Welcome to PatsFans.com

The situation in Iran

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Turd Furguson, Apr 12, 2006.

  1. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I see many different views on Iran and its leadership and developing nuclear program in relation to its current threat to the US.


    What, in your opinion should the US do if anything regarding Iran's nuclear program?
  2. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +44 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Turd, I was actually waiting for this post.
    From all accounts that I have seen, Iran is 10 years away from nuclear capabilities. Give or take a few years on that projection, we can afford to wait for the next administration. I don't care who the next president is, Republican or Democrat, the current president is a liability. He has no credibility, has burned his bridges with other countries and our own politicians. Will anyone except anything he has to say as the truth? Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again.
  3. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    10 years? They're already enriching uranium. That's not all there is to building a bomb, but that's a big part of it. I don't think ANYONE knows whether its two years, five, or ten. I'm not arguing against the rest of your point, I just don't believe that estimate.
  4. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,055
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    Iran is reallly dangerous. They have a lunatic as leader, and we've taken out their main regional enemy. I think we need to put enormous pressure on them by working closely with Russia. Russia might exact a price from us, but it would be far cheaper (in every respect) than actually going to war with Iran. I wish there was a world leader who would offer to move towards nuclear disarmament as a tool for negotiating with Iran. Too bad, Iran doesn't say, "We won't build nuclear weapons if you get rid of yours," but they're more interested in being a world power than in creating a more peaceful world.
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Then you don't believe our intelligence estimates. Hey, if we want to do something about Iran, do it right and deal with it through the UN. This cannot and will not be done unilaterally unless we want an unwinnable war. Oh, but recess appointment Jon Bolton is representing us at the UN which means we will have no diplomacy. So I guess its "bring it on". John Bolton couldn't even gain favor with Republicans, but he is Bushs recess appointment so pray man, pray.
  6. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    I'm surprised at your reaction.
    What is the source of your information other than quotes of the Iranian president stating that he hates Israel. Name one leader in the ME region who thinks the same thing but wouldn't say it. Israel is a cat in a dogpound. Everyone near them hates them and they have the bomb. Half the people in government in the ME would be happy to see Israel destroyed. How is Iran any different from Pakistan?
    What makes you think Russia would feel any differently? Why should we pay any price to them to broker the peace in the ME? Why should we care what happens there, other than protecting our "friend" Israel, or is it really the KoSA the chimp really cares about?
    IMO, as long as the Israelis are holding the nuke option, I see no reason why Iran shouldn't and there's nothing we can or should do about it. Maybe if Israel didn't have WMD's no one else would feel the need to arm themselves likewise.
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Can you blame me?
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,055
    Likes Received:
    187
    Ratings:
    +262 / 10 / -11

    Wistah, the leader of Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons, they had people dancing around the stage with vials of uranium, they execute gay kids in the public square, they execute women for the vaguest indiscretions, they're very reactionary, and frankly a bit loony. The fact that they have publicly stated they want to blow Israel off the map is enough for me to oppose them. While I disagree with many of Israel's policies and with the extent of our support for Israel, I certainly don't favor genocide. Further, the fact that martyrdom is an aspiration of many radical Muslims leads me to believe that they really would use nuclear weapons. I don't favor attacking Iran anymore than I favored attacking Iraq, but I do think we need to find ways to restrain them. As far as them having the right to nuclear weapons because Israel has them, I don't agree. First of all, there are issues of regional balance of power and secondly I think we should try to move towards denuclearization of the world.
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Maybe by itself, a country developing nuclear weapons wouldn't be totally alarming.

    Maybe by itself, a country stating their desire to see another country "wiped off the map" wouldn't be totally alarming.

    But together, that worries me.

    It doesn't matter that Israel has nukes to defend itself with - the simultaneous release of nuclear weapons by Iran and Israel, leading to their mutual destruction - would be a horrible catastrophe for the entire world, with serious, real consequences for the west.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I'm by no means a nuclear physicist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn. Natural uranium is less than 1% U235 (the "good stuff", with most of the rest being U238, aka "depleted uranium"). "Weapons grade" uranium is at least 93.5% U235, though anything over 20% is considered "weapons usable" and could be made into a bomb (not a dirty bomb - an actual atomic bomb), though the catch is the less pure it is, the more it takes to achieve critical mass.

    It's believed Iran is enriching Uranium using Zippe-type centrifuges (sold to them & N. Korea by the Soviet Union). Once built and operational, these centrifuges can enrich Uranium to any % of U235 given enough time. If they are only using 1 cascade of centrifuges, as is believed, it might take them a long time to build a bomb. But presumabely they're building more centrifuges and will be able to speed up their work.

    The other concern is that uranium enriched to about 3% can be used in light water reactors (LWR), which are among the easiest type of reactors to build and operate on account of not needing heavy water (aka deuterium oxide), which is hard to extract from regular water, but can be used with "slightly enriched uranium" at around 1% U235). And of course, what do you get when you put uranium into a regular, energy producing nuclear reactor? Plutonium! Another weapon-grade material.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  11. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    New York or Montral, depending on which you like best, but you probably wouldn't be concerned with bagels for a long time after the Middle East went up in a mushroom cloud.
  12. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0


    You've already said too much. Expect a call from the FBI. I wouldn't be surprised if you were a KGB spy or a terrorist. You shouldn't post stuff like this. :cool: This isn't the anarchists cookbook.
  13. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    This is all high school physics stuff. Imagine what the Iranian scientists know...
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2006
  14. SoonerPatriot

    SoonerPatriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    3,318
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The answer to your question lies in missle silos all over the mountain west states. It lies on a nuclear submarines patrolling the oceans. It flies over your head in the form of the B2 bomber.

    Good old fashioned nuclear deterent. It worked quite well during the Cold War.

    So Iran has the capability to posess nuclear weapons? The larger question is what would they do with those weapons knowing full well Israel, the US, Great Britain, India, Pakistan also has them.

    Answer: Not a damn thing.
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,675
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -1

    #75 Jersey

    http://www.pnm.my/mtcp/images/maps/Iran-map.jpg
    This is the great quandry. I agree with everything you siad, but from the point of view if the Iranian government, the world looks much different. Israel might not be such a big deal to them on it's own, but right now, Iran is sandwiched on the west and east by the US, an infidel invading army from the other side of the world, creating a pressure-cooker situation. To add to the problem, Pakistan, the next country to the east and Israel, two borders to the west, also have nukes. To the north, Russia has nukes, as well as the armed silos still in the former SSRs that end in "-stan".

    More importantly, Iran is the direct route through which the huge oil reserves in the Caspian Sea can be piped to the Persian Gulf. There couldnt be a better example of a cornered dog geopolitically, since England in 1942.

    I agree that non-proliferation is the best goal, but that's hard to explain while we announce the rebuilding of our own nuclear arsenal at a rate of 125 per year for the next ten years and we support sub civilized governments like the KoSA and Pakistan with the best weapons money can buy. My bet is the Iranians are more frightened than the Israelis, with good cause.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>