Iran wants to pick a fight with Uncle Sam

[pisser]

they should know we'll give um a bloody nose!

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Despite the threat of economic sanctions, Iran has not made any move to suspend uranium enrichment activities or comply with U.N. demands to verify its nuclear program is peaceful, according to a U.N. report issued Thursday.

U.N. ambassadors are looking over the report from International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohammed ElBaradei, released on the deadline set by the Security Council for Iran to halt all of its nuclear activities or face economic sanctions.

"The report makes clear that not only has Iran not suspended uranium enrichment activities as required by [U.N.] Resolution 1696, it's accelerated," U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told reporters.

"The report, short and to the point, concludes that after all these years of trying, the IAEA is still unable to confirm the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear program," Bolton said.

"Now, in the language of the IAEA and the international system, that's a red flag," he continued. "There's simply no explanation for the range of behavior which we've seen over the years, other than that they're pursuing a weapons capability."

Iran has left little doubt it will defy the West and continue its nuclear program.
"They should know that the Iranian nation will not yield to pressure and will not let its rights be trampled on," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a crowd Thursday in a televised speech in the northwestern Iranian city of Orumiyeh.

In front of his strongest supporters in one of his provincial power bases, the Iranian leader attacked what he called "intimidation" by the United Nations, which he said was led by the United States.

President Bush insisted Thursday that "there must be consequences" for Iran's defiance of demands that it stop enriching uranium. He said "the world now faces a grave threat from the radical regime in Iran."

"We must not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon," Bush told the American Legion's national convention.

The rest at:
CNN

[theknife]

you feel pretty strong about it, huh?

i'm sure the military will let you re-enlist to help give them that bloody nose - why don't give your local recruiter a call?

[pisser]

Originally Posted by theknife

you feel pretty strong about it, huh?

i'm sure the military will let you re-enlist to give them that bloody nose - why don't give your local recruiter a call?

Once again: I've done my time, have you?

Why is it always, "You should join if you feel stongly about it"?

Tell you what, I'll push the button to launch a thermonuke ballistic missle at Tehran, you just tell me when and where, I'll be there, K?

Would that satisfy you?

[theknife]

Originally Posted by pisser

Once again: I've done my time, have you?

Why is it always, "You should join if you feel stongly about it"?

Tell you what, I'll push the button to launch a thermonuke ballistic missle at Tehran, you just tell me when and where, I'll be there, K?

Would that satisfy you?

actually, i tried when i was about 20 - they wouldn't take me coz i had a DUI on my record. i understand they've lowered their standards considerably since then.

but anyone who feels strongly that millitary action is needed, and is of an age fit to fight, should be willing to join. to assert that it's a fight worth fighting only as long as someone else does the fighting is a bit hypocritical, no? but they have units now for those people, too:

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by pisser

Once again: I've done my time, have you?

You spewed the same bull on another thread, asked when and where did you serve. You never replied.

Your so called "time" are you sure you did it in the army?

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

are you sure you did it in the army?

Of course he did.
How could you doubt such a kind giving man?

[Drakonix]

It’s really pretty simple.

Iran says they want nuclear fuel for production of electric power.

Iran has oil. Therefor, Iran has natural gas - lots of it. The Persian Gulf area (which includes Iran) has approximately 45% of the world’s known reserves of natural gas - approximately 2,462 trillion cubic feet. ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/pgulf.html )

As in enough natural gas to produce all the electric power all of Iran could ever need or want. Compared to nuclear generating plants, natural gas plants are cheaper to build, operate, and maintain.

Even though the U.S. has far less reserves of natural gas than the Persian Gulf area, natural gas ranks third as a fuel for generating electric power. Coal is first (2,005,085 thousand megawatt hours), followed by nuclear (789,023 thousand megawatt hours), and then natural gas (759,075 thousand megawatt hours). Numbers are for 2006, a rolling 12 month period ending in May. ( http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electri.../table1_1.html )

Note that the U.S. derives only 4% less power from natural gas than from nuclear power plants.

Therefor, Iran does not need nuclear powered generating plants in order to meet electrical power needs.

Iran has been offered incentives to abandon uranium enrichment that included nuclear power generation - but they refused it.

Therefor, Iran most likely does not seek production of fissile nuclear fuel for power plants, they seek fissile nuclear material to build nuclear weapons. It’s glaringly obvious. Iran is lying about its intentions regarding use of nuclear technology.

Presumably, the first place Iran would use nuclear weapons is Israel, and the second place Iran would use nuclear weapons is the United States, providing they can figure out how to get a bomb there.

The only reason certain countries have problems with sanctions against Iran for nuclear naughtiness is that these countries have been engaging in sales of weapons and nuclear technology to Iran.

Would you bet your life on a presumed certainty that Iran could never detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S.? You are free to bet your own life, but you are not free to bet mine.

Playing political football with an issue (obviously) this dire is colossally irresponsible.

Bottom line is that the U.S. will not permit a radical country like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

As for my military service, I duly served eligibility for the draft during the Vietnam era, but was never called. I later got a job (as a civilian) working at Naval Air Station, Alameda, California reworking sparrow missile target seeker units. That military base was closed years ago.

If the military would accept me I would enlist. I’m too old (52) and have medical issues.

I have also given volunteer service as an emergency preparedness and disaster service worker for 30 years. My registration as a disaster service worker is still active.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Would you bet your life on a presumed certainty that Iran could never detonate a nuclear weapon in the U.S.? You are free to bet your own life, but you are not free to bet mine.

Playing political football with an issue (obviously) this dire is colossally irresponsible.

Bottom line is that the U.S. will not permit a radical country like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

what makes iran any worse of a bet than pakistan (the country that harbors Ben Laden, with only the heartbeat of Prez Perez standing between the fundamentalists and the nukes), north korea, or china? for that matter, what defines iran as a radical country? i hope it's not because the same guys that sold you iraq are telling you so. and beyond that, exactly what do you think is in the US's power to do about it?

edit: and as for political football, the ruling party in this country has already announced thier intention to make this issue the reason they should be kept in power - if one was cynical, one could suspect that they actually need this issue to do so. political football, indeed.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by theknife

what makes iran any worse of a bet than pakistan (the country that harbors Ben Laden, with only the heartbeat of Prez Perez standing between the fundamentalists and the nukes), north korea, or china? for that matter, what defines iran as a radical country? i hope it's not because the same guys that sold you iraq are telling you so. and beyond that, exactly what do you think is in the US's power to do about it?

edit: and as for political football, the ruling party in this country has already announced thier intention to make this issue the reason they should be kept in power - if one was cynical, one could suspect that they actually need this issue to do so. political football, indeed.

Flash question for those who believes that Iran is a nuclear threat?

How many percent does it need to have an enriched uranium rod to power a plant versus a nuke? Did everyone forgot their chemistry lessons at school FFS?

I studied nuclear fission, no I don't have a PHD in that matter but enough to make the difference on how much that uranium is enriched and for what purpuse.

SO back to that question, how much percent of enriched uranium does it takes to make a rod and how much does it take to make a nuke?

Beside, the whole world knows that the only country that ever used a nuclear bomb, err actually 2 of them, it's not Iran nor Iraq, it was the US of A.

Drak, I am more afraid of your country capability than what the media claim that it is Iran intention to makes nukes. Afterall, the US does have labs that makes biological weapons even more deadly than what Saddam used against the Kurds... wonder why that is, hell wonder why they even get involved in those research if they don't intend to use it.

I read an interesting interview that Stephen King once gave... One person asked him, what went through your mind for you to write the book "The Stand" Mr. King replied in all honnesty "why not, with all those biological weapons that are being brewed in the United States, it's only a matter of time before one is released by mistake". If I were you, I'd be more worried and scared as to what is happening on your own soil than what might happen if Iran did build a nuke.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Bottom line is that the U.S. will not permit a radical country like Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

Considering that even you have to admit that North Korea is way more "radical" than Iran ever was or ever will be, and given that we are still in a state of war with them, why the hell did the Bush admin sit and twiddle their army in Iraq while N.K. successfully tested a nuke?

Your argument about Iran not having a need for nuclear powered electricity generators:

Well, the US sure seemed to believe that they needed reactors back in the 50s after overthrowing the government there and installing that wonderfully benevolent guy, aka the shaw of Iran. And provided Iran with them.
The "don't need because of the vast reserves of oil and gas" did not come into play then.
I wonder why?


In truth you know little to nothing about Iran.

[Drakonix]

Q: How much percent of enriched uranium does it takes to make a rod and how much does it take to make a nuke?

A: I am not sure why you ask, but the info follows. The best I can figure is that your point is reactor fuel can not be used to make a fissile nuclear bomb.

As per my understanding that’s true, a higher degree of enrichment and other processing is needed to make a nuclear bomb.

The term “enriched uranium” is generic, there are a number of levels of enrichment.

Natural uranium is mostly U238, and contains something less than 0.8% U235. Enrichment processes increase the U235 content in the processed material.

Reactor fuel U235 concentration requirements depend on reactor type.

Natural uranium (about 0.7% U235) or slightly enriched uranium (about 1%-2% U235) can be used in heavy water reactors.

Light water reactors (the most common kind) can use low enriched uranium (around 4% U235).

Minimum U235 concentration that could make a crude weapon is about 20%.

Weapon grade U235 concentration is commonly 85% or more.

Plutonium, not U235 is the active ingredient in a (modern implosion) fissile bomb. Plutonium is a transuranium element, Pu239 is the necessary isotope.

A sphere of fissile material (plutonium) the size of a regulation baseball, undergoing a nuclear chain reaction explosion will release approximately as much energy as detonating a container filled with TNT the size of Yankee Stadium. (according to the old AEC training films I saw)

One kilogram of Pu239 = about 22 million kilowatt hours heat energy or about 20 kilotons TNT as an explosion.

BTW, I don't recall any discussion of uranium enrichment and nuclear reactors when and where I went to school. Hyperbolic: Maybe I missed the chemistry class session where they taught you how to make nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs.

My previous point has IMO not been diminished, pursuit of uranium enrichment by Iran is unquestionably for the creation of fissile nuclear weapons.

@RDixon: The Korea matter is being addressed, it's not like absolutely nothing is being done. Standard procedures have to be applied - diplomatic solutions must be tried. Regarding Iran: It is the current leadership and situation in Iran that I am concerned about. I know all I need to know about Iran on the current subject.

There are a number of countries other than the U.S. that have serious concerns over the Iranian uranium enrichment program.

[naz]

Originally Posted by RDixon

Considering that even you have to admit that North Korea is way more "radical" than Iran ever was or ever will be, and given that we are still in a state of war with them, why the hell did the Bush admin sit and twiddle their army in Iraq while N.K. successfully tested a nuke?

Your argument about Iran not having a need for nuclear powered electricity generators:

Well, the US sure seemed to believe that they needed reactors back in the 50s after overthrowing the government there and installing that wonderfully benevolent guy, aka the shaw of Iran. And provided Iran with them.
The "don't need because of the vast reserves of oil and gas" did not come into play then.
I wonder why?


In truth you know little to nothing about Iran.

You're correct about the Iranian program being started under the Shah. I guess it's ok to have nukes so long as you like the US, it's not the principle, so much as who's side you are on.

But North Korea haven't tested a nuke, but probably have one to six.

Also, Drakonix, the North Korea issue isn't being addressed. It flares up and down, but nothing is resolved and it's been going on since 1989. North Korea pose an actual military threat, with real WMD (not rusting canisters of WW1 ordinance like mustard gas). Being an actual threat, with a functional army that won't roll over and die in three weeks, it's not really an option for the U.S, which - in spite of it's tough talk about "evil countries" not being allowed to possess WMD, doesn't have the stomach for actual war. That's when two armies are fighting. Don't blame them. The only country with the power to change the NK situation is probably China, and NK serves well as a proxy to goad the U.S with from a Chinese point of view.

I agree that the Iranians aren't developing nukes for power generation. They are, like the Koreans (and probably with their help), developing them as a deterrent versus the US and Israel. Nuke's in the Middle East are a really bad idea, but then again so are nukes in the subcontinent and in cold war Europe (powderkegs).

No country is crazy enough to launch a broad nuclear attack, the outcome in most instances would end up with the total annhilation in a counterstrike by either the target or it's allies. What having nukes does ensure against is conventional war, ala the stomping of Iraq. All the nuclear armed nations, cannot be conventional invaded without the opposing army being completely destroyed. For the first time in history, security of the homeland is basically assured.

Proliferation is basically inevitable, definately not desirable.

[theknife]

Originally Posted by naz

I agree that the Iranians aren't developing nukes for power generation. They are, like the Koreans (and probably with their help), developing them as a deterrent versus the US and Israel. Nuke's in the Middle East are a really bad idea, but then again so are nukes in the subcontinent and in cold war Europe (powderkegs).

No country is crazy enough to launch a broad nuclear attack, the outcome in most instances would end up with the total annhilation in a counterstrike by either the target or it's allies. What having nukes does ensure against is conventional war, ala the stomping of Iraq. All the nuclear armed nations, cannot be conventional invaded without the opposing army being completely destroyed. For the first time in history, security of the homeland is basically assured.

Proliferation is basically inevitable, definately not desirable.

a pragmatic view, one i agree with. imo, there are good reasons to cool down the rhetoric:

1)proliferation is inevitable - there is really not much the US can do about it in the long run. containment, a strong military posture, diplomacy and perpetuation of economic interdependence is the most comprehesive defense - the China model.
2) Iran is far less of a threat than several other countries - and certainly not an imminent one. (estimated 5 - 10 years away from having a bomb)
3) iran is the world's largest oil producer and is making cash by the truckload -why would it be in thier interest to destroy (or allow others to destroy) the world's largest economy (the US) and wreak havoc on the global econmy?
4) the policy of Mutually Assured Detruction (MAD) has been 100% effective throughout the nuclear age for obvious reasons - you nuke us, we nuke you.

the iranian leadership, like the US leadership, talk a tough game to appease thier key constituents, but they are not stupid.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by naz

But North Korea haven't tested a nuke, but probably have one to six.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc.../nkorea.blast/

Since we all know for a fact that a "US Official" would never ever lie...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/arti...952289,00.html

Especially one as high ranking as Rummy...


North Korea did just as they told Bush they would; they restarted their heavy water reactor, obtained help from China, and built several nuclear bombs.

They also successfully tested one.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by RDixon

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc.../nkorea.blast/

Since we all know for a fact that a "US Official" would never ever lie...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/arti...952289,00.html

Especially one as high ranking as Rummy...


North Korea did just as they told Bush they would; they restarted their heavy water reactor, obtained help from China, and built several nuclear bombs.

They also successfully tested one.

Yes, you got to love those medias, even Rummy feels that they are not positive enough for his taste...

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counterterrorism policies of lacking the courage to fight terror.

In unusually explicit terms, Rumsfeld portrayed the administration's critics as suffering from "moral and intellectual confusion" about what threatens the nation's security.

Addressing several thousand veterans at the American Legion's national convention, Rumsfeld recited what he called the lessons of history, including the failed efforts to appease the Adolf Hitler regime in the 1930s.

"I recount this history because once again we face the same kind of challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism" he said.

Rumsfeld spoke to an American Legion convention as part of a coordinated White House strategy, in advance of the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, aiming to take the offensive against administration critics at a time of doubt about the future of Iraq and how long U.S. troops must remain there.

Rumsfeld recalled a string of recent terrorist attacks, from the 9/11 attacks to bombings in Bali, London and Madrid, and said it should be obvious to anyone that terrorists must be confronted, not appeased.

"But it is apparent that many have still not learned history's lessons," he said, adding that part of the problem is that the American news media have tended to emphasize the negative rather than the positive.

He said, for example, that more media attention was given to U.S. soldiers' abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib than to the fact that Sgt. 1st Class Paul Ray Smith received the Medal of Honor.

Recently learned that it is illegal to watch Al-Manar TV in the States, one NY sat dealer even got arrested because he provided his customers with such a set up. The worst part is, anyone in the States with a free to air unit can watch it on telstar5 if they wish to

[naz]

I'm getting OT, but ...

Well the Ryanggang explosion is the same kind of inconclusive, have-they/haven't-they occurance as the Vela Incident. The two main points that argue against it for me are 1) the neighbouring countries would have detected isotopes, especially given it was only 30 km from the border. Which means Russia, China, SK and Japan are covering it up too. I just don't believe in large conspiracies, they are too difficult to maintain. 2) A successful test would be accompained by the usual insane, poorly written and quite funny anti-US propaganda.

In the final analysis, it really doesn't figure anyway. The main point re NK is that they stated they have nukes and most of the world thinks they probably do as well.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by naz

I'm getting OT, but ...

Well, it is pretty obvious that the US admin believes that they do have nukes now.

Haven't heard any rhetoric from the Bushites since the "mysterious" mushroom cloud over there, with veiled threats against them. Rummy shut up quickly about how Iraq should be a lesson for N.K.

No Bolten spewing BS at the UN about them either.

The silence tells me that some high ranking "folks" in DC had a simultaneous crap their pants moment when word came in from the big bunker under Cheyenne Mountain that there was a massive explosion in the north western sector of N.K. and a huge mushroom cloud was sighted shortly thereafter.

As for OT, why not?
This thread was started as a trolling for stupid remarks thread so hi-jacking it for some real and rational discussion isn't a bad thing and the correlation between N.K. and Iran was made a few years back by none other than the Bush admin, ie. the big "axis of evil."

[miss_silver]

Subject: Al-Gebra

NEW YORK -- A public school teacher was arrested today at John F. Kennedy International Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule and a calculator.

At a morning press conference, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-Gebra movement.

He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the FBI with carrying weapons of math instruction.

"Al-Gebra is a problem for us," Gonzales said. "They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in search of absolute values.

"They use secret code names like 'x' and 'y' and refer to themselves as 'unknowns', but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, 'There are 3 sides to every triangle'."

When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have better weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes".

White House aides told reporters they could not recall a more intelligent or profound statement by the president.

[miss_silver]

Originally Posted by Drakonix

Q: How much percent of enriched uranium does it takes to make a rod and how much does it take to make a nuke?

A: I am not sure why you ask, but the info follows. The best I can figure is that your point is reactor fuel can not be used to make a fissile nuclear bomb.

As per my understanding that’s true, a higher degree of enrichment and other processing is needed to make a nuclear bomb.

The term “enriched uranium” is generic, there are a number of levels of enrichment.

Natural uranium is mostly U238, and contains something less than 0.8% U235. Enrichment processes increase the U235 content in the processed material.

Reactor fuel U235 concentration requirements depend on reactor type.

Natural uranium (about 0.7% U235) or slightly enriched uranium (about 1%-2% U235) can be used in heavy water reactors.

Light water reactors (the most common kind) can use low enriched uranium (around 4% U235).

Minimum U235 concentration that could make a crude weapon is about 20%.

Weapon grade U235 concentration is commonly 85% or more.

Plutonium, not U235 is the active ingredient in a (modern implosion) fissile bomb. Plutonium is a transuranium element, Pu239 is the necessary isotope.

A sphere of fissile material (plutonium) the size of a regulation baseball, undergoing a nuclear chain reaction explosion will release approximately as much energy as detonating a container filled with TNT the size of Yankee Stadium. (according to the old AEC training films I saw)

One kilogram of Pu239 = about 22 million kilowatt hours heat energy or about 20 kilotons TNT as an explosion.

BTW, I don't recall any discussion of uranium enrichment and nuclear reactors when and where I went to school. Hyperbolic: Maybe I missed the chemistry class session where they taught you how to make nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs.

My previous point has IMO not been diminished, pursuit of uranium enrichment by Iran is unquestionably for the creation of fissile nuclear weapons.

Nice Drakonix

Why would that be? a threat I mean? They have as much rights to enrich uranium for power plants as much as your government does. Hell, from what I heard, they will surely be the new leaders of uranium enrichment and start selling it to other power plants around the world. If I had oil like Iran does, I would surely do the same thing instead of using the oil and natural gaz ressources to power up my country and instead sell it to the highest bidder for euro like Iran planned to do.

Why use it when you can get 73$ per barrel by selling it? Only fools would do that and Iran is not so backward as the media led us to think or believe. They want to sell their oil for profit and they also want to have nuclear energy. Like I stated previously, i'd be much more concerned as to what is happening inside your own country such as the creation of Lethal biological weapons, nuclear proliferation since your gov does not even allow inspection of his own fascilities by the UN nor remotely care to give a count of their nuclear weapons/missles instead of being scared shitless by a far away country such as Iran.

There are a lot nastier things happening close to you than you might even suspect. As I remember, that anthrax mail scare was traced back to a frigging US lab FFS. They wanted to scare, they got busted, lets not forget that H5N1 virus that was lost in the mail, that alone is priceless and by far scarier than Iran "might build" Nuclear weapons.

To finish off, I did learn this at school, not that it was imposed as a subject, it was part of enriched chimistry lessons I decided to take on my own. Quatum physics is truly fascinating

[theknife]

Originally Posted by miss_silver

Nice Drakonix
As I remember, that anthrax mail scare was traced back to a frigging US lab FFS. They wanted to scare, they got busted, lets not forget that H5N1 virus that was lost in the mail, that alone is priceless and by far scarier than Iran "might build" Nuclear weapons.

a bit more than a scare, no? 5 people died, 17 injured - two attacks over a three week period. these attacks come to mind everytime somebody says that there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11.