Iran is developing nuclear weapons

UN has found out Iran is developing nuclear arms.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204190704577026103201770154.html

Given the tense and unstable relationship between Iran and the US/UN, could this escalate into a nuclear crisis? Either way, I doubt this will have a pretty outcome.

We should start building those vaults already... :|

What a surprise.....

What a surprise.....

sherman-tank1

Hans Brix? Oh no! Oh, herro! Great to see you again, Hans!

Mr. Il, I was supposed to be allowed to inspect your palace today, but your guards won't let me enter certain areas.

Hans, Hans, you're breaking my barrs! We've been through this a dozen times. I don't have any weapons of mass destruction, ok Hans?

Then let me look around, so I can ease the UN's collective mind. I'm sorry, but the UN must be firm with you. Let me in, or else!

Or else what?

Or else we will be very angry with you! And we will write you a letter, telling you how angry we are!

They sure are slow.KiIIyou

[QUOTE="KiIIyou"]They sure are slow.MystikFollower

tykain im with you.. iran couldnt even send it very far.. at best 1 nation over.. perhaps two if they sent it by sea. they also dont have a really large available cache of uranium and little of it is weapons grade viable (based on research done by the UN at the behest of the bush admin.) meaning they would need to import weapons grade uranium.. something that wouldnt exactly go un-noticed in the age of the internet..

cmon folks this aint the cold war.. wake up

tykain im with you.. iran couldnt even send it very far.. at best 1 nation over.. perhaps two if they sent it by sea. they also dont have a really large available cache of uranium and little of it is weapons grade viable (based on research done by the UN at the behest of the bush admin.) meaning they would need to import weapons grade uranium.. something that wouldnt exactly go un-noticed in the age of the internet..

cmon folks this aint the cold war.. wake up

ionusX

You are right, it is far more dangerous than the cold war.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

tykain im with you.. iran couldnt even send it very far.. at best 1 nation over.. perhaps two if they sent it by sea. they also dont have a really large available cache of uranium and little of it is weapons grade viable (based on research done by the UN at the behest of the bush admin.) meaning they would need to import weapons grade uranium.. something that wouldnt exactly go un-noticed in the age of the internet..

cmon folks this aint the cold war.. wake up

SUD123456

You are right, it is far more dangerous than the cold war.

so your saying that iran a middle east nation on the other side of the world with 1 nuke "MAYBE" with no payload transmission system..is somehow worse than the threats left and right of mutually assured destruction.. yeah that was smart :roll:

1 nuke a disaster.. 27 nukes launched on both sides by the soviets and the us.. yeah bedlam.. anarchy armaggeddon of the 1st world.

hmm.. which one would i be worried about??

how many times will people need to be fooled by potential small timers with WMD's or bio weapons (see iraq and the bush admin fails, see cuban missle crisis) you see what im saying a bunch of maybe's that have in some cases been foolish to freak out over vs a very real threat thats STILL very real. and your worried about a "maybe"??

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

tykain im with you.. iran couldnt even send it very far.. at best 1 nation over.. perhaps two if they sent it by sea. they also dont have a really large available cache of uranium and little of it is weapons grade viable (based on research done by the UN at the behest of the bush admin.) meaning they would need to import weapons grade uranium.. something that wouldnt exactly go un-noticed in the age of the internet..

cmon folks this aint the cold war.. wake up

ionusX

You are right, it is far more dangerous than the cold war.

so your saying that iran a middle east nation on the other side of the world with 1 nuke "MAYBE" with no payload transmission system..is somehow worse than the threats left and right of mutually assured destruction.. yeah that was smart :roll:

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Which is whythe conceptof mutually assured destruction has meaning and why we still speak of it today. You might want to think about that and why that phrase has meaning in the first place.

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

You are right, it is far more dangerous than the cold war.

SUD123456

so your saying that iran a middle east nation on the other side of the world with 1 nuke "MAYBE" with no payload transmission system..is somehow worse than the threats left and right of mutually assured destruction.. yeah that was smart :roll:

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Which is whythe conceptof mutually assured destruction has meaning and why we still speak of it today. You might want to think about that and why that phrase has meaning in the first place.

im afraid your explanation is empty.. estruction of the 1st world is alot more serious than a single rogue nation "maybe" having nukes but no way of moving them around..

id sooner be scared of an anemy who could blow up my hosue vs a guy who can leave a hole in my yard with a firecraker..

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

tykain im with you.. iran couldnt even send it very far.. at best 1 nation over.. perhaps two if they sent it by sea. they also dont have a really large available cache of uranium and little of it is weapons grade viable (based on research done by the UN at the behest of the bush admin.) meaning they would need to import weapons grade uranium.. something that wouldnt exactly go un-noticed in the age of the internet..

cmon folks this aint the cold war.. wake up

ionusX

You are right, it is far more dangerous than the cold war.

so your saying that iran a middle east nation on the other side of the world with 1 nuke "MAYBE" with no payload transmission system..is somehow worse than the threats left and right of mutually assured destruction.. yeah that was smart :roll:

1 nuke a disaster.. 27 nukes launched on both sides by the soviets and the us.. yeah bedlam.. anarchy armaggeddon of the 1st world.

hmm.. which one would i be worried about??

how many times will people need to be fooled by potential small timers with WMD's or bio weapons (see iraq and the bush admin fails, see cuban missle crisis) you see what im saying a bunch of maybe's that have in some cases been foolish to freak out over vs a very real threat thats STILL very real. and your worried about a "maybe"??

Waste of cash IMO.

Where all gonna get nuked. Everyone fear for your lives!!!

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

so your saying that iran a middle east nation on the other side of the world with 1 nuke "MAYBE" with no payload transmission system..is somehow worse than the threats left and right of mutually assured destruction.. yeah that was smart :roll:

ionusX

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Which is whythe conceptof mutually assured destruction has meaning and why we still speak of it today. You might want to think about that and why that phrase has meaning in the first place.

im afraid your explanation is empty.. estruction of the 1st world is alot more serious than a single rogue nation "maybe" having nukes but no way of moving them around..

id sooner be scared of an anemy who could blow up my hosue vs a guy who can leave a hole in my yard with a firecraker..

And yet mutually assured destruction led to precisely zero nuclear events.

If you gave one 1 nuclear weapon to someone like Osama Bin Laden how many nuclear events would occur?

Thus, which is more dangerous: The USSR with 1,000 nukes or a suicide bomber with 1 nuke?

As for moving things around...really? You can't imagine how to move a crate from one part of the world to another?

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Which is whythe conceptof mutually assured destruction has meaning and why we still speak of it today. You might want to think about that and why that phrase has meaning in the first place.

SUD123456

im afraid your explanation is empty.. estruction of the 1st world is alot more serious than a single rogue nation "maybe" having nukes but no way of moving them around..

id sooner be scared of an anemy who could blow up my hosue vs a guy who can leave a hole in my yard with a firecraker..

And yet mutually assured destruction led to precisely zero nuclear events.

If you gave one 1 nuclear weapon to someone like Osama Bin Laden how many nuclear events would occur?

Thus, which is more dangerous: The USSR with 1,000 nukes or a suicide bomber with 1 nuke?

As for moving things around...really? You can't imagine how to move a crate from one part of the world to another?

The title of the article gives it away. Unless they come out and say it and prove it themselves (althouhg, photos of the devices rather than test data will do), I don't trust it.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="ionusX"]

im afraid your explanation is empty.. estruction of the 1st world is alot more serious than a single rogue nation "maybe" having nukes but no way of moving them around..

id sooner be scared of an anemy who could blow up my hosue vs a guy who can leave a hole in my yard with a firecraker..

Person0

And yet mutually assured destruction led to precisely zero nuclear events.

If you gave one 1 nuclear weapon to someone like Osama Bin Laden how many nuclear events would occur?

Thus, which is more dangerous: The USSR with 1,000 nukes or a suicide bomber with 1 nuke?

As for moving things around...really? You can't imagine how to move a crate from one part of the world to another?

Iran is run by religious extremists, which is bad enough. But far worse is that they employ thousands of religious extremists working for them. As I said in anotherthread, when everyone depends upon religious extremism for their position it gets really difficult to separate the extremists of convenience from the true whack jobs. The realIranian leaders are likely not insane. But rest assured that some of the flock are.

The primary threat from Iran with nuclear weapons is not the official gov't of Iran launching a ballistic missile at the US or an ally.

The primary threat is a true believer Revolutionary Guards commander (or equivalent) transferring a weapon to a non-national organization.

In short, it is extremely dangerous to use the logic of the sane to predict the likely actions of the insane. The same dilemna we face in trying to understand the phenomenon of suicide bombings or crashing planes into towers.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

And yet mutually assured destruction led to precisely zero nuclear events.

If you gave one 1 nuclear weapon to someone like Osama Bin Laden how many nuclear events would occur?

Thus, which is more dangerous: The USSR with 1,000 nukes or a suicide bomber with 1 nuke?

As for moving things around...really? You can't imagine how to move a crate from one part of the world to another?

SUD123456

Iran is run by religious extremists, which is bad enough. But far worse is that they employ thousands of religious extremists working for them. As I said in anotherthread, when everyone depends upon religious extremism for their position it gets really difficult to separate the extremists of convenience from the true whack jobs. The realIranian leaders are likely not insane. But rest assured that some of the flock are.

The primary threat from Iran with nuclear weapons is not the official gov't of Iran launching a ballistic missile at the US or an ally.

The primary threat is a true believer Revolutionary Guards commander (or equivalent) transferring a weapon to a non-national organization.

In short, it is extremely dangerous to use the logic of the sane to predict the likely actions of the insane. The same dilemna we face in trying to understand the phenomenon of suicide bombings or crashing planes into towers.

This is news?scorch-62

I was thinking the same thing.

I would say something, but it would just be a s***tier reiteration of what SUD123456 said - so read his posts.

TL;DR: Religious nut jobs are more worrisome than self-interested commies.

[QUOTE="SUD123456"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Why would Iran give the nukes away? Having them would keep them safe from an invasion which is exactly what they are scared of.Person0

Iran is run by religious extremists, which is bad enough. But far worse is that they employ thousands of religious extremists working for them. As I said in anotherthread, when everyone depends upon religious extremism for their position it gets really difficult to separate the extremists of convenience from the true whack jobs. The realIranian leaders are likely not insane. But rest assured that some of the flock are.

The primary threat from Iran with nuclear weapons is not the official gov't of Iran launching a ballistic missile at the US or an ally.

The primary threat is a true believer Revolutionary Guards commander (or equivalent) transferring a weapon to a non-national organization.

In short, it is extremely dangerous to use the logic of the sane to predict the likely actions of the insane. The same dilemna we face in trying to understand the phenomenon of suicide bombings or crashing planes into towers.

Lol @ people thinking Iran would use a nuclear weapon on US. Magically, Iran has the range to launch a nuclear bomb at the United States.

Plus, why would Iran nuke the US? One- I want to know reasons and Two- do you think they would not understand the horrible repercussions of using a nuke?

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="SUD123456"]

Iran is run by religious extremists, which is bad enough. But far worse is that they employ thousands of religious extremists working for them. As I said in anotherthread, when everyone depends upon religious extremism for their position it gets really difficult to separate the extremists of convenience from the true whack jobs. The realIranian leaders are likely not insane. But rest assured that some of the flock are.

The primary threat from Iran with nuclear weapons is not the official gov't of Iran launching a ballistic missile at the US or an ally.

The primary threat is a true believer Revolutionary Guards commander (or equivalent) transferring a weapon to a non-national organization.

In short, it is extremely dangerous to use the logic of the sane to predict the likely actions of the insane. The same dilemna we face in trying to understand the phenomenon of suicide bombings or crashing planes into towers.

Darkman2007

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fund terrorist organizations.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Person0"] Pakistan and Israel have nuclear weapons and there are many extremists in those countries why do we not care about them?Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"] because in those countries, the extremeists are not in power. Israel doesn't control Iraq or Afghanistan , while having a policy of destroying Iran , it doesn't have a border with Iran , and Iran needs a deterrent? from who? the US? the US won't attack them because they have too much debt at the moment. on the other hand, Iran does control Lebanon through Hezbollah (and to a much lesser extent, Hamas in Gaza) , while having a policy which involves the destruction of Israel (essentially my death), and arming groups with the exact same ideology. in this context, I have more than a right to be concerned about them.Darkman2007

Israel sticks its nose in all middle east affairs especially having to do with nuclear aims. They want to be the only power in the middle east with nukes

Operation Babylon[1] (Codeword: Opera, was a surprise Israeli air strike carried out on June 7, 1981, that destroyed a nuclear reactor under construction 17 kilometers (10.5 miles) southeast of Baghdad, Iraq.[3][4][5]

Operation Orchard[2][3] was an Israeli airstrike on a nuclear reactor[4] in the Deir ez-Zor region[5] in syria

[QUOTE="Person0"] heck, if it wasn't for that, Israel wouldn't care if Iran had nuclear weapons (in a similar way to how Israel does not care if Pakistan has nukes) if they have an issue with the US, thats one thing, but why bother Israel with it? Iran doesn't have any territorial disputes with Israel , there are no Israeli troops on Iran's borders, etc. so all Iran has done with its past policy and rhetoric , is to create another enemy which it does not need.Person0

you refer to Operation Opera, and yet are ignoring the reasoning.

why was Operation Opera needed? because Saddam Hussien had made essentially the same threats against Israel as Iran is now, we were technically at war with Iraq (as we still sadly are, for no good reason)

a similar explanation could be made against the strike in Syria, they are an enemy state, which fund Hezbollah and do not recognise Israel's right to exist.

if someone threatens to kill you , and you find out he is getting a gun , you make sure he does not get that gun.

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Darkman2007

Information from Wikipedia with refrences > your knowledge

Nuclear Reactor specifically designed not to be able to make nuclear weapons> somehow a nuclear weapon threat!:roll: Makes total sense.

Breaking international law and killing 11 people including 1 French civilian in an attack that no evidence of weapon making has been uncovered.

But its okay becuase they might have sometime done something (with absolutely no evidence showing any attack preperations), with that reasoning attacking and killling anyone is right and justified.

Oh sure, its not because its a country that wants to protect itself, given the fact that a million other nation has developed their own nuclear arsenal long ago, Iran shouldn't do that because it only wants to take away freedom from the American people, or whatever !

Noooo... Iran just wants to destroy itself and the world with it. Oh hey come to think of it, we should change their name from Iran to "A big suicide bomber in the shape of a country" !!

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Person0

Information from Wikipedia with refrences > your knowledge

Nuclear Reactor specifically designed not to be able to make nuclear weapons> somehow a nuclear weapon threat!:roll: Makes total sense.

Breaking international law and killing 11 people including 1 French civilian in an attack that no evidence of weapon making has been uncovered.

But its okay becuase they might have sometime done something (with absolutely no evidence showing any attack preperations), with that reasoning attacking and killling anyone is right and justified.

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Ace6301

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Darkman2007

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Darkman2007

Nuclear weapons signify that a nation is a power, not to be f***ed with. That's why Iran wants them. They aren't going to use them (even they actually manage to successfully develop them), they simply want the deterrent factor. It's the same reason why many people here in the States are so gun crazy. "If I/we have a gun/nuke then nobody will come and kill my/our family/people or take my/our stuff."

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Ace6301

Israel has nukes, but it doesn't sit on Iran's borders, its not an official policy to destroy Iran, never has it attacked Iran, directly or indirectly.

the same is not true conversely, Iran have Hezbollah and to a lesser extent, Hamas as satelite organisations on the border, that is a direct threat. heck , I could go as far as call Lebanon a satelite state of Iran given how Hezbollah almost controls that country.

hence they are threatening me directly and have a history of doing so, the threat is very different..

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"]

nice posting all those random internet articles btw, try using your own knowledge for once .

I really couldn't care less if it could make nuclear weapons at that particular time, the danger was there , end of story.

but what do you expect Israel to do? leave things alone and ignore threats?maybe leave it to the rest of the world.

Jewish history teaches that Jews should not leave their protection in the hands of others , hence Israeli policy to prevent threats to the state and to its people, and those are threats.

don't like that policy? fine, do something about it, Israel doesn't attack for no reason , at this point, the public in Israel percieve the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat (wheter that feeling is justified or not is up for debate but that is the feeling) , hence government responds to these fears accordingly.

Darkman2007

Israel has nukes, but it doesn't sit on Iran's borders, its not an official policy to destroy Iran, never has it attacked Iran, directly or indirectly.

the same is not true conversely, Iran have Hezbollah and to a lesser extent, Hamas as satelite organisations on the border, that is a direct threat. heck , I could go as far as call Lebanon a satelite state of Iran given how Hezbollah almost controls that country.

hence they are threatening me directly and have a history of doing so, the threat is very different..

Iran with the nuke would certainly end any prospect of an Israel war in Iran.