NationStates Jolt Archive

Iran Hits Milestone in Nuclear Technology
25 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran -
Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a landmark in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday. He insisted, however, that his country does not aim to develop nuclear weapons.

In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad called on the West "not to cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians" by trying to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment.

"At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday," Ahmadinejad said.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he told an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in the northwestern holy city of Mashhad. The crowd broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some stood and thrust their fists in the air.

--OceaNews©2006--
Comment: it was going to happen sooner or later..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear;_ylt=AjHUuMH9frvE1B9_YKm8kD.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

oh crap.

To be followed shortly by another nuclear milestone - an Israeli missile hitting said reactor and blowing it to pieces...

Has this been proved or could it be propaganda from Iran?

If I was trying to develop nuclear weapons I wouldn't give any warning until I'd actually got them built and ready to launch, why warn your enemies before you're able to defend yourself?

And 25 hours from now the weather forecast for that enrichment site is 72,000 degrees and mushroom cloudy.

To be followed shortly by another nuclear milestone - an Israeli missile hitting said reactor and blowing it to pieces...that is not a nuclear milestone.

Has this been proved or could it be propaganda from Iran?

If I was trying to develop nuclear weapons I wouldn't give any warning until I'd actually got them built and ready to launch, why warn your enemies before you're able to defend yourself?

It's a "warning" from Iran to the US that they can possibly destroy the world too. I remember reading somewhere that in the Muslim tradition, giving warnings and last chances to surrender is considered to be honourable and noble.

But then again, the Iranians might just be bullshiting, which means they are a LOT dumber than I thought.

that is not a nuclear milestone.

It would be with the mushroom cloud...

It would be with the mushroom cloud...I dont remember a mushroom cloud at Osirak.

It annoys me that Iran seems to have less problems building new nuclear power plants than the US.

Why aren't people pressuring them to adopt 'clean' renewables - like solar and wind - the same way that happens in the US every time someone suggests building a new nuclear reactor.

I dont remember a mushroom cloud at Osirak.

If you crane your head back far enough, you should see my point and humour fly high above your head.

good for Iran I say soon they will have a nuclear power plant and the world can forget the rumoured war and get on with something important like making sure Iran’s power plants are as safe as they can be even if it mean giving up secrets

good for Iran I say soon they will have a nuclear power plant and the world can forget the rumoured war and get on with something important like making sure Iran’s power plants are as safe as they can be even if it mean giving up secrets

And making sure none of it goes missing and gets put into a bomb that might be detonated in the West somewhere...

Why aren't people pressuring them to adopt 'clean' renewables - like solar and wind - the same way that happens in the US every time someone suggests building a new nuclear reactor.

Perhaps because Iranians who question their leaders get beheaded.

War it is.

maybe I'm worng, but didnt Iran announce at one point that once they achieved this, the ywould be "sharing" it with others in the area?

I have 5 bucks that if this is true, we and israel launch air strikes by the end of May.

http://wavsource.easycgi.com/snds_2006-04-08_267414935425200/sfx/bomb_x.wav

If they really are doing it for the plants fine. But as soon as they test a nuke or some terrorist group says it got its shinny new toy from Iran the shit will hit the fan for them.

Perhaps because Iranians who question their leaders get beheaded.

Yes, but I've noticed a lot of the people who are adamantly opposed to the construction of new nuclear power plants in the US/UK on the grounds that we would be better served with 'clean' renewables, are exactly the same people who feel that it is completely legitimate for Iran to build them.

Why is that, I wonder?

And it's not like the US/UK aren't facing significant energy shortages in the near future.

http://wavsource.easycgi.com/snds_2006-04-08_267414935425200/sfx/bomb_x.wav


wtf?:confused:

Yes, but I've noticed a lot of the people who are adamantly opposed to the construction of new nuclear power plants in the US/UK on the grounds that we would be better served with 'clean' renewables, are exactly the same people who feel that it is completely legitimate for Iran to build them.

Why is that, I wonder?

And it's not like the US/UK aren't facing significant energy shortages in the near future.


*coughbecausethey'redouchebagscough*

According to my Physics teacher The most efficient way of using enriched uranium is in a fast reactor which provides extra fuel afterwards. Which is more sutied to a nuclear bomb or to continue it's existence as fuel, until it becoms useless.

I don't doubt that the Iranians haven't done it. I actually quite hope they have. It proves that they are prepared to go ahead despite our idiotic western rants. I'm unsure if we ever stopped being prejudiced against the east like we did blacks/negros?

And if he's going public, he's either going the wrong way to handle the news, or he's !!ATTENTION GEORGE BUSH!! Not going to use it in weapons.

wtf?:confused:
location: Iran nuclear research.

According to my Physics teacher The most efficient way of using enriched uranium is in a fast reactor which provides extra fuel afterwards. Which is more sutied to a nuclear bomb or to continue it's existence as fuel, until it becoms useless.

I don't doubt that the Iranians haven't done it. I actually quite hope they have. It proves that they are prepared to go ahead despite our idiotic western rants. I'm unsure if we ever stopped being prejudiced against the east like we did blacks/negros?

And if he's going public, he's either going the wrong way to handle the news, or he's !!ATTENTION GEORGE BUSH!! Not going to use it in weapons.

1. You know this how?

2. Whats to stop them turning a blind eye toards some terrorists taking some enriched uranium and using it in a dirty bomb?

According to my Physics teacher The most efficient way of using enriched uranium is in a fast reactor which provides extra fuel afterwards. Which is more sutied to a nuclear bomb or to continue it's existence as fuel, until it becoms useless.

I don't doubt that the Iranians haven't done it. I actually quite hope they have. It proves that they are prepared to go ahead despite our idiotic western rants. I'm unsure if we ever stopped being prejudiced against the east like we did blacks/negros?

Why of couse sir we're prejudiced because we don't want a man who's called for the destruction of Israel and believes the apocalypse will be in his lifetime to have nukes.

Interesting.. so far I see nothing on CNN of FOXnews TV :confused:

According to my Physics teacher The most efficient way of using enriched uranium is in a fast reactor which provides extra fuel afterwards. Which is more sutied to a nuclear bomb or to continue it's existence as fuel, until it becoms useless.

I don't doubt that the Iranians haven't done it. I actually quite hope they have. It proves that they are prepared to go ahead despite our idiotic western rants. I'm unsure if we ever stopped being prejudiced against the east like we did blacks/negros?

And if he's going public, he's either going the wrong way to handle the news, or he's !!ATTENTION GEORGE BUSH!! Not going to use it in weapons.
I'm kind of proud to be prejudiced against people who chant "Death to America". I'll be really proud when our bombs start dropping on their government buildings and nuclear sites. Also the homes of the clerics who are the power behind their government. That'll be sweet.

Interesting.. so far I see nothing on CNN of FOXnews TV :confused:for the last 10 min CNN is showing a report on Jimmy hendrix
and FOX a report on 911(emergency) operators qualifications..

Interesting.. so far I see nothing on CNN of FOXnews TV :confused:
It's top story www.cnn.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4900260.stm
The beeb has it too.

I got a bad feeling about this one....

Why of couse sir we're prejudiced because we don't want a man who's called for the destruction of Israel and believes the apocalypse will be in his lifetime to have nukes.

Of course it's perfectly acceptable for a country which has already dropped 2 nuclear bombs on innocent civilian targets without warning and whose president is perhaps the most incredibly stupid man in the earth to have nuclear weapons...?

It's top story www.cnn.comI am talking about TV reports

I am talking about live TV news
I know. I was just letting you know if you're looking for a story on it you can find it there. :)

So, let me get this right:

1] USA does whatever it wants and ignores the international community and, except for saying rude things, nothing gets done.

2] Iran does whatever it wants and ignores the international community and we must do everything in our power to stop them.

How funny. Double standards are the shiznit.

I say good for Iran. I trust them more than I trust the US anyway.

Interesting.. so far I see nothing on CNN of FOXnews TV :confused:BBC is finally reporting it.

Of course it's perfectly acceptable for a country which has already dropped 2 nuclear bombs on innocent civilian targets without warning and whose president is perhaps the most incredibly stupid man in the earth to have nuclear weapons...?
1) There were no civilian targets in WWII. Everybody involved bombed cities and massacred "civilians" to try to shut down industry and demoralize the enemy populations. Hiroshima and Nagasaki housed huge naval and military industries.

2) It ended the war quicker and likely resulted in a net savings of Japanese and American lives.

3) Your opinion makes no difference. If the US government wants to attack Iran for attempting to construct nuclear weapons what are you going to do about it?

oh crap.

Seconded. x-x

OMFG they ran some centrifuges. :eek:

I can hear the sky falling already. :rolleyes:

You don't achieve much doing that. Even making a reasonable quantity of nuclear fuel takes a lot more than that. A functioning nuclear weapon? Call back in ten years.

So, let me get this right:

1] USA does whatever it wants and ignores the international community and, except for saying rude things, nothing gets done.

2] Iran does whatever it wants and ignores the international community and we must do everything in our power to stop them.

How funny. Double standards are the shiznit.

I say good for Iran. I trust them more than I trust the US anyway.
Well, that's the way it is when you're the biggest thug on the cell block. Right now we're on top, and we can make Iran our bitch if we want to.

Of course it's perfectly acceptable for a country which has already dropped 2 nuclear bombs on innocent civilian targets without warning and whose president is perhaps the most incredibly stupid man in the earth to have nuclear weapons...?
It's not perfectly acceptable that these weapons even exist. I'm not American, even if I was suggesting that I was somehow hypocritical because the military has nukes not me is a terrible argument.
Are you trying to tell me that it's ok for Iran's government to have them?

So, let me get this right:

1] USA does whatever it wants and ignores the international community and, except for saying rude things, nothing gets done.

2] Iran does whatever it wants and ignores the international community and we must do everything in our power to stop them.

How funny. Double standards are the shiznit.

I say good for Iran. I trust them more than I trust the US anyway.

We have a monkey for a president....that should say enough.

We have a monkey for a president....that should say enough.
Quit insulting monkeys.

So, let me get this right:

How funny. Double standards are the shiznit.

I say good for Iran. I trust them more than I trust the US anyway.


So -Let me get this straight- you are under the impression you'd be communicating on this medium if you were in the arms of your trusted brothers in Iran?

This is definitely cause to run around like a chicken with the head cut off.

Remember kids, nuclear-armed China, North Korea and Turkey good; Iran, bad.

Iran Hits Milestone in Nuclear Technology
25 minutes ago

TEHRAN, Iran -
Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a landmark in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday. He insisted, however, that his country does not aim to develop nuclear weapons.

In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad called on the West "not to cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians" by trying to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment.

"At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday," Ahmadinejad said.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he told an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in the northwestern holy city of Mashhad. The crowd broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some stood and thrust their fists in the air.

--OceaNews©2006--
Comment: it was going to happen sooner or later..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/iran_nuclear;_ylt=AjHUuMH9frvE1B9_YKm8kD.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

It looks like we're going to war. Unfortunate.

This is definitely cause to run around like a chicken with the head cut off.

Remember kids, nuclear-armed China, North Korea and Turkey good; Iran, bad.
Turkey has nukes?

It's not perfectly acceptable that these weapons even exist. I'm not American, even if I was suggesting that I was somehow hypocritical because the military has nukes not me is a terrible argument.
Are you trying to tell me that it's ok for Iran's government to have them?

So true. They ruined the concept of war and basically did what Winchester did for men for entire nations.

"God made man. Winchester made man equal."

Now anyone with a nuke could hold the world hostage. >.>

Turkey has nukes?
Just as much as Holland has.

In reply to the three, at the time of this post, people who have responded to my post, I have one thing to say.
You've got your view, so what is it without everyone elses?
So some madman has enriched uranium and might have said something about armaggeddon and blowing up Israel. And so you're either not prejudiced because you want to be the world's policeman, or you are because someone's chanted death to america.

Note to those Americans with the ability: You might want to drop some bombs on your Mother Country, no?

I don't see many countries with Pro-American Fanatics screaming whenever they see some *American* invention. If you can create a bomb, what's so bad about another country the MIGHT want to create one too?

We all know what would happen in a nuclear war. No winners. The landscape would be devastated. Radiation would kill thousands.

But we still build these bloody stupid weapons we can't use. And why the hell do we do it? Because we've go a permit from the USA and they are really intimidating because they're so big and vicious.

Why can the USA not trust Iran and it's crackpot dictator, I do. And I'll apologise when he does blow up Israel or wherever. And the I told you so's won't bother me. Because he's either gonna pick one of the options. And hge's more than likely going to peacefully use the technology.

So get over it you prejudiced policemen. Arrest me. Send the FBI or CIA or your Moles in MI5 and MI6 or whatever. I'll be here waiting.

All I know is I'm finishing my degree as fast as I can and getting the Hell out of the northern hemisphere. South America sounds good right about now. I like New Zealand, too, except that they're pretty close to Australia and they're an island so their resource availability doesn't look good.

Quit insulting monkeys.

Would it be wrong to insult rats or cockaroaches then? :o

It looks like we're going to war. Unfortunate.
Well we're already in the neighborhood, might as well get it over with rather than having to make another trip there later.

Turkey has nukes?the 1st of April.. they serve turkey at his home. :p

Turkey has nukes?

Good point. I meant Pakistan.

Pakistan, Turkey, anyone could make that mistake. Kind of like mistaking Saddam for Osama bin Laden, or Afghanistan for Iraq for Iran for 12 guys hijacking a plane.

All I know is I'm finishing my degree as fast as I can and getting the Hell out of the northern hemisphere. South America sounds good right about now. I like New Zealand, too, except that they're pretty close to Australia and they're an island so their resource availability doesn't look good.
If I'm not mistaken Australia's the world's largest coal exporter and has copper and other resources. Why aren't you considering living in Australia?

In reply to the three, at the time of this post, people who have responded to my post, I have one thing to say.
You've got your view, so what is it without everyone elses?
So some madman has enriched uranium and might have said something about armaggeddon and blowing up Israel. And so you're either not prejudiced because you want to be the world's policeman, or you are because someone's chanted death to america.

Note to those Americans with the ability: You might want to drop some bombs on your Mother Country, no?

I don't see many countries with Pro-American Fanatics screaming whenever they see some *American* invention. If you can create a bomb, what's so bad about another country the MIGHT want to create one too?

We all know what would happen in a nuclear war. No winners. The landscape would be devastated. Radiation would kill thousands.

But we still build these bloody stupid weapons we can't use. And why the hell do we do it? Because we've go a permit from the USA and they are really intimidating because they're so big and vicious.

Why can the USA not trust Iran and it's crackpot dictator, I do. And I'll apologise when he does blow up Israel or wherever. And the I told you so's won't bother me. Because he's either gonna pick one of the options. And hge's more than likely going to peacefully use the technology.

So get over it you prejudiced policemen. Arrest me. Send the FBI or CIA or your Moles in MI5 and MI6 or whatever. I'll be here waiting.
It's got nothing to do with policing the world. I just want to maintain US military dominance, and to make sure we can effectively wage wars for resources when they become scarce.

It's a "warning" from Iran to the US that they can possibly destroy the world too. I remember reading somewhere that in the Muslim tradition, giving warnings and last chances to surrender is considered to be honourable and noble.

But then again, the Iranians might just be bullshiting, which means they are a LOT dumber than I thought.
Iran should remember that the US is second only to Russia in terms of nuclear arsenal. If they were to use a single nuke, American retaliation would be massive. We would move to eliminate the leadership, the powerplants, enrichment facilities, missile bases, etc. Iran would become a sea of glass. I doubt that is what they want.

If I'm not mistaken Australia's the world's largest coal exporter and has copper and other resources. Why aren't you considering living in Australia?

I thought it was natural gas...but oh well. Australia is good, but I doubt the northern hemisphere will explode lol.

1) There were no civilian targets in WWII. Everybody involved bombed cities and massacred "civilians" to try to shut down industry and demoralize the enemy populations. Hiroshima and Nagasaki housed huge naval and military industries.

2) It ended the war quicker and likely resulted in a net savings of Japanese and American lives.

3) Your opinion makes no difference. If the US government wants to attack Iran for attempting to construct nuclear weapons what are you going to do about it?

1) i)That is absolute bull and you know it. ii)The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective.
2) Civilian's are innocent and are not legitimiate targets in war
3) And your opinion does make a difference? Iran's going to stop enriching uranium because you say so?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12267675/page/2/

But a diplomat familiar with Tehran’s enrichment program said it appeared to be accurate.

So -Let me get this straight- you are under the impression you'd be communicating on this medium if you were in the arms of your trusted brothers in Iran?

Ummm ... people in Iran use the internet all the time. They also protest their government when the need arises.

Let me guess ... you're misinformed about Iran. That's ok. However, proof you will need and I shall provide. Just say the word.

It's got nothing to do with policing the world. I just want to maintain US military dominance, and to make sure we can effectively wage wars for resources when they become scarce.

Resources will never become scare as long as America is in power. We are carrying the entire world's vision of fusion power on us basically. Also we've been making EXTREME strides and have DEVELOPED COLD FUSION.

America is the country that is going to end up saving the world at this rate. Sure we want dominance, but I'd push for a United Earth. :P

It's got nothing to do with policing the world. I just want to maintain US military dominance, and to make sure we can effectively wage wars for resources when they become scarce.

I know that we British are Ignorant, but America has inherited it so well, it makes me want to cry.

Why the hell does it matter tha you maintian militAY DOMINANCE? Has it ever occurred that your existence in your wacked up country is one to save the resyt of the world?

I pity you.

1) i)That is absolute bull and you know it. ii)The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective.
2) Civilian's are innocent and are not legitimiate targets in war
3) And your opinion does make a difference? Iran's going to stop enriching uranium because you say so?

1. False, they were major military centers and everyone who checks into such matters knows it.
2. Actually both your butts are wrong here. It was because Hirohito was able to get away from the military to make a public statement that caused the end of the war. Civilians are targets in total war if on the battlefield.

Iran should not enrich for weapons, peaceful use ONLY.

I know that we British are Ignorant, but America has inherited it so well, it makes me want to cry.

Why the hell does it matter tha you maintian militAY DOMINANCE? Has it ever occurred that your existence in your wacked up country is one to save the resyt of the world?

I pity you.

We saved your butts in WWII along with the whole world, I think a little recognition is deserved here. Russia and America saved the world and then Russia and America saved the world from each other. Now it will be America and China in the next century.

You know, if there is war, that means US troops will STAY in Iraq LONGER than they would have had to previously. It just means now they have to deal with missiles instead of just Iranian backed terrorists planting IED's. It's a chance to put an end to Iranian interference in Iraqi internal affairs. They're the reason why the road to democracy has faced so many obstacles. I suspect they are the ones responsible for financing all the mosque bombings.

We saved your butts in WWII along with the whole world, I think a little recognition is deserved here. Russia and America saved the world and then Russia and America saved the world from each other. Now it will be America and China in the next century.
How kind of them. Would it be wrong of me to point out here that if they'd blown seven shades of uranium flavoured shit out of each other, many of the problems in the world today wouldn't be around, and the worst thing we'd be facing is irradiated meat?

The should build wind turbines. It's time to start looking for sustainable 'clean' alternative energy, instead of polluting the planet with dangerous nuclear energy. Think about future generations, &c.

1) i)That is absolute bull and you know it. ii)The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective.
2) Civilian's are innocent and are not legitimiate targets in war
3) And your opinion does make a difference? Iran's going to stop enriching uranium because you say so?
1) What strictly military target could have been chosen? Japan's territory was limited at that point to the home islands. They had been driven out of the rest of the islands that they conquered and built military bases on. And as I stated before, little distinction was made in WWII between military and civilian targets by everyone involved.

2) According to our current point of view, but not back then. Germany sent V1 and V2 rockets to randomly bomb England. Also they used conventional airplane-dropped bombs against London and other heavily populated areas. British and American planes bombed German cities. American air power incinerated Tokyo and other cities. Japanese troops brutalized Koran and Chinese civilians. There really was little distinction made between civilian and military targets back then.

3) Iran's going to stop because they'll be forced to do so one way or the other.

We saved your butts in WWII along with the whole world, I think a little recognition is deserved here. Russia and America saved the world and then Russia and America saved the world from each other. Now it will be America and China in the next century.

Yeah, but you guys would be speaking French if it wasn't for us. We don't owe America wars, or the right to be a superpower, or the ability to "wage wars for resources when they become scarse."

We saved your butts in WWII along with the whole world, I think a little recognition is deserved here. Russia and America saved the world and then Russia and America saved the world from each other. Now it will be America and China in the next century.

You took enough fucking time. Waited for that brilliant attack at Pearl Harbour first. I think a really lovely touch was how you kept having business dealings with the nazis.

We saved your butts in WWII along with the whole world, I think a little recognition is deserved here.

I'm an American, and I'm sick of people like you puffing up your chest with this crap.

First, it's arrogant when you say "we" when you're not even old enough to drink liquor, let alone have fought in the war.

Second, "we" didn't fight the war so that later on, America could get recognition and ass-kissing on online forum pissing contests. That wasn't the goal

So quit using the deaths of brave American soldiers just so you can try to make like you have the biggest dick, OK?

I know that we British are Ignorant, but America has inherited it so well, it makes me want to cry.

Why the hell does it matter tha you maintian militAY DOMINANCE? Has it ever occurred that your existence in your wacked up country is one to save the resyt of the world?

I pity you.
I explained why military dominance was necessary. To fight wars for dwindling resources if it becomes necessary. As for the rest of your post, It doesn't make much sense.

1) What strictly military target could have been chosen? Japan's territory was limited at that point to the home islands. They had been driven out of the rest of the islands that they conquered and built military bases on. And as I stated before, little distinction was made in WWII between military and civilian targets by everyone involved.

2) According to our current point of view, but not back then. Germany sent V1 and V2 rockets to randomly bomb England. Also they used conventional airplane-dropped bombs against London and other heavily populated areas. British and American planes bombed German cities. American air power incinerated Tokyo and other cities. Japanese troops brutalized Koran and Chinese civilians. There really was little distinction made between civilian and military targets back then.

3) Iran's going to stop because they'll be forced to do so one way or the other.

1 & 2)That doesn't justify it though does it? Everyone did it so it was alright? It was still a really disgusting thing to do.

3)But they have the legal right to enrich uranium for civilian power plants...

I'm an American, and I'm sick of people like you puffing up your chest with this crap.

First, it's arrogant when you say "we" when you're not even old enough to drink liquor, let alone have fought in the war.

Second, "we" didn't fight the war so that later on, America could get recognition and ass-kissing on online forum pissing contests. That wasn't the goal

So quit using the deaths of brave American soldiers just so you can try to make like you have the biggest dick, OK?
Well said, I always think we should pay tribute to those soldiers who ran up a beach in France to free countries most would have never been to.

The should build wind turbines. It's time to start looking for sustainable 'clean' alternative energy, instead of polluting the planet with dangerous nuclear energy. Think about future generations, &c.
Nah, they're in the Middle East. Solar energy all the way.

3) Iran's going to stop because they'll be forced to do so one way or the other.
If America's going to do the forcing, maybe it should stop being so hypocritical and force Israel and India to shut down and disarm their nuclear programmes too.

If I'm not mistaken Australia's the world's largest coal exporter and has copper and other resources. Why aren't you considering living in Australia?
Because I believe they have nukes as well and they're consistant stand has been to back teh US on just about everything - which was fine until we elected this idiot.

How kind of them. Would it be wrong of me to point out here that if they'd blown seven shades of uranium flavoured shit out of each other, many of the problems in the world today wouldn't be around, and the worst thing we'd be facing is irradiated meat?

What problems are because of us now?

The should build wind turbines. It's time to start looking for sustainable 'clean' alternative energy, instead of polluting the planet with dangerous nuclear energy. Think about future generations, &c.

Solar Tower, Hydrogen market, fusion power, wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, solar power, hydroelectric....all of these are here or on the way.

1 & 2)That doesn't justify it though does it? Everyone did it so it was alright? It was still a really disgusting thing to do.

3)But they have the legal right to enrich uranium for civilian power plants...
What justified it was that it brought the desired end to the war without an invasion which could well have cost more lives, both Japanese and American than Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost.

They do have that right under international law, but I don't trust them and would demand constant and detailed inspections plus I would demand that their spent fuel be sent somewhere else instead of being reprocessed locally to yield plutonium.

If America's going to do the forcing, maybe it should stop being so hypocritical and force Israel and India to shut down and disarm their nuclear programmes too.
It's not hypocritical to allow those who don't threaten you to be armed and to deny weapons to those who do threaten you. It's just sensible.

What justified it was that it brought the desired end to the war without an invasion which could well have cost more lives, both Japanese and American than Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost.

With conscription, I suppose the moral line between civilian and military can become less definite. But I don't think civilian lives should be compared to the lives of soldiers.

Resources will never become scare as long as America is in power. We are carrying the entire world's vision of fusion power on us basically. Also we've been making EXTREME strides and have DEVELOPED COLD FUSION.

America is the country that is going to end up saving the world at this rate. Sure we want dominance, but I'd push for a United Earth. :P
really? Because the president of the school of physics at the California Institute of Technology, one of the two or three top technology schools in the world seems unaware of this. :confused:

He actually remarked about a year ago that, "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future... and always will be."

If America's going to do the forcing, maybe it should stop being so hypocritical and force Israel and India to shut down and disarm their nuclear programmes too.
Israel and India, unlike Iran, are not threatening war, are not threatening to wipe other nations off the map, are not threatening genocide, and are not threatening nuclear war.

I'm an American, and I'm sick of people like you puffing up your chest with this crap.

First, it's arrogant when you say "we" when you're not even old enough to drink liquor, let alone have fought in the war.

Second, "we" didn't fight the war so that later on, America could get recognition and ass-kissing on online forum pissing contests. That wasn't the goal

So quit using the deaths of brave American soldiers just so you can try to make like you have the biggest dick, OK?


What is your problem, I was defending America and even though we have a push for military dominance we indeed DID save the world. I'm an American and if needed will serve in the military also in the best way I can. I am not making light of the sarcifice of the people before me (and yes I am old enogh to join the military, its 18 (or even before) not 21).

I think it is infact cruel to make fun of America with what he said, and I don't like that, so I stated what we did was actually true.

I think it is infact cruel to make fun of America with what he said, and I don't like that, so I stated what we did was actually true.

Why so?

Resources will never become scare as long as America is in power. We are carrying the entire world's vision of fusion power on us basically. Also we've been making EXTREME strides and have DEVELOPED COLD FUSION.

America is the country that is going to end up saving the world at this rate. Sure we want dominance, but I'd push for a United Earth. :P

I've never read such shite. The British are the ones who developed cold fusion, and most fusion research is going on at CERN, which is a facility in the Alps (as I'm sure you know, the USA puts a fair amount of money into this).

The EU has everyone breathing down its neck for fusion - we've got it working for scant seconds, but it took so much energy to do that it was hardly worth it.



Oh and @ DCD - If you didn't have such wasted spending on the military then you could probably already have renewable everything, and would hence not need to fight for resources.

Also, using tanks and planes to fight for resources is crazy. Do you know the fuel consumption of those things?

Also, your attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki left vast amounts of land to this day. Invading, at the price of more lives, I know, would have saved that land. Japan doesn't exactly have space to give to craters and irradiated wasteland.

*edits* @ Asbena -

What the fuck are you talking about? You didn't save the world at all.

I think it is infact cruel to make fun of America with what he said, and I don't like that, so I stated what we did was actually true.

No, you were just taking pride in something to which you contributed nothing and being really arrogant.

What is your problem, I was defending America

Typing on a message board =/= defending America

I am not making light of the sarcifice of the people before me (and yes I am old enogh to join the military, its 18 (or even before) not 21).

18 =/= fought in WWII

really? Because the president of the school of physics at the California Institute of Technology, one of the two or three top technology schools in the world seems unaware of this. :confused:

He actually remarked about a year ago that, "Nuclear fusion is the energy source of the future... and always will be."

Cold fusion exists now. Its not self-sustaining yet (still some problems with it) though we HAVE done it. We are far closer to this energy source then we have been in the past 50 years. What we thought was IMPOSSIBLE and two scientist were frauds we have infact uncovered to be true and very possible.

Cold fusion will probably replace regular fusion reactors until we can get energy from the reactor as a net gain. Then all these stupid fission reactors can be shut down. XD

Israel and India, unlike Iran, are not threatening war, are not threatening to wipe other nations off the map, are not threatening genocide, and are not threatening nuclear war.

Isreal and India are already practially in a state of war, Isreal wants to wipe out Palestine and India wants to wipe out the Pakistanis.

Why doesn't the USA disarm, too?

It's not hypocritical to allow those who don't threaten you to be armed and to deny weapons to those who do threaten you. It's just sensible.
Is it sensible to allow nuclear weapons to a country with a history of war against its neighbour(s)? Or one that is in perpetual dispute over its 'own' territory?

Israel and India, unlike Iran, are not threatening war, are not threatening to wipe other nations off the map, are not threatening genocide, and are not threatening nuclear war.
India and the Kashmir situation? Israel and Palestine? They may not be threatening war, but they're never far away from it.

I never said I personally saved the world, jeeze. >.>
America as a whole did. Maybe a little arrogant, but I bet I could easily find information to prove that America alone did more then its fair share of fighting and that helped establish us as we are today in the world as a superpower.

<snip>



Oh and @ DCD - If you didn't have such wasted spending on the military then you could probably already have renewable everything, and would hence not need to fight for resources.

Also, using tanks and planes to fight for resources is crazy. Do you know the fuel consumption of those things?

Also, your attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki left vast amounts of land to this day. Invading, at the price of more lives, I know, would have saved that land. Japan doesn't exactly have space to give to craters and irradiated wasteland.
I agree that if more money was put into alternative energy and efficient technology research we'd be much better off long term, but that wasn't done. Our leaders failed us. Still, that doesn't mean we're giving up our standard of living without a fight.

There are vast tracts of land uninhabitable in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I thought radiation levels had dropped to near normal there?

Question 12. Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?
The practical answer is, "No."

People often ask, "If uranium and plutonium pose a potential hazard in nuclear waste sites and were present at dangerous levels in the environment following the Chernobyl nuclear accident, why aren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki still uninhabitable?"

There are two ways residual radioactivity is produced from an atomic blast. The first is due to fallout of the fission products or the nuclear material itself--uranium or plutonium (uranium was used for the Hiroshima bomb whereas plutonium was used for the Nagasaki bomb)--that contaminate the ground. Similar ground contamination occurred as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident, but on a much larger scale (click here for more-detailed explanation). The second way residual radioactivity is produced is by neutron irradiation of soil or buildings (neutron activation), causing non-radioactive materials to become radioactive.

Fallout.The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs exploded at altitudes of 500 to 600 meters, then formed huge fireballs that rose with the ascending air currents. About 10% of the nuclear material in the bombs underwent fission; the remaining 90% rose in the atmosphere with the fireball. Subsequently, the material cooled down and some of it started to fall with rain (black rain) in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, but probably most of the remaining uranium or plutonium was dispersed widely in the atmosphere. Because of the wind, the rain did not fall directly on the hypocenters but rather in the northwest region (Koi, Takasu area) of Hiroshima and the eastern region (Nishiyama area) of Nagasaki. As for contamination with plutonium, early measurements in Nagasaki showed levels of radioactivity far below the levels of radioactivity from cesium-137, which is one of the fission products of uranium or plutonium and contributed most to radiation from fallout. Attempts to measure uranium in Hiroshima were difficult to interpret due to low levels of radioactivity. Nowadays, the radioactivity is so miniscule that it is difficult to distinguish from trace amounts (including plutonium) of radioactivity caused by worldwide fallout from atmospheric (as opposed to underground) atomic-bomb tests that were conducted around the world in past decades, particularly in the 1950's and 1960's.

Neutron activation. Neutrons comprised 10% or less of the A-bomb radiation, whereas gamma rays comprised the majority of A-bomb radiation. Neutrons cause ordinary, non-radioactive materials to become radioactive, but gamma rays do not. The bombs were detonated far above ground, so neutron induction of radioactivity on the ground did not produce the degree of contamination people associate with nuclear test sites (Nevada test site in Southwest US, Maralinga test site in South Australia, Bikini and Mururoa Atolls, etc.). As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki proper, the longest-lasting induced radionuclide that occurred in amounts sufficient to cause concern was cesium-134 (with a half-life of about 2 years). Most of the induced radioactivities from various radionuclides decayed very quickly so that it now takes considerable time and effort to measure it using highly sensitive equipment. Despite such miniscule levels, measurements of residual radioactivity using recently developed ultra-sensitive techniques have been utilized to estimate neutron doses released from the bombs and have formed part of the basis of the latest atomic-bomb dosimetry (DS02).

Although the levels of residual radioactivity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were initially high, they declined quickly and are now far less than the dose received from background radiation. Hence, there is no detectable effect of present-day residual radiation on human health. In fact, today both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities with large populations.

http://www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/faqs/faqse.htm#faq12

Cold fusion exists now. Its not self-sustaining yet (still some problems with it) though we HAVE done it. We are far closer to this energy source then we have been in the past 50 years. What we thought was IMPOSSIBLE and two scientist were frauds we have infact uncovered to be true and very possible.

Cold fusion will probably replace regular fusion reactors until we can get energy from the reactor as a net gain. Then all these stupid fission reactors can be shut down. XD

And all the scientists in Europe, Asia and Australia who also help on this research - which is all it is - don't get a say in this, I assume?

Cold fusion exists now. Its not self-sustaining yet (still some problems with it) though we HAVE done it. We are far closer to this energy source then we have been in the past 50 years. What we thought was IMPOSSIBLE and two scientist were frauds we have infact uncovered to be true and very possible.
No it isn't.
Cold fusion will probably replace regular fusion reactors until we can get energy from the reactor as a net gain. Then all these stupid fission reactors can be shut down. XD
You need to read a little more. There is no such thing as a working fusion reactor. There are experimental hot fusion reactors but none have been able to sustain a reaction for longer than a few seconds and none has produced a surplus of energy. As for cold fusion there has never been a duplicable experiment. In anycase, all of these technologies rely heavily on oil to even be possible.

You're getting your science from pop science website and magazines. They very rarely reflect reality. The president of the one of the most presigious schools of physics, a school that, by the way, is at the forefront fusion research, would know about these things.

Isreal and India are already practially in a state of war, Isreal wants to wipe out Palestine and India wants to wipe out the Pakistanis.

Why doesn't the USA disarm, too?

The USA is dismantling its weapons along with Russia, in fact America is even helping Russia dispose of its chemical weapons that have turned to gel.

Although the nuclear missiles also store a good amount of uranium in them that can be used in a reactor and the demand for uranium is higher then the supply and shows no signs of changing.

Cold fusion exists now. Its not self-sustaining yet (still some problems with it) though we HAVE done it. We are far closer to this energy source then we have been in the past 50 years. What we thought was IMPOSSIBLE and two scientist were frauds we have infact uncovered to be true and very possible.

no i don't think so. only a few reactors (if even that many) on the planet are capable of yielding more energy than they put in, and the difference is minuscule. That is why the ITER Tokamak reactor is being built in France. All of the reactions occur at 10000K+ which is clearly not cold fusion. the only remaining possibility was bubblefusion, which was shown to be false only a few months ago.

so unless you know something I don't, i'm going to have to disagree.

I never said I personally saved the world, jeeze. >.>
America as a whole did. Maybe a little arrogant, but I bet I could easily find information to prove that America alone did more then its fair share of fighting and that helped establish us as we are today in the world as a superpower.

Yeah, but the USA didn't fight to be a superpower. It fought to defend its people from an external force. Becoming a superpower was the result of being the right people at the right time.

Being a superpower, however, does not give America the right to what, where and how it wants just because it wants to. Neither does Europe suddenly owe its existence to the USA for help in WW2. Allies help each other, and help never brings debt.

No it isn't.

You need to read a little more. There is no such thing as a working fusion reactor. There are experimental hot fusion reactors but none have been able to sustain a reaction for longer than a few seconds and none has produced a surplus of energy. As for cold fusion there has never been a duplicable experiment. In anycase, all of these technologies rely heavily on oil to even be possible.

You're getting your science from pop science website and magazines. They very rarely reflect reality. The president of the one of the most presigious schools of physics, a school that, by the way, is at the forefront fusion research, would know about these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
I'm afraid it exists now and a net heat release has been seen many many times already. Table-top cold fusion can even be done now on a desk with some machines. Its promising, but still a ways off from being able to replace nuclear fission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
I'm afraid it exists now and a net heat release has been seen many many times already. Table-top cold fusion can even be done now on a desk with some machines. Its promising, but still a ways off from being able to replace nuclear fission.
"The neutrality of this article is disputed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Cold_fusion

Yeah, but the USA didn't fight to be a superpower. It fought to defend its people from an external force. Becoming a superpower was the result of being the right people at the right time.

Being a superpower, however, does not give America the right to what, where and how it wants just because it wants to. Neither does Europe suddenly owe its existence to the USA for help in WW2. Allies help each other, and help never brings debt.

True. I don't like our bullying of other nations or many of our policies, I don't advocate it, but am under it still.



no i don't think so. only a few reactors (if even that many) on the planet are capable of yielding more energy than they put in, and the difference is minuscule. That is why the ITER Tokamak reactor is being built in France. All of the reactions occur at 10000K+ which is clearly not cold fusion. the only remaining possibility was bubblefusion, which was shown to be false only a few months ago.

so unless you know something I don't, i'm going to have to disagree.

Actually fusion has been seen to break-even and that is quite sad, though the ITER does hold some promise, I just wish Canada got off its butt and did it before quietly seemingly to abandon it.

Bubble-fusion is still conflicted....
In sonoluminescence, acoustic shock waves create temporary bubbles that collapse shortly after creation, producing very high temperatures and pressures. In 2002, Rusi P. Taleyarkhan reported the possibility that bubble fusion occurs in those collapsing bubbles (aka sono fusion). As of 2005, experiments to determine whether fusion is occurring give conflicting results. If fusion is occurring, it is because the local temperature and pressure are sufficiently high to produce hot fusion.

The USA is dismantling its weapons along with Russia, in fact America is even helping Russia dispose of its chemical weapons that have turned to gel.

Although the nuclear missiles also store a good amount of uranium in them that can be used in a reactor and the demand for uranium is higher then the supply and shows no signs of changing.

thermonuclear warheads are also composed of tritium, a highly unstable isotope of hydrogen. the US stockpile has been decaying since 1980(?) when the disarmament treaty was signed. so some warheads have been scavenged to rebuild other warheads.

"The neutrality of this article is disputed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Cold_fusion

What is your point?

I never said I personally saved the world, jeeze. >.>
America as a whole did. Maybe a little arrogant, but I bet I could easily find information to prove that America alone did more then its fair share of fighting and that helped establish us as we are today in the world as a superpower.

What established you as a superpower is taking away France and Britain's colonies and making both countries bankrupt. Thanks for that.

Also, you'd have to be some kind of gibbon to think that the USA did more than its fair share of fighting in WW2 and especially in WW1. You helped, yes, but Britain and France were fighting from day one, as were the Poles (note - the French and Poles' resistance groups, anyway), and fought right up until the end. You fought in your own little inconsequential theatre from 1942 and properly arrived in Europe in 1944. The war was over by then, whether you joined or not. The Soviets were on the offensive by that time and Hitler was buggered.


@ your other point - So why is the USA still building more nuclear armaments. You must know by now that you'll never be able to use them.


@ DCD -

The practical answer may be no, the actual answer is probably yes. And the craters caused would be more of a problem than the radiation in terms of how easy it is to live on the land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
I'm afraid it exists now and a net heat release has been seen many many times already. Table-top cold fusion can even be done now on a desk with some machines. Its promising, but still a ways off from being able to replace nuclear fission.

Ah, but it's unproven. We don't know how, why, or where it works. My Auntie's BF is working on that kind of thing (In a secret lab, to hide from oil conglomerates, no less!) and he says noone has any proof that fusion is causing the temerature rise.

Until someone can come up with a proven theory as to why this is "working" and duplicates successful results, which hasn't happened, it's just a guess.

What's this got to do with Iran now, anyway?

thermonuclear warheads are also composed of tritium, a highly unstable isotope of hydrogen. the US stockpile has been decaying since 1980(?) when the disarmament treaty was signed. so some warheads have been scavenged to rebuild other warheads.
Tritium is still being produced though. It's used in gun sights and for other applications that require an object to glow in the dark. How hard would it be to divert that tritium to nuclear weapon use?

What is your point?

Article is disputed, or biased. Trying to discredit your source. :p

What is your point?
That it's best not to judge your views on it. Especially when it says:

The fringe view that this phenomenon actually exists has been extremely active, while the scientific mainstream that does not believe it exists has been relatively absent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
I'm afraid it exists now and a net heat release has been seen many many times already. Table-top cold fusion can even be done now on a desk with some machines. Its promising, but still a ways off from being able to replace nuclear fission.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You need to get better sources for your energy information. I wikipedia article taht can be edited by anyone at all and that has no standard for truth is not a good source. You should try some physics journals or maybe even take a class or two. If you want to get more accurate scince from a really good laymen's magazine try:
http://www.sciam.com
It usually has the straight dope.

Ah, but it's unproven. We don't know how, why, or where it works. My Auntie's BF is working on that kind of thing (In a secret lab, to hide from oil conglomerates, no less!) and he says noone has any proof that fusion is causing the temerature rise.

Until someone can come up with a proven theory as to why this is "working" and duplicates successful results, which hasn't happened, it's just a guess.

What's this got to do with Iran now, anyway?

Odd tangent...hoping to kill it now.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/ppclkrs/index.htm
http://d2fusion.com/
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/aehodme/index.htm

Odd tangent...hoping to kill it now.

http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/ppclkrs/index.htm
http://d2fusion.com/
http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/ColdFusion/
http://jlnlabs.imars.com/cfr/aehodme/index.htm

Because if you read it on the internet, it must be true...

Odd tangent...hoping to kill it now.

the theoretical basis of bubble fusion is valid. the experiments themselves don't seem to be replicable on a consistent basis. it's been mostly judged wrong, which has cut its funding. (this comes from the journal Nature).

Because if you read it on the internet, it must be true...

I was hoping that you'd see it was full length text evidence, videos and reports from the scientists themselves and it matches the Wiki information I gave and even matches reports by magizines (which I was just told I couldn't use basically)

Is there anything you people ever believe?

I was hoping that you'd see it was full length text evidence, videos and reports from the scientists themselves and it matches the Wiki information I gave and even matches reports by magizines (which I was just told I couldn't use basically)

Is there anything you people ever believe?
i believe in the power of the Wiki! Go Wikipedia!

I was hoping that you'd see it was full length text evidence, videos and reports from the scientists themselves and it matches the Wiki information I gave and even matches reports by magizines (which I was just told I couldn't use basically)

Is there anything you people ever believe?
Hmmm...
You or This guy. (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/)
Wikipedia or This magazine. (http://www.sciam.com/)
Pop science websites or This organization. (http://www.iop.org/)

Sorry, you, wikipedia and pop science website lose. :)

What established you as a superpower is taking away France and Britain's colonies and making both countries bankrupt. Thanks for that.

Also, you'd have to be some kind of gibbon to think that the USA did more than its fair share of fighting in WW2 and especially in WW1. You helped, yes, but Britain and France were fighting from day one, as were the Poles (note - the French and Poles' resistance groups, anyway), and fought right up until the end. You fought in your own little inconsequential theatre from 1942 and properly arrived in Europe in 1944. The war was over by then, whether you joined or not. The Soviets were on the offensive by that time and Hitler was buggered.


@ your other point - So why is the USA still building more nuclear armaments. You must know by now that you'll never be able to use them.


@ DCD -

The practical answer may be no, the actual answer is probably yes. And the craters caused would be more of a problem than the radiation in terms of how easy it is to live on the land.

Damn straight. The Second World War was an allied effort that needed all of the major powers to work together to win against the Axis. The US did it's part, but it's so damned arrogant to think that it alone won the war.

Listen up Asbena. The US didn't save the world, nor WW2. It helped, I won't deny that. But the Russians did most of the fighting and took the most casualties and would have won despite our help. Britain was fighting for nearly three years before the US came in as well, as were the Free French and Polish and their resistance groups. So drop the damned arrogance, capiche?

i believe in the power of the Wiki! Go Wikipedia!

Yep!

Skinny87....
What about the Japanese Campaign? America fought on two fronts at the same time, without the American help in Europe Britain would have fallen and if Hitler didn't become paranoid by Russia and attack, Europe would have been COMPLETELY lost.

Hmmm...
You or This guy. (http://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/)
Wikipedia or This magazine.
Pop science websites or This organization. (http://www.iop.org/)

Sorry, you, wikipedia and pop science website lose. :)

Actually you lose. This information is old and out of date and it also appears to have been last updated in 2002. Since then the change has been completely seen and its noted in the writings which are HORRIBLY out of date. Citing information from as far back as 1989-1993.

I believe this is a sign that you are relying on out-dated information that is basically over a decade old. I see no publications by this doctor in the past 6 years and no follow-up on cold fusion.

Like I said, the US did it's bit, and well. I don't doubt that US equipment and arms aided the allies in their campaigns. But, you didn't win the war. The USSR would have done that eventually, even if it had taken a few more years. If Hitler hadn't have attacked, Stalin would have in early '42. Add on a few more years for reversals, and it still would have been a Soviet victory.

You helped, often in large ways. Your contriubtion, however, was not the end all and be all of the war.

EDIT: Also, don't forget the British and Commonwealth campaigns in SEA. After a few years of hardship, we more than did our bit there. It wasn't entirely an American campaign, you know.

Never said that.....but if you waited a few years....you don't want to know what info I have that would have all but ensured the axis a sure-win situation.

(I do simulations and stuff like this for fun. XD)

Though back onto the topic....I hope...
If Iran gets nuclear missiles.....wouldn't that just make them a dangerous enemy for anyone on their bad side, in an already troubled nation?

Really? I'm an avid alternate-history buff and military historian. Exactly what evidence do you have that would lead to an Axis victory? The Nazi A-Bomb perhaps? The V-3 and beyond programs stopped by the Russian advances? What, exactly?

Seriously...I want this thread back on track before a mod gets in....I'll follow you to a new thread if you make such one. Though be prepared for multi-scenario event system. :o

Seriously...I want this thread back on track before a mod gets in....I'll follow you to a new thread if you make such one. Though be prepared for multi-scenario event system. :o

Deal: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10740653#post10740653

I'll delete a few of my last posts.

Iran Hits Milestone in Nuclear Technology
25 minutes ago


"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he told an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in the northwestern holy city of Mashhad. The crowd broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some stood and thrust their fists in the air.

And liberals and muslim extremist around the world rejoice.

Yep!

Skinny87....
What about the Japanese Campaign? America fought on two fronts at the same time, without the American help in Europe Britain would have fallen and if Hitler didn't become paranoid by Russia and attack, Europe would have been COMPLETELY lost.

I'm pretty sure Hitler would have been assassinated within a few months and then the third reich would have collapsed.

Actually you lose. This information is old and out of date and it also appears to have been last updated in 2002. Since then the change has been completely seen and its noted in the writings which are HORRIBLY out of date. Citing information from as far back as 1989-1993.

I believe this is a sign that you are relying on out-dated information that is basically over a decade old. I see no publications by this doctor in the past 6 years and no follow-up on cold fusion.
What are you talking about? This was just to show you what a credible source is so that you might be able to recognize one in the future. I wasn't linking to those sites for you to find specific information.

Europe would have been COMPLETELY lost.
Oh, forget to add this bit; of course, the USA would have been perfectly happy to deal with the Nazis and probably supply them with weapons to defeat any remnants of resistance.

Well, that's the way it is when you're the biggest thug on the cell block. Right now we're on top, and we can make Iran our bitch if we want to.Maybe thats why they need nukes.. to stop the thug (they do not want to be our bitch)

Maybe thats why they need nukes.. to stop the thug (they do not want to be our bitch)
Well, we're not going to let them get nukes.

Well, we're not going to let them get nukes.define "we"

define "we"
The USA.

Well, we're not going to let them get nukes.just before we further discuss you statement.. Let me ask you a simple question:

Are you enlisted?

just before we further discuss you statement.. Let me ask you a simple question:

Are you enlisted?
Nope. I'm just a cog in the wheel of the US economy.

Okay. so iran will have nuclear power stations. sooooooo.

This is what you get for tinkering around behind-the-scenes in world affairs for most of the 20th century, hunting for commies.

Kiss my heinie, America. You're the authors of all your apparent misfortunes - just don't go presuming you'll drag all the rest of us down with you when you stumble and fall face first into that looming King Kong-esque turd.