When is Israel going to hit Iran?

[blueblur 0]

Not just team America that doesn't want them with a nuke, pretty much the entire world is against it in some form.

And we're the only nation to have detonated a bomb as an act of war. Plenty of others have detonated them in either testing or proving they have them.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[FestivalFox 0]

Thanks for your reply, the obvious escaped me for a moment. Of course nukes have been tested and nobody want a country with nukes. The difference is the rest of the world wont go to war over this issue. USA and Isreal have nukes.... why cant another sovereign nation that has not attacked a country in 2000 years? because you don't like them?

[blueblur 0]

Probably because said sovereign nation's president has (and still does) called for the destruction and elimination of the Zionists (Israel). That's a little different than having them for your own deterrent or protection. He actively calls for the obliteration of another nation and it's peoples based on his religious philosophies.

Good enough reason to see he doesn't get nukes.

In every man's life he will be allotted one good woman and one good dog. That's all you get, so appreciate them while the time you have with them lasts.

- RiggerLee

[FestivalFox 0]

Quote

Probably because said sovereign nation's president has (and still does) called for the destruction and elimination of the Zionists (Israel). That's a little different than having them for your own deterrent or protection. He actively calls for the obliteration of another nation and it's peoples based on his religious philosophies.

Good enough reason to see he doesn't get nukes.

Pretense for war... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-ahmadinejad-really-say-israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map/2011/10/04/gIQABJIKML_blog.html

[catfishhunter 1]

Quote

Eradicate!!! Are you serious? Every Muslim is an extremist?

Iran hasn't directly directly attacked a country in 2000 years, even if they are trying to get a bomb. Who is team america to say that they cant have one. America is the only nation to have detonated a bomb. America attacks a country every decade. Look at Iraq, 120,000 civilian men, women and kids that have been shot, blown up and burned FOR NO REASON. Why go into Iran?

So being a sate sponsor of terrorism is ok since they are not directly attacking themselves?

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[FestivalFox 0]

Of course its not ok. But it doesnt warrant the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. America funds attacks all the time. Should America not be bomb then? Its a middle east problem. Leave it to the middle east. Team america needs to keep its nose out. The last thing america needs is a reason for more extremist Muslims to be recruited. Learn form Iraq and Afghanistan...

[catfishhunter 1]

Quote

Of course its not ok. But it doesnt warrant the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. America funds attacks all the time. Should America not be bomb then? Its a middle east problem. Leave it to the middle east. Team america needs to keep its nose out. The last thing america needs is a reason for more extremist Muslims to be recruited. Learn form Iraq and Afghanistan...

This is about Isreal hitting Iran. I did not say a thing about teh US hitting Iran..And ISreal has every right to protect themselves. Iran said they want to remove them from the face of the earth. Now if I told you I wanted to do that to you and was working on a wqay to do it dont you think you might just maybe do something to stop me BEFORE I am able to use it?

MAKE EVERY DAY COUNT
Life is Short and we never know how long we are going to have. We must live life to the fullest EVERY DAY. Everything we do should have a greater purpose.

[FestivalFox 0]

Israel will do what ever it wants to do. My problem is US involvement. Israel is in a tough neighborhood and of course it has the right to defend itself. But Israel does itself no favours, the treatment of Palestinians is criminal. I believe striking Iran would be a bad call, retaliation would be fearce and the loss of civilians on both sides would be too much.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Iran hasn't directly directly attacked a country in 2000 years, even if they are trying to get a bomb. Who is team america to say that they cant have one. America is the only nation to have detonated a bomb. America attacks a country every decade. Look at Iraq, 120,000 civilian men, women and kids that have been shot, blown up and burned FOR NO REASON. Why go into Iran?

Pretending Iran isn't at war with Israel based on its comments and its direct funding of combatants is a bad starting point in a discussion. No one cares if it is "direct" by your reasoning. Israel would care a lot less if it was just words, and not real action being taken against them.

BTW, it's a lie anyway- the attack on the US embassy was certainly a direct attack.

[FestivalFox 0]

Quote

Quote

Iran hasn't directly directly attacked a country in 2000 years, even if they are trying to get a bomb. Who is team america to say that they cant have one. America is the only nation to have detonated a bomb. America attacks a country every decade. Look at Iraq, 120,000 civilian men, women and kids that have been shot, blown up and burned FOR NO REASON. Why go into Iran?

Pretending Iran isn't at war with Israel based on its comments and its direct funding of combatants is a bad starting point in a discussion. No one cares if it is "direct" by your reasoning. Israel would care a lot less if it was just words, and not real action being taken against them.

BTW, it's a lie anyway- the attack on the US embassy was certainly a direct attack.

Direct attack from who? You have no proof it was Iran.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

BTW, it's a lie anyway- the attack on the US embassy was certainly a direct attack.

Direct attack from who? You have no proof it was Iran.

I can almost believe you're actually confusing the Libyan embassy with the one in Tehran in 1979. But my intuition says otherwise.

But anyway, tell me how storming the embassy and holding 52 Americans hostage for over a year is not a direct attack against America.

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't thing I made any links to a 007 movie...

You didn't. You said that "everyone else" thinks a certain kind of nuclear device will be used in a certain way. "everyone else" (i.e. most people) get their information on how nuclear devices work from the popular media.

>Lets stick to facts...

OK some facts here.

A gun type device has to be built well. You can't just "take a cannon" do some welding and get a nuclear weapon with any appreciable yield. You have to:

-design the delivery system to slam the two pieces together with a fair amount of accuracy (i.e. tight clearances)

-design it to do it with enough force/speed to prevent rapid disassembly as the assembly goes prompt-supercritical

-design the reaction site to contain the energy of the early prompt supercriticality to prevent it from simply splattering out in all directions, stopping the reaction

-cast and then machine the enriched uranium to fairly tight tolerances (not the easiest task with radioactive, toxic material that you cannot allow to ever exceed a certain weight)

If you are not willing to do that you'll get a weapon that will just splatter uranium all over the place. You can get the same effect for 1/10000 the cost by using conventional explosives mixed with nuclear waste.

So given all that, if you have the technological sophistication to do all the above, your delivery vehicle is likely not going to be a cruddy 1 ton van, because then you'd lose the past 20 years of effort you put into the thing when you break an axle or blow the transmission. If you are a state like Iran, you're going to do a nuclear test, then put one of your nukes on a shiny IRBM (or in a shiny bomber) and take lots of pictures. Because then you have something very, very valuable - deterrence. The US in particular will tend to leave you alone if you have nuclear weapons (going by history) and that's a status many countries want.

Now, if you're a nutter, buying 20,000 pounds of C-4 and 200 pounds of spent reactor fuel and sailing it into a coastal harbor is going to be a much, much better return on investment.

[killler 2]

I don't know why I'm posting these links really.. People would have to read them and it's not a fast look kind of subject.....

The biggest difference between the disaster that the government studied and the nightmares of incoming ICBMs from the former Soviet Union is the size of the explosion. Cold War-era fears imagined massive hydrogen bombs detonated in the sky, not a smaller device – one that might fit inside a parked van – exploding on the street.

"Our images of nuclear war are either of Hiroshima or Nagasaki or what we saw in the movies during the Cold War," said Brian Michael Jenkins, a senior adviser to the president of the RAND Corporation. "If you are thinking about (a city) being wiped off the face of the earth, that's not what happens."

The study, "Key Response Planning Factors for the Aftermath of Nuclear Terrorism," was produced in November by the Homeland Security Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration. Even though the government considers it "for official use only" and never published it online, the study is circulating months later on scientific and government watchdog websites.

The weapon was developed by the Manhattan Project during World War II. It derived its explosive power from the nuclear fission of uranium 235. The Hiroshima bombing was the second artificial nuclear explosion in history, after the Trinity test, and the first uranium-based detonation. Approximately 600 to 860 milligrams of matter in the bomb was converted into the active energy of heat and radiation (see mass-energy equivalence for detail). It exploded with an energy of 16 kilotons of TNT (67 TJ).[5] It has been estimated that 130,000 to 150,000 people had died as a result of its use by the end of December 1945.[6] Its design was not tested in advance, unlike the more complex plutonium bomb (Fat Man). The available supply of enriched uranium was very small at that time, and it was felt that the simple design of a uranium "gun" type bomb was so sure to work that there was no need to test it at full scale.
Contents [show]

Also, Khan could have difficulty achieving his political goals because the government limits his movement.
He was detained in 2003 and admitted on television in 2004 that he operated a network that spread nuclear weapons technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
Pakistan has insisted that Khan's proliferation network has been shut down, but the U.S. still has concerns because American investigators have never been able to question him. The U.S. is especially worried about Iran's nuclear program amid fears the country could one day seek to build a nuclear bomb.
After Khan admitted leaking atomic secrets, he was immediately pardoned by former President Gen. Pervez Musharraf and placed under de facto house arrest. The government ended his house arrest in 2009 but still limits his movement to some extent.

Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, a metallurgical engineer, joined this program in 1976, but became highly dissatisfied with PAEC's approach to indigenously developing of this program with no foreign assistance required. In spring of 1976, Abdul Qadeer Khan took over the program and founded Engineering Research Laboratories (ERL), starting from centrifuge designs he stole from his employer URENCO, the Dutch firm where he had worked as a senior scientist. To acquire the necessary equipment and material for this program, Khan developed a black market procurement network, which was later used to provide enrichment technology to Libya, North Korea, and Iran.[51]

http://nucleardiner.com/archive/item/us-pakistan-and-pakistan-iran-nuclear

Could terrorists build nuclear weapons? A study prepared for Nuclear Control Institute by five former U.S. nuclear weapons designers concluded that a sophisticated terrorist group would be capable of designing and building a workable nuclear bomb from stolen plutonium or highly enriched uranium, with potential yields in the kiloton range. This risk must be taken seriously, particularly in light of documented attempts by al Qaeda to acquire nuclear material and nuclear-weapon design information. Despite claims to the contrary from plutonium-fuel advocates in the nuclear power industry, effective and devastating weapons could be made using "reactor-grade" plutonium, hundreds of tons of which are processed, stored and circulated around the world in civilian nuclear commerce.

Click here for documents that examine the ability of terrorists to construct nuclear weapons with materials now used in civilian nuclear commerce.

I think thats enough reading for tonight....

killler

links so you can read the whole thing

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/27/dc-nuclear-blast-report_n_1382086.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

http://www.nci.org/nci-nt.htm

http://www.nci.org/k-m/makeab.htm

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Thanks for your reply, the obvious escaped me for a moment. Of course nukes have been tested and nobody want a country with nukes. The difference is the rest of the world wont go to war over this issue. USA and Isreal have nukes.... why cant another sovereign nation that has not attacked a country in 2000 years? because you don't like them?

You make yourself irrelevant with your love of Iran clouding all arguments and fictional statements. No attacks in 2000 years? Come on. Pre Muslim conquest they fought for expansion like most countries. During the post Muhammad caliphates they participated in sanctioned attacks to expand Muslim influence and in their own independants military actions. Skip a few centuries and you come to the 1826 Abbas Mirza invasion into Russia.

Later you have the attacks on the afghanis attempting to take Herat. Then you have the Iran Iraq war. Iraq started it, but Iran attacked and seized three island in the gulf. They also attacked tankers by missile, most notably the MV Sea Isle City.

After that there weren't any attacks I can think of, but you've got to attribute that to massive international sanctions and embargoes. Following international disapproval and response, Iran moved to war by proxy (which I fully expect you to deny but have to laugh at your denials) through Kurds, Hezbollah, the northern alliance in Afghanistan, and others. Most recently they've expanded their attack by proxy to include cyberwarfare, best exemplified by the Shamoon attacks on Saudi Aramco and Ras Gas. They even took part of the code from Flame and used it to retaliate for Flame and Stuxnet. The attacks on US banks are less clearly Iranian in origin but US gov sources claim it is. The attacks on Lockheed may include Iranian attackers but I'd suggest they revolve mostly around Chinese and Russian attackers.

If you acknowledge reality and make reasonable arguments, this can be a very interesting conversation. Others leaving out the love/hate Jews/Muslims or Israelis/Arabs, it'll go even better. But if you continue with your jingoistic pro Iran fervor and "no attacks in 2000 years" nonsense, then you'll burn out or be relegated to insignificance before this thread leaves the first page.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*