Iran Reportedly Close to Production Capability of a Nuke

lunamoth said:
Not to mention disco.
Click to expand...


don't knock it till u try it ;)


disco-stu-air-freshener.jpg
 
Gotta love the Bee Gees:

"Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin'
And ev'rybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
Stayin' alive.
Stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
Stayin' alive."

:p :eek:
 
Jamarz said:
Gotta love the Bee Gees:

"Whether you're a brother
Or whether you're a mother,
You're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Feel the city breakin'
And ev'rybody shakin'
And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
Stayin' alive.
Stayin' alive.
Ah, ha, ha, ha,
Stayin' alive."

:p :eek:
Click to expand...

The whole Saturday Night Fever Sountrack rocks!

Yes, my disco past comes back to haunt me. :p
 
I think ballistic weapons might be outmoded. Shields, laser and EMP defenses continue to improve, along with AI targeting. If ballistic nukes lose their major strategic effectiveness, it will become easier to decommission them. Another thing is that most countries are tired of worrying about nuclear winter, so if things come together just right we may see a governmental willingness to do away with nukes. Maybe within, oh, 20 years.
 
What do most posters in this forum think of Ahmadinejad ? Are we entering a period in history where Iran is trying to become the dominating power in the Middle East ? If this happens will it be good or bad for the M.E. ? Is Iran the most fundamentalist country in the M.E. or is it Saudi Arabia or other ?
 
Avi1223 said:
What do most posters in this forum think of Ahmadinejad ?
Click to expand...
You mean other than the fact that he needs a good shave and nicer coat?

I think he's the president of Iran. I think we need to treat him and his country with respect. I think we need to engage Iran diplomatically in order to forge some common ground between them and the west.

I think that any desire to engage Iran militarily is a horrible mistake, not because the operation might fail, but because sooner or later we will have to realize that violence and war are barbaric and unnecessary.

We do not need to dominate and destroy others to achieve our goals. Peaceful coexistence is within our grasp. When will we finally realize this? When will we finally act like the civilized, intelligent beings we claim to be?
 
Hi Citizenzen, thanks for responding to my question.

I think he's the president of Iran. I think we need to treat him and his country with respect. I think we need to engage Iran diplomatically in order to forge some common ground between them and the west.
Click to expand...

Since I am new to this forum I do not know your perspective. So I have a few questions more for you. Why do you think we should treat Ahmadinejad diplomatically ? Do you think he has shown himself to operate in good faith ? Do you have any religious allegiance in this situation ?

I think that any desire to engage Iran militarily is a horrible mistake, not because the operation might fail, but because sooner or later we will have to realize that violence and war are barbaric and unnecessary.
Click to expand...



Do you feel that violence and war should always be avoided, are you a pacifist ? I do not believe that pacifism was the proper direction when Europe chose that path leading to WWII.
We do not need to dominate and destroy others to achieve our goals. Peaceful coexistence is within our grasp. When will we finally realize this? When will we finally act like the civilized, intelligent beings we claim to be?
Click to expand...



Do you believe that Ahmadinejad is a peaceful man ?

Can you also give me your thoughts on my other questions which I asked on the earlier post ?

Thanks.
 
I tried to edit to give more of my thoughts, but I was locked out :confused: (newbie problem :eek: ).

I do not believe Ahmadinejad operates in good faith. I lost a lot of respect for him when he held the "holocaust denyers" conference and brought in the ultra-orthodox Israelis to put them on the world stage.

Also, his recent approach of sending missiles into space demonstrates where he is headed. He is trying to achieve regional dominance. I do not believe he is a peaceful man.
 
citizenzen said:
I completely agree with Iran. Why shouldn't Islamic Nations have access to the same weapons that we've hoarded (and used)?

Perhaps instead of being hypocritical and denying other countries access to these weapons, we should get rid of ours and demonstrate a sincere desire for world peace.
Click to expand...


I still don't get the bent logic behind it.... Oh let us keep this really really nasty killing tool. Why is -anyone- allowed such freaking creations of destruction...
 
Alex P said:
I still don't get the bent logic behind it.... Oh let us keep this really really nasty killing tool. Why is -anyone- allowed such freaking creations of destruction...
Click to expand...

Ask that to the UN.

I must agree with citizenzen on this one. As long as a single nation has access to nuclear weapons, they all should. There is no better way to prevent a nation from using nukes than giving nukes to his enemies. Does the mutual destruction principle ring a bell?! ;)
 
Avi1223 said:
Do you think he has shown himself to operate in good faith ?

Do you have any religious allegiance in this situation ?

Do you feel that violence and war should always be avoided, are you a pacifist ?
Click to expand...
I don't think we've given him the opportunity to demonstrate whether he operates in good faith or bad. Engage Iran diplomatically and it should become evident what sort of faith he deals in.

I am zen Buddhist. I have allegiance with all beings, even poorly shaved ones.

Yes, I am a pacifist. When we possess so many tools to solve problems, why do we continually reach for invasion, destruction and death?

WWII may be the only "justifiable" war that I can think of.
 
farhan said:
If its true, then its a marvelous marvelous news. Looking forward to see their first nuke-boom. And beware of US, they definitely will attack. I wish Arabs shared this Persian foresight & love of knowledge.

And for the scared people, how many nukes have Americans lost in the last 60 years? Any clues? How many times a US plane has accidentally taken off with a nuke in it. And well, the biggest of all, how many men have Americans killed just to test a new bomb design? We survived all that, we'll survive this too.

As far as end times are concerned, there are enough zealots in US & Israel thinking about it.
Click to expand...

As I stated in my previous post... No one should have these, no one... So I will skip passed your usual agenda of attacking the west/mostly america lol..... And just ask why is it marvelous news for someone to have the technology to kill millions?
 
Alex P said:
As I stated in my previous post... No one should have these, no one... So I will skip passed your usual agenda of attacking the west/mostly america lol..... And just ask why is it marvelous news for someone to have the technology to kill millions?
Click to expand...

Because when both sides have it, the chances of either side using it decreases. Again, I'd like to refer to the mutual destruction principle.

Obviously the world would be better off is none had access to nuclear bombs, but unfortunately that's not reality and it would be naieve to believe that this will or could change within the next few decades.
 
Actually, the correct term is Mutual assured destruction and not Mutual destruction.

From Wikipedia (Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) :
Mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) is a doctrine of military strategy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender.[1] It is based on the theory of deterrence according to which the deployment of strong weapons is essential to threaten the enemy in order to prevent the use of the very same weapons. The strategy is effectively a form of Nash equilibrium, in which both sides are attempting to avoid their worst possible outcome—nuclear annihilation.

The doctrine assumes that each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The expected result is an immediate escalation resulting in both combatants' total and assured destruction. It is now generally assumed[who?] that the nuclear fallout or nuclear winter resulting from a large scale nuclear war would bring about worldwide devastation, though this was not a critical assumption to the theory of MAD.

The doctrine further assumes that neither side will dare to launch a first strike because the other side will launch on warning (also called fail-deadly) or with secondary forces (second strike) resulting in the destruction of both parties. The payoff of this doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace.

The primary application of this doctrine started during the Cold War (1950s to 1990s) in which MAD was seen as helping to prevent any direct full-scale conflicts between the United States and the Soviet Union while they engaged in smaller proxy wars around the world. It was also responsible for the arms race, as both nations struggled to keep nuclear parity, or at least retain second-strike capability. Although the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction certainly continues to be in force although it has receded from public discourse.

Proponents of MAD as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine believed that nuclear war could best be prevented if neither side could expect to survive a full scale nuclear exchange as a functioning state. Since the credibility of the threat is critical to such assurance, each side had to invest substantial capital in their nuclear arsenals even if they were not intended for use. In addition, neither side could be expected or allowed to adequately defend itself against the other's nuclear missiles. This led both to the hardening and diversification of nuclear delivery systems (such as nuclear missile silos, ballistic missile submarines and nuclear bombers kept at fail-safe points) and to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

This MAD scenario is often referred to as nuclear deterrence. The term deterrence was first used in this context after World War II; prior to that time, its use was limited to legal terminology.

In practice, the theory proved both utterly effective and exceptionally dangerous (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis) through the end of the Cold War. Today, all lesser nations are believed to be keenly aware that any use of nuclear weapons, in any context, is the recipe for their annihilation. Significant nuclear powers, such as The United States, Russia, and China (PRC), operate under the deterrent effect of potential retaliation with respect to "first use" in the conduct of brush fire wars and other lesser conflagrations. The U.S., as possessor of the largest and most deployable stockpile of nuclear weapons, and which has never used nuclear weapons in the post-WW II era, continues to exercise its vast nuclear might as a cornerstone of its foreign policy with regard to rogue states and communist nations which currently or may soon possess nuclear weapons technology. U.S. military forces stand on permanent alert in order to deter potential nuclear adversaries. Likewise, non-democratic nations cannot use nuclear weapons against the U.S., or her critical allies (Great Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany, Israel, Australia, & South Korea) without threat of (as President Kennedy said) a "full retaliatory" response by the United States.
Click to expand...
 
Alex P said:
And just ask why is it marvelous news for someone to have the technology to kill millions?
Click to expand...
because others have it too...either nobody should have them, or everybody....something like that i guess ;)
 
Alex P said:
Ok fair enough lol.... I think the latter is a bad idea though :p It's like hey I know how to stop gun crime... If we all have guns! :D
Click to expand...

If the logical consequence of shooting someone would be getting shot yourself, then the number of gun crimes would indeed seriously decrease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top