Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days

Pretty scary stuff, considering they are the world's premier financier of terrorist activities, as well as providing safe haven for terroists on the run.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany

Of course, we could listen to all the Greenpeacers of the world and instead of cluster bombing the facilities, we could just leaflet-bomb them

 

If as we are led to believe the Stealth Bomber is undetectable, I cannot see why one shouldn't take off surreptitiously and deliver the nuclear weapon they so crave. Preferably straight down the reactor ventilation shaft. Obviously something must have gone wrong on site which tends to happen when experimenting with things of that nature!

I like so many, would be more than willing to contribute toward the cost. Now is the time to stamp out this evil before it becomes too late. Stuff the ideologists of the world at a time like this, we could well be talking of future survival.

 

Another country to invade ,it just so happens to have one of the largest natural gas reserves in the world second only to russia,iraq for oil,afgahistan for a pipline and iran for gas

Why not just march the troops straight through from afgahnistan,through Iran and then on to Iraq?Its too large,you need to go to the pincer

 

\
Nobody deserves nuclear warfare, not even our enemies.

 

16 days, 271 days 13 years.... estimates vary somewhat more than "somewhat". We don't seem to know how many centrufuges, and how much needed auxillary equipment they have. We know where the reactor is, and knowing the Arab mindset, it's no doubt right near schools, hospitals, private homes, anything to make it an unatractive target. We DO know that a lot of his processing facilities are underground, right under civilian neighborhoods. Anything we do there will no doubt cause enough collateral damage to give the pro-arab press (including OURS ) a field day showing sob stories.

Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't take it out and take it apart. But it's not something to be done lightly. And probably not cheaply. Use big bombs and take the flak for dead civilians, or send in the grunts to do it by hand, and take a lot of losses from OUR people. "Nuke 'em 'til they glow" has never been U.S. policy, nor should it be.

There ARE circumstances that warrant using nukes. But it's a short list of dire situations. They won't authorize that for a first-strike against a target that so far is just TALKING big.

But any of the oil nations talking about "needing" nuclear power for electrical energy is total BS. They're all sitting on abundant and FREE natural gas, and natural gas generators are a whole lot cheaper and safer to build than nuke plants. Sooner or later, unless we have our heads TOTALLY up our asses, we WILL have to, um, discourage them from their dreams of conquest. We're currently spread too thin to take on another major front in Iran, so I'd look for spot strikes of some kind to destroy the nuke capability, not a wholesale attempt to defeat Iran.

 

Can you list some situations? I can't think of any, to be honest.

Mass destruction is one thing, but killing that many people, and affecting future generations for a VERY long time, isn't right in my eyes.

For anyone.

 

The only countries invading others are America and us,is this not conquest?And why,because we think they could be dangerous,we the west ARE DANGEROUS ,we're the only countries invading other soverign countries thousands of miles away

 

Everyone is dangerous, everyone hates everyone else right now. Little puny terroist cells took down two really big buildings full of people. It's not the size of the country, it's the strength of the hate.

Ramp up what happened in London last July by, say a magnitude of 150, consider trying diplomacy with a country that has no clue as to the meaning of the term, and perhaps you get the gist of the potential of the situation.

And when the president of a country with a terroistic history publicy announces the capability of the project at hand, I highly doubt the purpose of the exercise is to save a few bucks on the light bill.

My feeling is, if the facts support the possibility, better them get it first than us.

 

Well, not quite. We're the only formal COUNTRIES "invading", but informally, the Islamic terrorists have inveded most of Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philipines, some of China, much of Africa. they also have footholds in Spain, France and some of the other European countries, Britian, Canada and the U.S. to a lesser extent. NONE of those countries has a Moslem heritage. By "footholds" I mean they have masses of "immigrants", most of whom at least tacitly support the terrorists' agenda, whose mosques openly preach Sharia and support for the terrorists, and who make a good screen for the more active terrorists once their numbers are great enough to start activly causing problems.
Once their numbers will support it, they always, ALWAYS move to violent protest and terrorism. It's a long term war, and the bad guys don't wear uniforms or owe allegiance to a country. But it is most definitely a war. They play chess and take the long view. We play checkers and thing at most one or two moves ahead.

 

Certainly. Any nuclear, chemical, or biological attack that destroys large numbers of people and large amounts of real-estate. Rresults of chem/bio can be as nasty and long-term as nuclear. ANY and EVERY country conclusively proven to have aided in that attack should have their capital nuked. 20 megaton city-killers, not little tactical nukes. Plus their key military installations completely destroyed, either by tactical nukes or conventional weapons. With the rulers there and the government in session. "Plausable deniability" is an art form, and such an attack would likely be delivered by one of the terrorist groups, not by a nation. But the terrorists don't work in a vacuum, and we MUST disuade the rogue NATIONS from helping and using them. And talk won't do it. They don't understand or respect talk, and their promises are meaninless. They ONLY understand that if they hit, they WILL be hit far harder. If we destroy their buildings, and they're still breathing, they consider that a victory, as they have stood up to the Great Satan and survived. Don't let them survive. Only when THEY consider the cost to be too high will they quit. And they are willing to pay a damned high price. Either we understand them and what it takes to stop them on THEIR terms, or we may as well roll over and watch them absorb most of the known world. They're already working hard at doing just that.

If we guess wrong at Iran's, or others', nuclear capabilities, and find out the hard way when one or more of our cities turns into a mushroom cloud, you'll start to hear a LOT more talk in favor of us using nukes. Would be better to be unpopular and keep our cities than to be politically correct and have smoking craters here.

 

There are 2 examples of the use of nuclear bombs on Japan in World War 2. It is my understanding that the use of one of these was to bring the end of the war in the Far East to an end sooner. There appears to be some question as to whether the second was needed.

Nuclear strategy is mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bomb#Nuclear_strategy

 

It was so new, that Japan probably questioned whether we HAD any more, and they didn't surrender after the first. The second one convinced them, as we calmly told them that we could KEEP hitting them with one bomb and one aircraft per city. Something of a bluff, as I don't think we had more than the 2 ready to go at that time. And those two bombs save millions of Japanese lives and most of it's heritage and structure, not to mention many thousands of our own troops, as Japan was firmly planning a "to the last man" defense of its home islands. Would have been bloody hell from one end of their empire to the other. And nukes aren't the only means of utterly destroying people and cities. Read about the fire bombing of Dresden during WWII sometime.

 

i wish GT ruled the world !! unfortunately bush does, so who knows what the hell will happen. it''ll end in tears, i tell you.

 

Thats the whole basis for the propaganda pushed by the government to make you think launching pre-emptive strikes and invading other countries is a good thing,terrorism is an idea,no amount of bombs in the world will destroy the idea,it does the entire opposite,it creates more terrorists in larger circles which give the government more justification for their invasions

No good at all has come out of Iraq or afgahnistan,another generation of terrorists have been created as the relatives of the civilians accidentally killed have a new anger toward the west,conservative estimates of the total numbers of cavilian casualties in afghanistan is around 3000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1740538.stm

In Iraq 36,000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4525412.stm

Coalition force casualties are around 2500

The only thing that has come from both of these wars is iraqs oil reserves have been stolen and the trillion dollar caspian sea oil and pipline in Afghanistan will now be own by american oil companies,plus all the weapons,equipment and the companies doing the rebuilding work are all own by the ruling elite and payed for with taxpayer money they have made a fortune,even the 5 billion pledged to rebuild Iraq has vanished,thats the basis for these wars,not to protect America but to make money

Also controlling these two countries gives the coalition the perfect starting point for an invasion of Iran,to get one of the last remaining the motherloads of natural resources their gas

I dont know what that idiot in Iran is playing at with his 'nuclear research' and also announcing it to the world,but this is great news for the government as they now have a legitimate reason to invade,they dont have to make one up like in Iraq

This is all very IMHO ,

 

I said it before (not here) but one day, if were not all glowing, or burned from radioactive fallout, that map will read:
United States of the Middle East...

 

The US isn't exactly squeaky clean either.

Who supported Saddam, General Pinochet, President Soharto etc etc for decades when it suited them?

 

See, thats not the point I am making. The point I am making is that nuclear warfare doesn't just affect the present, it affects the future. To say that any present enemies action warrants their descendents to suffer for generations to come is ludicrous.

Mass destruction isn't the problem I have with nukes. Its what comes after.

 

I guess you just have to ask yourself if what comes after a nuclear strike made on an enemy by your government would be worse than what comes after not making that strike.

 

If only we could travel in time and ask the generations thereafter the same question.

Wars are being fought to this day without nuclear warfare. IMO, its just not the way to go, for anyone.

 

Well, as long as everybody agrees with that sentiment, we'll be fine.

But don't count on it. Up to now, nuclear weapons have only been held by the sane.

 

That hasn't been true since the fall of the Soviet Union. The only scary question right now is, how come no terrorist has used one.

Of course, the term sane, is relevant I'm sure.

 

Adryn, if they manage to nuke New York, or Chicago, or equivelant, they will have EARNED what comes after. We'll be living with it here too.

 

My point is, NOBODY should be using nuclear warfare, and to suggestto use it against a country because it is developing nuclear technology...well...

You know my stance on it.

 

As I said earlier, we would NOT use nukes in dealing with Iran's current situation. It's not our policy, and it WOULD be overkill. As retribution for a strike against us, I see no moral, legal, or ethical problem with that.

I grew up with MAD. "Mutually assured destruction", which kept the U.S. and U.S.S.R. from lobbing nukes at each other no matter how much we hated each other. You don't start a war you KNOW you can't survive. I hope the saner heads in the Middle East realize that they can't hit us that hard and survive the fallout (political) or the fallout (radioactive). BUT the threat of nukes is real only if you're really willing to use them when it IS justified. If they have them and think that we WON'T use them, they're much, MUCH more likely to use them themselves.

 

You call Pakistan and North Korea sane?



As far as pre-emptive strikes, other countries can use the same "rational" and nuke the US in case they feel threatened.

That example alone shows how flawed that logic is.

Not to mention it's no deterrent as these psychopaths think dying will be rewarded in paradise. How many westerners feel the same?

 

A country did just that. It was a less than wise decision then and still is now.

Mullahs and ayatollahs rarely if ever share the zeal for martyrdom their followers hold. They're the ones with their finger on the button.

 

The way they are talking lately,they want make using nukes a viable option,by making them cleaner and smaller,to make them exceptable to use in conventional warfare in preemptive strikes,this to me is madness,once you open pandoras box you cant close it again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/10/AR2005091001053.html

 

It's already open.

 

...and whilst Nero fiddled.......

 

They've been fiddling since July 16, 1945.

 

You've lost me. Which country nuked the US?

 

Right. I forgot about N.K.

Pakistan is sane right now. Not the populace, but the leadership.

Iran is ruled by someone who gives the impression he wouldn't mind a crack at all those virgins.

Worrying to say the least.

That's not to say I advocate a pre-emptive strike. People who know a lot more about the situation than I do will make that call. It was ever thus.

 

I was wondering that too

 

you are taking the micky are'nt you?

 

No, but I did forget about North Korea.

Please explain yourself instead of just making oblique, vague little comments.

 

i simply found the idea of the nuclear arms race and all variations thereof, including ''tactical nuclear warfare' ludicrous to the point of insanity to begin with. to credit those despots (up to and including bush) with anything bearing resemblence to sanity is laughable. i therefore assumed you must have been joking. the phrase for making jocular statements of this nature has a few variatons in england. i used the one generally found less offensive.

 

I understood the mickey, I'm English. I just didn't get your point. It would be impossible to not have a nuclear arms race. Nuclear weapons exist, and so does human nature. But up to now, all those holding nuclear weapons, including, most definitely, the USA, have shown sanity by understanding the ramifications of using them.

I don't think the current freshmen will show the same reluctance to be vapourised in the name of vapourising somebody else.

To say the world is no less safe with a nuclear Iran than it was with a nuclear USA is not sane.

 

I was referring to the "As far as pre-emptive strikes" portion of your statement and the country to which I referred was Japan.

 

looks like this article is inaccurate eh?

U.S. officials are saying 3 years or so.... other sources are saying the end of the decade (which is about 3 years)....

 

Not at all; when the scientific community is involved, varying degrees of theory will lead to inevitable permutations. Whether it be 16 days, 271 days or 3 years, it's a viable threat by an unstable nation. And don't forget the possibilities of what could happen when a nation that is new to nuclear experimenting has a bit of a problem with their "new-found" technology (Chernobyl).

It's a real threat; and from what I've read "in house", there's little chance of the capability being put to use in a positive manner.

Of course, we could hope the UN finds a happy resolution to this, but since the UN is one of the most useless organizations on the planet, I see little chance of that happening.

 

That wasn't a pre-emptive strike. America was at war with Japan, who had initiated the aggression, and were perfectly justified in employing any means they saw fit to end the war with a minimum of American casualties.

 

Abso-diddly-lutely spacerino. A truer word was never spoken.

Bring it on....

 

Another point I want to make,you can call me a conspiracy theorist "whatever" ,In 2003 America agreed to Iran having a nuclear reactor as long as it was under strict international inspection,indeed the US's now allie Russia is the country supplied Iran with the Uranium and the technology to build the $800m Bushehr plant,Bush and Putin had a meeting at camp David in 2003 where it was agreed they share the same goal of stopping Iran build a weapon

http://newswww.bbc.net.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3188606.stm

Is Russia so disconnected from the West they wont see the problems caused by this,or have Russia and America to go agreed to this all along?So the west has an excuse to invade and pilfer the countires resources and remove the current regime,it seems all very well timed,Russia has imported just enough nuclear fuel to Iran for there to be a problem,but has stopped to look like its shocked Iran would ever consider making a nuclear weapon "duhhh"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2956902.stm

 

I was referring to Japan's pre-emptive attack on Pearl Harbor and the disastrous conseqences for Japan. Any country that tries it with nukes will suffer the same fate, especially the nuclear part.

 

These are the operative words:

If I make an agreement with you and I refuse to hold my end of the bargain, is it your fault? Do I have the right to expect you to hold up your end after I've breached our contract? In your world, apparently I do.

 

My unqualified apology. I agree completely.

 

Your missing the point entirely Russia shouldnt have given Iran any nuclear technology in the first place,Iran is an unstable country,they have confessed to wanting America and Isreal wiped off the map,they hang "death to America and Isreal" banners over thier Shihab 3 missiles with an 800 mile range,what possible guarantee does America or Russia have Iran wont use the technology to make a weapon,even now Russia have given Iran enough nuclear material to make the dirtiest conventional bomb the world has ever seen,forget a fission weapon

Even a blind man would have seen this was going to happen,'to refresh' America and Russia are allies,close allies there no possible reason either of them could have thought any good would have come of this,why would the wests good ally Russia give a known terrorist state nuclear technology,after being in total agreement and unity to fight the War on Terror?

I guess in your world you take alot of people on their word,next time your friend hands asks if he can hand a baseball bat to a guy who sworn he's gonna kill you but promises he wont use the bat,say thats fine,after all he's given you his word

 

Good post Rikky, but keep one thing in mind that might alter the equation: the Russians didn't give Iran their (flawed) technology, they sold it to them. Russia is a horribly cash-strapped nation, and everything has a price, i.e. they sold their space technology to the Chinese, they sell seats on their rockets to tourists to go to the ISS, etc. And I won't mention how deep their hand is in NASA's pocket while the shuttles are down. They need money, and they have no problem becoming the world's charter member of 'Ebay Nation'.