Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Funny we are on the same side of an Israel thread, but there is still so much hostility!Wow you just illustrated the difference between PREEMPTIVE and PREVENTITIVE war. A+ for you GHook.
Well I am MORE than happy to try to bury it if you are.(olive branch)
WE have the capability to do it.It's a no brainer. Self defense. Whena leader publicly decalres a desire to kill you and then is as close to nuke weapons as Iran is...bah!
WE have the needed bunker-buster type bombs.
WE can fly over Iraq. It's not at all clear that Israel can.
ISRAEL is the one who faces immediate and furious and insane reprisals -- no matter who takes out the Iranian nuclear plants.
So it boils down to three options.
(1) We permit Israel to act as our surrogate and do the deed. Our help would be needed to get to Iran.
(2) We stop acting like pussies and we do it ourselves (at great immediate risk to Israel).
(3) We elect to do nothing and have nobody act like a surrogate, and Iran ends up with nukes.
What we should do is an open question, but I will bet you that I know exactly what we WILL do. Option #3. President Obama is simply not up to the job.
I know how much you and your ilk just LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE wars, but I wish you could just be satisfied with Afghanistan for now. Our troops are really really tired.
say such stupid shit?
There is much more to making radioactive material explode than detonation. There will be no nuclear chain reaction unless the HEU is at critical mass which depends on the material's density, mass, and geometry. Few store HEU at these conditions unless it is in a warhead and it's beyond stupid to have a warhead at a production facility. Iranians are not stupid, either.
They don't have to have it contained in a warhead. It's dangerous shit, and under certain conditions, even mishandling it could cause an explosion. One would think that a bomb dropped in the immediate vicinity of this material wouldn't just go 'boom' and that's that, but further damage highly possible.
Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union: Technical Background - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
I'm not talking about "detonation" of anything. I'm talking about a large explosion that could be seen, say on seismic scales of at least being a possible "detonation." I'm not arguing science here, just the possibility of the unknown and the what-ifs that could mushroom (no pun) into OVERreaction by neighboring countries and then all-out war.They don't have to have it contained in a warhead. It's dangerous shit, and under certain conditions, even mishandling it could cause an explosion. One would think that a bomb dropped in the immediate vicinity of this material wouldn't just go 'boom' and that's that, but further damage highly possible.How would they "take out" (bomb) Iran's nuclear sites without the risk of setting off a nuclear explosion? Does the IAEA yet know how far along Iran has come with building weapons grade bombs from uranium or plutonium (which they have)?
Iran's neighbors are Saudi Arabia (quasi friendly) and Jordan (friendly for now), and Syria and Iran (NOT friendly). Israel might be resting on its laurels from successfully taking out Syria's nuclear facility, but I'll bet that wasn't enough to deter Syria completely. After all, thereafter weren't they trying to buy some nuclear goodies from North Korea?
Managing Military Uranium and Plutonium in the United States and the Former Soviet Union: Technical Background - Harvard - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
. OMG. A nuclear explosion is a chain reaction. For that chain reaction to sustain itself (for an explosion), the HEU has to be at critical mass - dependent on density, pressure, mass. An HEU facility will not store its product at those densities.
WE have the capability to do it.
WE have the needed bunker-buster type bombs.
WE can fly over Iraq. It's not at all clear that Israel can.
ISRAEL is the one who faces immediate and furious and insane reprisals -- no matter who takes out the Iranian nuclear plants.
So it boils down to three options.
(1) We permit Israel to act as our surrogate and do the deed. Our help would be needed to get to Iran.
(2) We stop acting like pussies and we do it ourselves (at great immediate risk to Israel).
(3) We elect to do nothing and have nobody act like a surrogate, and Iran ends up with nukes.
What we should do is an open question, but I will bet you that I know exactly what we WILL do. Option #3. President Obama is simply not up to the job.
I know how much you and your ilk just LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE wars, but I wish you could just be satisfied with Afghanistan for now. Our troops are really really tired.
Nobody loooooves wars, stupid.
And, nothing I said puts me in the camp of suggesting that we strike.
What I said was that Israel could do it as our surrogate (if we enable them to fly over Iraq); or WE could do it by ourselves (with the added benefit that WE have bunker-buster type bombs capable of getting the buried hardened targets); OR that neither of the above happens (i.e., nobody does it) and Iran ends up as a nation with nukes.
And if we strike the Iranian sites and destroy their nuclear weapons-making capacity, we would be doing it from on high, not with ground troops, stupid. If you think Iran is then going to go all bat-shit crazy and send their ineffective troops up against ANYBODY, you're mistaken.
I DID, however, note that PResident Obama who is in way the hell over his head is CERTAIN to choose option #3. That's a complete given. It does not mean that I favor war or loooove war. IS there a reason you
WE have the capability to do it.
WE have the needed bunker-buster type bombs.
WE can fly over Iraq. It's not at all clear that Israel can.
ISRAEL is the one who faces immediate and furious and insane reprisals -- no matter who takes out the Iranian nuclear plants.
So it boils down to three options.
(1) We permit Israel to act as our surrogate and do the deed. Our help would be needed to get to Iran.
(2) We stop acting like pussies and we do it ourselves (at great immediate risk to Israel).
(3) We elect to do nothing and have nobody act like a surrogate, and Iran ends up with nukes.
What we should do is an open question, but I will bet you that I know exactly what we WILL do. Option #3. President Obama is simply not up to the job.
I know how much you and your ilk just LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE wars, but I wish you could just be satisfied with Afghanistan for now. Our troops are really really tired.
Nobody loooooves wars, stupid.
And, nothing I said puts me in the camp of suggesting that we strike.
What I said was that Israel could do it as our surrogate (if we enable them to fly over Iraq); or WE could do it by ourselves (with the added benefit that WE have bunker-buster type bombs capable of getting the buried hardened targets); OR that neither of the above happens (i.e., nobody does it) and Iran ends up as a nation with nukes.
And if we strike the Iranian sites and destroy their nuclear weapons-making capacity, we would be doing it from on high, not with ground troops, stupid. If you think Iran is then going to go all bat-shit crazy and send their ineffective troops up against ANYBODY, you're mistaken.
I DID, however, note that PResident Obama who is in way the hell over his head is CERTAIN to choose option #3. That's a complete given. It does not mean that I favor war or loooove war. IS there a reason you
My Gawd are we talking about fighting wars on THREE FRONTS.
Don't tell anyone, but I also believe that GHook is a patriotic American
I know how much you and your ilk just LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE wars, but I wish you could just be satisfied with Afghanistan for now. Our troops are really really tired.
Nobody loooooves wars, stupid.
And, nothing I said puts me in the camp of suggesting that we strike.
What I said was that Israel could do it as our surrogate (if we enable them to fly over Iraq); or WE could do it by ourselves (with the added benefit that WE have bunker-buster type bombs capable of getting the buried hardened targets); OR that neither of the above happens (i.e., nobody does it) and Iran ends up as a nation with nukes.
And if we strike the Iranian sites and destroy their nuclear weapons-making capacity, we would be doing it from on high, not with ground troops, stupid. If you think Iran is then going to go all bat-shit crazy and send their ineffective troops up against ANYBODY, you're mistaken.
I DID, however, note that PResident Obama who is in way the hell over his head is CERTAIN to choose option #3. That's a complete given. It does not mean that I favor war or loooove war. IS there a reason you
Is there a reason why anyone should believe your stupid shit?
[The Iranian Revolutionary Guard] controls the deadliest arms, including adapted Scud missiles with ranges up to 1,200 miles, along with a chemical and biological weapons program and missile production. The Revolutionary Guard remains "the center of Iran's hard-line security forces," he said.
The most secretive Guard unit is the Quds Force, which conducts operations beyond Iran's borders using proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Cordesman says in the book. It has several directorates -- for Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Jordan; Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; Turkey and the Arabian Peninsula; North Africa; and Europe and North America, Cordesman writes. It has operatives in many embassies abroad, he says, and runs Iran's training camps for unconventional warfare.
Elite Revolutionary Guard Broadens Its Influence in Iran - washingtonpost.com
Well do to some rather haeted arguments I have had with him I wanted to make my appology PUBLIC so there would be no ambiguity about how I feel. I threw out an insult that I did not understand how powerful it would be. Once again I appologise in no uncertain terms.
GHook I am sorry.
I hope we can just agree to disagree on subjects where it is clear we will find no common ground. I also hope there are MANY subjects that we WILL agree upon.
My Gawd are we talking about fighting wars on THREE FRONTS.
My Gawd are we talking about fighting wars on THREE FRONTS.
A 3 front war would involve an invasion! That is not what is being discussed with Iran. Also one of the fronts (Iraq) is slowly but surly winding down. Thank God!
