Nuclear Falcon Punch: Iran

[broken_legs]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35343465/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/




TEHRAN, Iran - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed Thursday that Iran has produced its first batch of uranium enriched to a higher level, saying his country will not be bullied by the West into curtailing its nuclear program a day after the U.S. imposed new sanctions.

Ahmadinejad reiterated to hundreds of thousands of cheering Iranians on the anniversary of the 1979 foundation of the Islamic republic that the country was now a "nuclear state," an announcement he's made before. He insisted that Iran had no intention of building nuclear weapons.


etc....

[97'Scort]

They have no intentions, but if some uranium just HAPPENED to fall into a bomb-like device, it's not their fault.

[dirtsniffer]

why should iran not be allowed to have nuclear arms when the united states does have them? I'm pretty sure the U.S. is responsible for more casualities than Iran is, atleast in the last 7 years. I hope Iran builds a bomb and throws a big fuck you to the rest of us

[rizfarmer]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
why should iran not be allowed to have nuclear arms when the united states does have them? I'm pretty sure the U.S. is responsible for more casualities than Iran is, atleast in the last 7 years. I hope Iran builds a bomb and throws a big fuck you to the rest of us

you don't really mean this do you? and if you're serious I don't even know where to begin to try and make you understand how irresponsible your thoughts are.

[dirtsniffer]

maybe im ignorant, but in my life i have seen the united states fight 3 wars. they are also the only country to drop the bomb... and doesnt iran just want nuclear power?

edit: just read irans wiki page and they seem to be quite an advanced nation.they have learned to build everything they need, do these sanctions even phase them? anyone from iran here? i would like to know what it is like there

[97'Scort]

You don't need highly enriched uranium (ie weapons grade) to make power. That's what they're trying to make. The only viable application for this level of uranium is nuclear weapons since it's too volatile for reactor use.

The problem with Iran having "the bomb" is they might actually use it. It's a slim chance, but the potiential is there. True, it's a big "don't fuck with us" card, but if somebody calls their bluff and they don't like it, who knows what will happen.

[dirtsniffer]

whose to say that wouldnt happen with china, russia, pakistan, or the states? what makes Iran the nation that is capable of such things? and like you all know, the united states are the only one to drop them and are almost constantly fighting wars

[mx73someday]

Originally posted by 97'Scort

The problem with Iran having "the bomb" is they might actually use it. It's a slim chance, but the potiential is there.

Any country that has nuclear weapons may potentially use them, that doesn't mean there's a problem with Iran. This coming from the country with the most dangerous and murderous government in history.

[97'Scort]

The big powers, such as ones that are on the Security Council, tend to have a bit more restraint and have a fairly entrenched bureaucracy. They are more politically stable. North Korea and Iran (and to a lesser extent, Pakistan, but they US has them pretty tightly reined) are less stable and would maybe consider using a nuke to gain status or leverage over other nations.

What I should say is the potential is greater than the more established nuclear powers.

Israel is also a nuclear power, and we all know how Iran and the Israelies get along. You get a mini cold war going on right there.

Hell, Canada had nukes for a good chunk of the Cold War courtesy of Uncle Sam.

[CUG]

Originally posted by mx73someday


Any country that has nuclear weapons may potentially use them, that doesn't mean there's a problem with Iran. This coming from the country with the most dangerous and murderous government in history. Yeaaah, about that. I've got some bad news for you.


Anyways, nevermind. Not another one of these threads.

Why shouldn't an extremist state have nukes? I have no idea.

[DRKM]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
whose to say that wouldnt happen with china, russia, pakistan, or the states? what makes Iran the nation that is capable of such things? and like you all know, the united states are the only one to drop them and are almost constantly fighting wars


You must not read the news? They hang people there for being gay. They shoot there own people who are protesting. They launch massive surveillance campaigns against their own people. Rigged elections, should I go on?

[ragu]

^^ So you mean Iran's gonna drop the bomb on themselves too?? That just makes our job easier :D

[CUG]

Originally posted by ragu
^^ So you mean Iran's gonna drop the bomb on themselves too?? That just makes our job easier :D I pray that the good people get out, the supporters stick around, and a catastrophic mess occurs with their nuke program.

[BigMass]

Originally posted by DRKM



You must not read the news? They hang people there for being gay. They shoot there own people who are protesting. They launch massive surveillance campaigns against their own people. Rigged elections, should I go on?

funny how minus the hanging of gays I thought you were describing the US

[Rat Fink]

.

[Cos]

Originally posted by BigMass


funny how minus the hanging of gays I thought you were describing the US

i dont usually agree with you. But on this I agree too. Sounds like the US and even China.

However on the enrichment program, I am more worried about the US attacking them and Iran retaliating then the other way around.

[creeper]

Originally posted by dirtsniffer
why should iran not be allowed to have nuclear arms when the united states does have them? I'm pretty sure the U.S. is responsible for more casualities than Iran is, atleast in the last 7 years. I hope Iran builds a bomb and throws a big fuck you to the rest of us

The US hasn't ever said it was planning on "wiping" a country off the map.

[R154]

Originally posted by creeper


The US hasn't ever said it was planning on "wiping" a country off the map.

They dont have to. Its understood that if they wanted to, they could. I mean shit, they are in how many countries spreading democracy?

[BigMass]

Originally posted by creeper


The US hasn't ever said it was planning on "wiping" a country off the map.

Neither has any other country and especially in the context of dropping a bunch of nuclear bombs. Sounds like more western anti-Iranian propaganda, poor translations and straw men.

[Feruk]

I think Iran's desire for self preservation overshadows anything they might do if they were a nuclear power. Even if they had the bomb, I wouldn't put more then a one in a million chance of them ever using it. Iran knows if they ever used a nuke, they'd be wiped off the map. Their leader comes off as someone who talks the way he does only because it's what's required to keep his hard line supporters and not as a crazy man.

[ZenOps]

Iran at 30% uranium is getting there...

Thing is - the initial bomb can now be made with less refining than the original ones because of materials like Cobalt-60 and Tungsten Carbide.

Although it is actually quite the waste to just refine uranium to make bombs - if you put it in a controlled reactor you can actually breed more uranium than if you waste it all on explosions. If you are in the bomb making business for the "long term" you don't make the bomb first - you make the "breeder" reactor first.

In such a way - North Korea is in the bomb making business for the "long term" with "YongByon"

This announcement does not concern me at all.

What concerns me is that North Korea "lost" the cargo ship "Rim" headed to Libya by Somali pirates on Februrary 2/2010. I am 90% sure that it would be filled to the brim with small arms (machine guns, RPG's, etc.) Perhaps even, Cobalt 60 from their nuclear tests which would be absolutely disasterous.