Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[theDoctorisIn]

If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.


Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
so, yeah it is a big thing

Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.

They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.

Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational


The people have been around that long but they have
change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time

How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?

Again, tough sell to make
it seems like a real loser

Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran. I doubt anyone would call their government rational.

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

 

[Judicial review]

Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.

They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.

Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational


The people have been around that long but they have
change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time

How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?

Again, tough sell to make
it seems like a real loser

Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran. I doubt anyone would call their government rational.

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

A regime that has a soul purpose here of destroying the jews and Israel and is separate from their own people so much so that they use force to silence them, and you think they have their best interests in mind? There own actions prove that they don't care about their people and could literally set their entire land on fire while they run away mobile.
Oh that's right!! They already are...

 

[asterism]

Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.

They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.

Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational


The people have been around that long but they have
change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time

How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?

Again, tough sell to make
it seems like a real loser

Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran. I doubt anyone would call their government rational.

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

You have a flaw in your logic. It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational


The people have been around that long but they have
change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time

How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?

Again, tough sell to make
it seems like a real loser

Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran. I doubt anyone would call their government rational.

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

You have a flaw in your logic. It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.

There's no flaw in my logic.

How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Hmmm, ain't that interesting...

Not really what is the rest of the quote?

 

[asterism]

Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran. I doubt anyone would call their government rational.

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

You have a flaw in your logic. It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.

There's no flaw in my logic.

How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?

If I think I could get the cash, it would be in my self interest to do so. That doesn't make me rational.

 

[Judicial review]

Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran. I doubt anyone would call their government rational.

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

You have a flaw in your logic. It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.

There's no flaw in my logic.

How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?

It is if they get away with it. Tends to happen. UNLESS you are a minority...

 

[Ernie S.]

Hmmm, ain't that interesting...

Very, when taken in context.

The whole quote:
"Men are simple creatures. It doesn't take much to please us. The problem is women. How does an utterly simple creature understand an infinitely complex one? Since this creature realizes he is even simpler than most men, I knew only women could help me understand, well, women."

But you and your pinko buddies don't like context when you can take a line or two from a poignant, self effacing quote and make it something it was never intended to be.

 

[Ernie S.]

One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is, another president isn't bound by that agreement. It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.

I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....

The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.

Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.

No sir! The intended message is in 2 years you will face a POTUS with a set of balls.

obama cost us our last shred of respect in this world.
Iranians were laughing their asses off until 47 patriots warned them that the US won't always be a paper tiger.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

You have a flaw in your logic. It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.

There's no flaw in my logic.

How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?

It is if they get away with it. Tends to happen. UNLESS you are a minority...

People who rob gun stores with knifes tend to get away with it?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The leaders of Somalia are rational.

Corruption isn't irrational.

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

You have a flaw in your logic. It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.

There's no flaw in my logic.

How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?

If I think I could get the cash, it would be in my self interest to do so. That doesn't make me rational.

Self interest isn't just about getting things. It's also about self preservation.

 

[Judicial review]

We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational." I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.

Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.

You have a flaw in your logic. It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.

There's no flaw in my logic.

How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?

It is if they get away with it. Tends to happen. UNLESS you are a minority...

People who rob gun stores with knifes tend to get away with it?

Yes, if the one doing the robbing was the dictator or person above the law that they create.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.

Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.

If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.

But Iran is not insane. It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.

What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.

The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.

Where are you getting your information from?

From this, the detonation of Tsar Bomba. The blast wave (in this case), not the explosion itself caused the most damage. If you juxtapose the blast zone from Tsar Bomba onto Paris, the airburst would destroy everything within a 35 kilometer (21 mile) radius:

Now scale it down to a Variable Yield (Boosted) Uranium Fission Warhead, which can exceed the yield of a conventional Uranium Fission warheads, the highest yield as of now is 800 kilotons in the eastern hemisphere (The US B83 is a variable yield 1.2 megatons, most powerful in the Western Hemisphere).


If for example a 800 kT weapon was surface detonated over Tel Aviv:

Fireball radius: 1.1 km = .68 miles

Air blast radius (20 psi) 1.98 km = 1.2 miles

Radiation radius (500 rem): 2.43 km = 2.4 miles

Air blast radius (5 psi): 4.25 km = 2.6 miles

Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 9.7 km = 6.0 miles

Death toll would exceed 529,000*, with 420,000* injuries. It would expose nearly 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating doses of radiation given a south southwest headwind blowing at 9 mph.

Now, Jerusalem with the same measurements:

585,000* dead with 390,000* injured. It would also expose at least 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating of doses of radiation given a southeast headwind of 9 mph.

The "destructive" radius is irrelevant. Two detonations in those respective locations would kill 1,020,000* people at once simultaneously (at least three times more than final running tally of the bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (135,000 dead) ending in 1950, and it took 9 years for that many to die) and 820,000* would be injured in that instant.

*=Numbers will vary on exact placement of the strike

Calculations derived from NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

 

[TemplarKormac]

Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.

If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.

But Iran is not insane. It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.

What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.

The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.

Where are you getting your information from?

Does "radioactive fallout" mean anything?

It does, but going from the way you're saying it, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

"Destruction" in this case is a mutual term. When the explosion and fallout do their toll, it will amount to obliteration of a sovereign nation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.

Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.

If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.

But Iran is not insane. It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.

What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.

The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.

Where are you getting your information from?

From this, the detonation of Tsar Bomba. The blast wave (in this case), not the explosion itself caused the most damage. If you juxtapose the blast zone from Tsar Bomba onto Paris, the airburst would destroy everything within a 35 kilometer (21 mile) radius:

Now scale it down to a Variable Yield (Boosted) Uranium Fission Warhead, which can exceed the yield of a conventional Uranium Fission warheads, the highest yield as of now is 800 kilotons in the eastern hemisphere (The US B83 is a variable yield 1.2 megatons, most powerful in the Western Hemisphere).


If for example it was surface detonated over Tel Aviv:

Fireball radius: 1.1 km = .68 miles

Air blast radius (20 psi) 1.98 km = 1.2 miles

Radiation radius (500 rem): 2.43 km = 2.4 miles

Air blast radius (5 psi): 4.25 km = 2.6 miles

Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 9.7 km = 6.0 miles

Death toll would exceed 529,000*, with 420,000* injuries. It would expose nearly 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating doses of radiation given a south southwest headwind blowing at 9 mph.

Now, Jerusalem with the same measurements:

585,000* dead with 390,000* injured. It would also expose at least 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating of doses of radiation given a southeast headwind of 9 mph.

The "destructive" radius is irrelevant. Two detonations in those respective locations would kill 1,020,000* people at once simultaneously (over 3 times more than final running tally of the bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending in 1950, and it took 9 years for that many to die) and 820,000* would be injured in that instant. That is 10 times as much as were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

*=Numbers will vary on exact placement of the strike

Calculations derived from NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

You're not getting it.

Iran won't be able to build a boosted uranium fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons.

It takes years of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.

But Iran is not insane. It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.

What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.

The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.

Where are you getting your information from?

Does "radioactive fallout" mean anything?

It does, but going from the way you're saying it, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

"Destruction" in this case is a mutual term. When the explosion and fallout do their toll, it will amount to obliteration of a sovereign nation.

No, it's just not. The world doesn't work the way it does in thriller movies.

Iran simply doesn't have the technology for it.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I agree, constantly bringing up abortion in every conversation is a presentation of a disordered mind.

You should see someone about that, pubes.

Well you're getting closer Vulva... But abortion is the consequence is mental disorder. Noting such, is just sound reason..., which when set in contest against unsound reasoning... is UNBEATABLE!


LOL! As you so slowly learnin'.

You seem to think that because mental disorder is becoming common, that it's "Normal". You should try to come to grips with the self-evident truth: It's not... .

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're not getting it.

Iran won't be able to build a boosted uranium fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons.

It takes years of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.

Yes, yes... Because Iran is WAY OVER THERE in 1943... And there's probably no way to split the atom anyway.

Great Work Tehran Betty! You're doin' a FINE JOB swingin' for Islam.

 

[Plasmaball]

Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.

Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.

If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.

But Iran is not insane. It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.

What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.

and you have no clue as to what you are talking about as usual. Iran fires a nuke, israel will see it and just fire back instantly.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Iran won't be able to build a boosted uranium fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons. It takes years of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.

Heh, so, you think Iran is limited merely by its own technology? I seriously doubt that. And you forget how long the Iranian nuclear program has been active.

Alright then, so, Iran has enough nuclear fuel at the moment to make 7 implosion style nuclear warheads (that of which you just described)

If they launched just 5 and detonated them 4 miles above the surfaces at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, and Ashdod (Israel's 5 largest cities), you would see nearly 300,000 people die at once. It took 9 years for that many to die from the initial explosions, radiation burns and exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given how small Israel is, the death toll would be magnified.