nuclear weapon - always has been and always will be until they comply.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
I would be careful making such a statement. People are capable of more than others think quite often.
The only way for Iran to go down that road is if they are receiving outside assistance for their program. Also, and I think you may have missed this part, is the prohibition to use a civilian nuclear program for military purpose. The development of nuclear reactors for their naval ships would be using their civilian program for military application.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
False.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has insisted that Israel would take action against Iran even if Washington objected.Source: wsws.org...
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.
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.
Right and once again you seemed to have ignored the comment and missed the point. Israel has NOT threatened to wipe Iran off the map. Iran HAS threatended to wipe Israel off the map. When discussing Iran the topic has always been around attacking their nuclear program and sites. Iran when discussing Irael wants them gone - period.
So, again, Iran is the one making threats to wwipe Israel out. Israel is stating they will attack their nuclear sites. A HUGE diffrerence and im not sure why you are ignoring that part.
Also - I have seen people, including the Iranian government, try to make a distinction between Israel and zionists / israeli government. The problem with that is Iran does not officaly recognize ISrael as a nation, which means there is no legitimate government in Israel in Irans eyes, which means their claims of distinction are based on nothing more than word play.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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".
Again please read the info and my posts. The concern is Irans ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Its always been the issue, which revolves around enrichment levels and resources available to put one together. Those concerns stem from Irans constant threats coupled with their failure to abide by a treaty they signed.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.
Iran has every right to keep their secrets secret. The point you are missing is they gave up part of that secrecy and sovereignty when they opted to join / sign the NPT / IAEA. The "demands" being made on Iran come from their failure to follow the treaty. If Iran does not want to play by the rules, then they should withdraw.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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?
Werent you the one that just made the argument resitance doesnt mean wrong doing? Israel has never confirmed they have nuclear weapons. Iran, like Israel, has the option to join the IAEA / NPT. Iran, unlike Israel, opted to join and as such agreed to the conditions of the treaty.
If Israel does not have nuclear weapons then there is nothing to join now is there? If you come back at me with the "we all know better" or "intelligence" etc then the exact same standard applies to Iran.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
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.
If you wish to understand this situation and how the parties justify their actions then may I suggest you do some research into the religious realm. Irans government, actions, way of life all are governed by their faith. To understand their faith allows a person to better see how they come to their decisions and why they do what they do.
edit on 14-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-8-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 03:19 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by dontreally
I am saying that it appears one must either be pro-US/Israel and anti-Iran, or pro-Iran and anti-US/Israel. I am neither. I love my country, and I pray for the peace of Israel; I simply do not agree with the present US allegations against Iran nor do I accept that Israel is faultless in this recent example of human aggression.
Nor do I presume Iran to be faultless.
Imagined lack of evidence? If evidence exists, please present it and remove any imagined lack.
Again I ask for evidence. Which sites have been deemed to be these secret underground facilities? When did the IAEA ask for access and when was it denied or granted? What evidence has been used to suspect these underground sites?
These are not improper questions.
Again with the box.
I have the ability to care about more than one group of people. I have the ability to analyze what is being said and what is being done in order to determine if agendas are just or not. I want peace in Israel; I want all three Abrahamic religions to have free access to their religious sites; I want a world free of terrorism and tyranny. So far all I have heard are calls for support of Israeli military action because Iran might make a nuke and might wipe out Israel. That does not further any of my stated goals.
And yes, I realize Israel could not survive a single strike, nor would they have enough notice to get off a retaliatory strike. Balance of power does not work in this situation. But neither does war, and war is where this is heading. Israel strikes Iran; Iran strikes back; The US backs Israel; Russia and China back Iran; Britain backs the US; most of Europe backs the US....
The cry after the invasion of Iraq was that we overthrew a government suspected of having biological and chemical weapons when in reality they did not (although I still am not 100% convinced of that). How more wrong will it be if we start WWIII over a claim of nukes then find none?
Fine. may I suggest we also include Israel based on their threats of preemptive strike and their refusal to even sign the NPT?
The low blow was yours. I did not make the statement; I expressed my disgust at it.
I did not take the conversation anywhere; you made the statement.
But yes, it does show what kind of person I am, that I do not judge others based on what "breed of human" they are. Thank you for pointing that out.
TheRedneck
Are you saying context is a box?
I am saying that it appears one must either be pro-US/Israel and anti-Iran, or pro-Iran and anti-US/Israel. I am neither. I love my country, and I pray for the peace of Israel; I simply do not agree with the present US allegations against Iran nor do I accept that Israel is faultless in this recent example of human aggression.
Nor do I presume Iran to be faultless.
The degree of their abrasive rhetoric towards Israel warrants action, regardless of any imagined lack of evidence.
Imagined lack of evidence? If evidence exists, please present it and remove any imagined lack.
Iran's nuclear facilities are underground, in areas where IAEA inspectors have not been allowed to visit.
Again I ask for evidence. Which sites have been deemed to be these secret underground facilities? When did the IAEA ask for access and when was it denied or granted? What evidence has been used to suspect these underground sites?
These are not improper questions.
Again, you may not care, as you don't seem to have tender feelings for Israel, but for Israeli's and for rational human beings who recognize the level of threat - and the dire consequences - it is better to err by attacking their nuclear facilities than to squander time and allow Iran to eliminate the "zionist enemy", most likely through transporting a Nuke to Hezbollah.
Again with the box.
I have the ability to care about more than one group of people. I have the ability to analyze what is being said and what is being done in order to determine if agendas are just or not. I want peace in Israel; I want all three Abrahamic religions to have free access to their religious sites; I want a world free of terrorism and tyranny. So far all I have heard are calls for support of Israeli military action because Iran might make a nuke and might wipe out Israel. That does not further any of my stated goals.
And yes, I realize Israel could not survive a single strike, nor would they have enough notice to get off a retaliatory strike. Balance of power does not work in this situation. But neither does war, and war is where this is heading. Israel strikes Iran; Iran strikes back; The US backs Israel; Russia and China back Iran; Britain backs the US; most of Europe backs the US....
The cry after the invasion of Iraq was that we overthrew a government suspected of having biological and chemical weapons when in reality they did not (although I still am not 100% convinced of that). How more wrong will it be if we start WWIII over a claim of nukes then find none?
Furthermore, a nation which speaks with such bellicosity against another nation should NOT BE ALLOWED, period, to pursue nuclear technology.
Fine. may I suggest we also include Israel based on their threats of preemptive strike and their refusal to even sign the NPT?
That's a low blow.
The low blow was yours. I did not make the statement; I expressed my disgust at it.
The fact that you took the conversation there shows me what kind of person you are.
I did not take the conversation anywhere; you made the statement.
But yes, it does show what kind of person I am, that I do not judge others based on what "breed of human" they are. Thank you for pointing that out.
TheRedneck
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 03:57 PM by InsideYourMind
Originally posted by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by InsideYourMind
Personally, I think we have too many countries with nukes. One more, whoever that might be, is too many.
I disagree on this, i don't think it's right that certain nations can pull the strings of the entire planet just because they have nuclear arms.
Either let everybody build a nuclear warhead, or nobody has them. It seems that nations who own nuclear arsenals are the aggressors in international conflict, even if they never hint towards publicly using them in an attack.
You look at the US, Israel and the UK. They all own nuclear arsenals, and yet they are trying to corner Iran for "allegedly" trying to build one of their own. What do the 3 aggresors have in common? Nuclear arsenals.
The way i see things, is that if you build a nuclear bomb, you join the club of international bullies. They will almost always agree with each other and torment countries without them, because they know they have the "nuke" card to play as insurance.
It's quite childish, and inhumane.
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 04:05 PM by Xcathdra
reply to post by InsideYourMind
Israel has never confirmed they possess nuclear weapons. As I have stated before if people are going to say Israel does, which is based on other countries intelligence reports, then they must accept the intelligence reports on Iran and their program.
Israel has never confirmed they possess nuclear weapons. As I have stated before if people are going to say Israel does, which is based on other countries intelligence reports, then they must accept the intelligence reports on Iran and their program.
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 04:41 PM by GarrusVasNormandy
reply to post by InsideYourMind
That would be true if you didn't have opposed countries with nukes.
Using that logic, India could have gotten away with pushing Pakistan to the wall, and they didn't. And neither did Pakistan payback when they achieved nuclear capability.
Political power gained from having nuclear weapons is often overestimated.
Case in point? North Korea. Having a nuke made them isolated, a problem that nobody cares about as long as they just make noise.
Everyone having a nuke would mean that it's relevence becomes close to 0, which means that the fear factor from such weapon stops to have any effect. It then becomes a ticking clock until the opportunity to use one arrives, and everyone does the same with fear of being left behind in the destruction.
The theory of nobody having them is way better. That's what the NPT exists for, actually. Who would have guessed?
They have much more in common than just nuclear arsenals. Two of them belong to NATO, so already 2/3 of your argument loses strength. The remaining 1/3 - Israel - has a very credible self-preservation feeling about the issue. We can't be blind to the realities of the world. The risk, or threat - if you prefer- does exist. Iran has made it clear that they dislike Israel existence, wether or not people enjoy debating semantics over the particular statements.
And by the way, why do you call them aggressors? What was the aggression that labelled them as such?
Again, nuclear political power is often overestimated. There is a reason why both URSS and U.S. decided to step down from the path they were leading.
When/If nuclear weapons lose credibility or become too mundane, the chance of one being used is very high. Too high for comfort. If two opposed countries feel the need to stop the MAD philosophy, you can imagine what kind of nightmares we would be faced if more joined this group.
It's as bad as it should get. Especially if it's a country with a clear objective in mind that is hostile in nature.
I disagree on this, i don't think it's right that certain nations can pull the strings of the entire planet just because they have nuclear arms.
That would be true if you didn't have opposed countries with nukes.
Using that logic, India could have gotten away with pushing Pakistan to the wall, and they didn't. And neither did Pakistan payback when they achieved nuclear capability.
Political power gained from having nuclear weapons is often overestimated.
Case in point? North Korea. Having a nuke made them isolated, a problem that nobody cares about as long as they just make noise.
Either let everybody build a nuclear warhead, or nobody has them. It seems that nations who own nuclear arsenals are the aggressors in international conflict, even if they never hint towards publicly using them in an attack.
Everyone having a nuke would mean that it's relevence becomes close to 0, which means that the fear factor from such weapon stops to have any effect. It then becomes a ticking clock until the opportunity to use one arrives, and everyone does the same with fear of being left behind in the destruction.
The theory of nobody having them is way better. That's what the NPT exists for, actually. Who would have guessed?
You look at the US, Israel and the UK. They all own nuclear arsenals, and yet they are trying to corner Iran for "allegedly" trying to build one of their own. What do the 3 aggresors have in common? Nuclear arsenals.
They have much more in common than just nuclear arsenals. Two of them belong to NATO, so already 2/3 of your argument loses strength. The remaining 1/3 - Israel - has a very credible self-preservation feeling about the issue. We can't be blind to the realities of the world. The risk, or threat - if you prefer- does exist. Iran has made it clear that they dislike Israel existence, wether or not people enjoy debating semantics over the particular statements.
And by the way, why do you call them aggressors? What was the aggression that labelled them as such?
The way i see things, is that if you build a nuclear bomb, you join the club of international bullies. They will almost always agree with each other and torment countries without them, because they know they have the "nuke" card to play as insurance
Again, nuclear political power is often overestimated. There is a reason why both URSS and U.S. decided to step down from the path they were leading.
When/If nuclear weapons lose credibility or become too mundane, the chance of one being used is very high. Too high for comfort. If two opposed countries feel the need to stop the MAD philosophy, you can imagine what kind of nightmares we would be faced if more joined this group.
It's as bad as it should get. Especially if it's a country with a clear objective in mind that is hostile in nature.
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 07:22 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by Xcathdra
Was well worth the wait.
Not really. My point was simply that the US has a habit of playing both ends against the middle, not that their actions of supplying the reactor or fuel for it were improper.
The action was taken under the reign of Reza Shah, who was friendly to the US petroleum and banking interests but who was despised by the majority of Iranians. Support was withdrawn when the Shah was ousted, instead of using diplomatic means to accept a ruling body that had the support of the population.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I have said many times that I do not find Iran faultless in this. I do not condone their actions during our invasion of Iraq, I do not support the invasion of Iraq, I do not support Iran's statements against Israel, I do not support Israel's threats toward Iran, and I do not support the development or use of stuxnet.
None of these things further the goal of Middle Eastern stability.
Quite a list. Let's take them one at a time:
Which facilities at which times? I would appreciate references to UN or IAEA documentation.
I would disagree, but you get kudos for being consistent.
Actually, since enrichment entails removal of U-238 and higher enrichment means less needs to be removed, enrichment gets easier as enrichment goes higher. That is why I once based my opposition to Iran's actions on the enrichment levels attained. My change in heart is based on the fact they have not enriched any appreciable amount past the 20% level, despite having the ability to do so.
Not openly.
And again, they have not carried through on their threat, a threat made in response to a threat of increased sanctions. Tit-for-tat.
I'm not ignoring it, but Israel has followed through with their threats against other countries (many times with reason, granted) while Iran has not launched a single missile toward another country (discounting during an open declaration of war against an invading Iraq). I also should mention one other point that just came to me: The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, one of the holiest sites in Islam, is located in Jerusalem, Israel. A nuclear attack would destroy it as well.
In short, I do not see Iran's threats as credible. I do see Israel's threats as credible.
Understand, please... Iran has had the ability to enrich HEU since their first successful enrichment of LEU. Iran has had high explosives for a very long time. Thus, Iran has had the ability to produce a nuclear warhead. Delivery may be another issue; I not know what their level of technology is regarding missile guidance and rocketry. But the weapon is much easier to build than you seem to believe.
What they apparently have not done is to refine any enriched uranium into machinable metal for inclusion in a bomb or developed a plutonium source. The former is a requirement for a nuclear detonation; the latter a requirement for production of an implosion-type device consistent with their EBW detonators.
~continued~
Was well worth the wait.
As for supplying Iran you are trying to make it into something it is not.
Not really. My point was simply that the US has a habit of playing both ends against the middle, not that their actions of supplying the reactor or fuel for it were improper.
The action was taken under the reign of Reza Shah, who was friendly to the US petroleum and banking interests but who was despised by the majority of Iranians. Support was withdrawn when the Shah was ousted, instead of using diplomatic means to accept a ruling body that had the support of the population.
As a matter of fact I am... If you think Iran does not engage in similar actions towards other countries then you are just not paying attention.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
I have said many times that I do not find Iran faultless in this. I do not condone their actions during our invasion of Iraq, I do not support the invasion of Iraq, I do not support Iran's statements against Israel, I do not support Israel's threats toward Iran, and I do not support the development or use of stuxnet.
None of these things further the goal of Middle Eastern stability.
NPT / IAEA requirements -
Quite a list. Let's take them one at a time:
Failure to report facilities to the UN that are connected to their nuclear program.
Which facilities at which times? I would appreciate references to UN or IAEA documentation.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Are you suggesting US disarmament?
Absolutely
I would disagree, but you get kudos for being consistent.
A nation must have the ability to enrich uranium and the higher you go the more refined the process needed. Irans ability to enrich to higher levels and their constant threats towards Israels existence pretty clearly spells out their intent.
Actually, since enrichment entails removal of U-238 and higher enrichment means less needs to be removed, enrichment gets easier as enrichment goes higher. That is why I once based my opposition to Iran's actions on the enrichment levels attained. My change in heart is based on the fact they have not enriched any appreciable amount past the 20% level, despite having the ability to do so.
Again no one is threatening to wipe Iran off the map.
Not openly.
The only way for Iran to go down that road is if they are receiving outside assistance for their program. Also, and I think you may have missed this part, is the prohibition to use a civilian nuclear program for military purpose. The development of nuclear reactors for their naval ships would be using their civilian program for military application.
And again, they have not carried through on their threat, a threat made in response to a threat of increased sanctions. Tit-for-tat.
So, again, Iran is the one making threats to wwipe Israel out. Israel is stating they will attack their nuclear sites. A HUGE diffrerence and im not sure why you are ignoring that part.
I'm not ignoring it, but Israel has followed through with their threats against other countries (many times with reason, granted) while Iran has not launched a single missile toward another country (discounting during an open declaration of war against an invading Iraq). I also should mention one other point that just came to me: The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount, one of the holiest sites in Islam, is located in Jerusalem, Israel. A nuclear attack would destroy it as well.
In short, I do not see Iran's threats as credible. I do see Israel's threats as credible.
The concern is Irans ability to produce a nuclear weapon.
Understand, please... Iran has had the ability to enrich HEU since their first successful enrichment of LEU. Iran has had high explosives for a very long time. Thus, Iran has had the ability to produce a nuclear warhead. Delivery may be another issue; I not know what their level of technology is regarding missile guidance and rocketry. But the weapon is much easier to build than you seem to believe.
What they apparently have not done is to refine any enriched uranium into machinable metal for inclusion in a bomb or developed a plutonium source. The former is a requirement for a nuclear detonation; the latter a requirement for production of an implosion-type device consistent with their EBW detonators.
~continued~
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 07:31 PM by TheRedneck
reply to post by morethanyou
Back in the box.
I repeat: I am not anti-Israel! I simply am not anti-Iran either. No, sir, I would not be 'justifying' a bomb in any Israeli center; I would support going to their aid if they were attacked. Just because I do not agree with blindly following whatever Bush/Obama/Netanyahu says does not by itself define my loyalties.
On the other hand, if Iran were turned into a sea of glass and we were to discover that they had no nuclear weapons, would you just shrug that off and say "Well, they deserved it for something else"?
TheRedneck
I can not help but think that if a BIG BOMB did go off in a Israeli center, you would be here justifying the act for reasons that do not even add up.
Back in the box.
I repeat: I am not anti-Israel! I simply am not anti-Iran either. No, sir, I would not be 'justifying' a bomb in any Israeli center; I would support going to their aid if they were attacked. Just because I do not agree with blindly following whatever Bush/Obama/Netanyahu says does not by itself define my loyalties.
On the other hand, if Iran were turned into a sea of glass and we were to discover that they had no nuclear weapons, would you just shrug that off and say "Well, they deserved it for something else"?
TheRedneck
reply posted on 14-8-2012 @ 11:09 PM by glasshouse
reply to post by GarrusVasNormandy
I'm no war-monger but I think it's fair to say that wars have ended more than one atrocity that never would have been ended by peaceful resistance.
Actually, it seems to have worked fairly well. While there were a few proxy conflicts, the threat of mutually assured destruction prevented a straight up war between the two sides that still has not occurred.
I have seen more good and social change made by being non-violent and opposing violence peacefully, than by reaching for a bigger stick.
I'm no war-monger but I think it's fair to say that wars have ended more than one atrocity that never would have been ended by peaceful resistance.
That philosophy of "if you have a gun, and I have a gun, then we are both going to respect each-other" didn't work all that well during the Cold War.
Actually, it seems to have worked fairly well. While there were a few proxy conflicts, the threat of mutually assured destruction prevented a straight up war between the two sides that still has not occurred.
Israel and the Upcoming Nuclear War - The "Unthinkable" is Now Inevitable
Posted 11 days ago with 28 member flags
Posted 11 days ago with 28 member flags
Turkey says it is prepared for possibility of war with Israel
Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags
Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags
Full-scale Middle East war is \'imminent\', warns Israeli general
Posted 17 days ago with 10 member flags
Posted 17 days ago with 10 member flags
I can see a scenario taking place which is fulfulling biblical prophecy.
Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Bin Laden burial pictures will stay secret, Appeals court Rules.
Breaking Alternative News: 24 minutes ago
Breaking Alternative News: 24 minutes ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
The Eight Year Old Girl Who Didn't Make It Past Her Wedding Night
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 14 flags
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 14 flags
After IRS, Benghazi scandals, public trust shifts to GOP
US Political Madness: 16 hours ago, 11 flags
US Political Madness: 16 hours ago, 11 flags
Crazy Weather -National Radar (05/20/13) - And TORNADOES IN NY? - (05/21/13) *EDIT*
Fragile Earth: 17 hours ago, 11 flags
Fragile Earth: 17 hours ago, 11 flags
Traveling in the Middle East and Overheard Some Interesting Information....
New World Order: 17 hours ago, 11 flags
New World Order: 17 hours ago, 11 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
The Eight Year Old Girl Who Didn't Make It Past Her Wedding Night
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 78 replies
Breaking Alternative News: 10 hours ago, 78 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.638 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.638 seconds
