NationStates Jolt Archive

U.S. Says: Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days.
(Update2)
Bloomberg,Iran; defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
...
`Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
-- OcceaNNews©2006--
April 12 2006

Comment: holy Gacamoly :D
(BTW No. I do not Trust US Gov)

We can do it in a week:p

Iran is not going to make nukes.

This reminds me so much of "45 minutes" it's incredible! :D

We can do it in a week:pNeverlands?

Iran is not going to make nukes.It is up to them now.. isn't It?

This reminds me so much of "45 minutes" it's incredible! :DInteresante
I was thinking the same thing.

Neverlands?
Netherlands:p

I know..
BTW, Good luck with Argentina
Thanks:)

Netherlands:pI know.
BTW, Good @ the Group of Death.. Ill root for orange.

16 days until WWIII. Goody.

This reminds me so much of "45 minutes" it's incredible! :D

Yes. That bs worked last time, why waste time coming up with something new?

At least they learnt in the meantime. "16 days" sounds just a bit less fishy than "45 minutes".

wow, did i quoted you before your post?:confused:

This reminds me so much of "45 minutes" it's incredible! :D

Snap!:p

Iran is not going to make nukes.

care to back this up?

U.S. Says: Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days.
(Update2)
Bloomberg,Iran; defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
...
`Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
-- OcceaNNews©2006--
April 12 2006

Comment: holy Gacamoly :D
(BTW No. I do not Trust US Gov)
This is about as credible as the "45 minute-missile" claim. The US has been hyping up the "threat" from Iran for months now.

care to back this up?it cannot be proven.. he is talking about the future.

Let me put it this way: He is making a "prediction"

If they do, good for them. They have every right to enjoy nuclear capability.

If they do, good for them. They have every right to enjoy nuclear capability.
The problem with religious fundamentalists is that they tend to love apocalypse fantasies. They might use their weapons to realise them.

U.S. Says: Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days.
(Update2)
Bloomberg,Iran; defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
...
`Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
-- OcceaNNews©2006--
April 12 2006

Comment: holy Gacamoly :D
(BTW No. I do not Trust US Gov)
That's ok, it doesn't trust you either! :p

Here's another article on this same topic:

I was merciful and only quoted the first page! ;)

Iran's Defiance Narrows U.S. Options for Response (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/12/AR2006041201967.html)

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 13, 2006; Page A18

As Iran takes a step closer to developing nuclear capacity, President Bush finds his options ever more constricted. The Iranians seem unfazed by U.N. statements. The Russians and Chinese won't go along with economic sanctions. And the generals at the Pentagon hate the idea of a military strike.

The White House declared yesterday that "it is time for action" by the U.N. Security Council, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on it to take "strong steps" to force Tehran to abandon uranium enrichment. But even as Europeans, Russians and Chinese expressed disapproval of Iran's latest move, there were no signs of consensus on what to do about it.

The central problem for Bush, according to aides and analysts, is that Iran has proved impervious so far to the diplomatic levers Washington and its partners have been willing to use. Some administration officials have grown increasingly skeptical that a solution can be found, raising the prospect that, like North Korea before it, a second member of the trio of rogue states Bush once dubbed the "axis of evil" may ultimately develop a nuclear bomb over U.S. objections.

Bush is especially frustrated with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has abandoned negotiations with the Europeans and defied international pressure while talking of wiping Israel "off the map." Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, complained during an appearance yesterday in Houston that it is hard to find a diplomatic resolution because Ahmadinejad "is not a rational human being."

That has left Bush with few attractive alternatives. "At this point, your options seem to be not good and scarce," said Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Your other option is living with it . . . and I think that's what will happen."

"Their Plan A is to put incremental pressure on Iran so it will cave," said retired Air Force Col. P.J. Crowley, a National Security Council aide under President Bill Clinton who now works at the liberal Center for American Progress. "And there is no Plan B."

Iran escalated the standoff by announcing that it has enriched uranium in a 164-centrifuge network to 3.5 percent. If true, the achievement would be a milestone but not one that necessarily makes a bomb imminent. Iran has insisted it wants nuclear energy for civilian purposes. Weapons-grade uranium would have to be enriched to at least 80 percent and would need thousands of centrifuges operating in tandem.

Iran reiterated yesterday that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in Natanz within a year and declared it would eventually expand to 54,000. Making so many centrifuges work together is especially tricky, according to scientists. Acting Assistant Secretary of State Stephen G. Rademaker told reporters in Moscow yesterday that, once built, a 3,000-centrifuge cascade could produce enough highly enriched uranium to build a bomb within 271 days. A 50,000-centrifuge cascade, he said, would need 16 days to yield enough fissile material.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed to Tehran, and his inspectors are expected to report on whether the Iranian claims are true. But the announcement electrified the diplomatic circuit and highlighted the challenge to Bush. British, French and German officials all criticized Iran for "going in precisely the wrong direction," as German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier put it. Russia and China also called the development unwelcome but still resisted a tough U.N. response.

Andrei Denisov, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, counseled restraint and said "it is not high time" to reach a judgment about Iran's ultimate nuclear aims. In an interview, Denisov said Moscow is concerned about reports that the Bush administration is studying military options and remains skeptical of sanctions. "We don't like sanctions, we don't like imposing any forceful settlement. It must be political and diplomatic."

The Security Council in a presidential statement last month gave Iran 30 days to suspend uranium enrichment, a deadline that expires April 28, but it threatened no consequences if Tehran disobeys. Rice said yesterday that the latest announcement means the council must do more to enforce its will.

"I do think that the Security Council will need to take into consideration this move by Iran and that it will be time when it reconvenes on this case for strong steps to make certain we maintain the credibility of the international community," she said. White House press secretary Scott McClellan would not discuss those steps, "but you can be assured that it needs to be more than just a presidential statement at this point."

The problem with religious fundamentalists is that they tend to love apocalypse fantasies. They might use their weapons to realise them.

Or, alternatively, they might use their newfound capabilities to create nuclear power-plants and take better care of the world their God made them the caretakers of.

This is about as credible as the "45 minute-missile" claim. The US has been hyping up the "threat" from Iran for months now.
I guess that goes for Russia and China too now, eh? :p

The problem with religious fundamentalists is that they tend to love apocalypse fantasies. They might use their weapons to realise them.

A few talking heads in the government are religious fundamentalists. Does the President of Iran speak for 100% of the Iranian people? Does George Bush speak for you?

That's odd... I just read on the BBC that Iran only has a hundred or two hundred centrifuges... nowhere near enough to make a nuclear bomb any time soon. I'd be interested to see where this figure of 50000 comes from.

it cannot be proven.. he is talking about the future.

Let me put it this way: He is making a "prediction"

Let me put it this way, he made a statement of fact. "Iran will not make nukes." That is a statement of fact. He needs to back it up.

For some reason, the title of this thread reminds me of an amusing quote from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan:

McCoy: The Bible says that God made the world in six days. But wait, here comes Genesis! We'll do it for you in six minutes!

As for how this situation will resolve: I seriously doubt it will end in anything but war.

A few talking heads in the government are religious fundamentalists. Does the President of Iran speak for 100% of the Iranian people? Does George Bush speak for you?
Not necessarily, but as long as he's President, he speaks for the American government. Small but crutial difference.

Let me put it this way, he made a statement of fact. "Iran will not make nukes." That is a statement of fact. He needs to back it up.(because its a prediction) both sides of the issue cannot be "backed up".

#1 Iran will make Nukes in 16 days(weeks or whatever).

#2 Iran will not make nukes.

They are both impossible to prove. How can you prove what will happen in the Future?
by definition It is impossible.

So what! The US government holds a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, but they're not happy with anyone else holding these type of weapons. OK, it's best if they're not left in the hands of lunatics, but if Iran wants to develop nuclear technology, then what right does the US government have in sticking their nose into it. If they can prove that Iran are developing this technology purely to use it to kill, then fair enough, do what they can to stop it, but if the Iranians say they're building a nuclear power station, whoa are we to stick our nose where it doesn't belong. A little trust goes a long way, you know. Is it just me or does anyone else think that the US government are a pile of hypocrits?!?

Iran is not going to make nukes.
Right, that's why they were found in posession of instructions for constructing a nuclear weapons test facility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020702126.html

Right, that's why they were found in posession of instructions for constructing a nuclear weapons test facility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020702126.html

I have instructions on how to make a proper noose to hang black folk with. Doesn't mean I'm going to do it.

I have a great many books on a great many things.

So what?

I have instructions on how to make a proper noose to hang black folk with. Doesn't mean I'm going to do it.

I have a great many books on a great many things.

So what?
So having that information makes you more likely to be a Klansman. Buying rope and yelling death to N_____s would clinch it.

So having that information makes you more likely to be a Klansman. Buying rope and yelling death to N_____s would clinch it.

But they're not buying rope and yelling "Death to N*'s", they're enriching Uranium and yelling "Death to Jews". Oh, wait......

Everyone here seems to be freaking out about this "16 days" BS. but, thanks to Eut, if anyone were to actually read the article he posted you would have seen this...

"Iran reiterated yesterday that it plans to construct 3,000 centrifuges at its facility in Natanz within a year and declared it would eventually expand to 54,000."

50,000 centrifuges are what is required to enrich enough uranium to make a weapon within 16 days!!

So, if one does the math, that leaves at least a year, or two, or five before they can even start building anything but the power plant they said they wanted to develop.

they're enriching Uranium and yelling "Death to Jews". Oh, wait......

Enriching Uranium, yes ... I've never seen them yelling "Death to Jews". Evidence, please, that there's a "Death to Jews" policy in Iran.

As a matter of fact, I bet Rabbi Yousef Hamadani-Cohen, Iran's Chief Rabbi, would be very interested in hearing about this "Death to Jews" policy as well.

Enriching Uranium, yes ... I've never seen them yelling "Death to Jews". Evidence, please, that there's a "Death to Jews" policy in Iran.
More like Death to America.

More like Death to America.

Well who *doesn't* want that? We're the big thug in the yard.

Enriching Uranium, yes ... I've never seen them yelling "Death to Jews". Evidence, please, that there's a "Death to Jews" policy in Iran.

Fine, "death to Israel".

There is persecution:

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2000/july_2000/jews_sentenced_1700.html

http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2000/july_2000/jews_sentenced_1700.html

The US executes spies, too, you know.

In this case, though, the spies were not executed. Fancy that.

You'll also notice two Muslims were also sentenced and three Jews acquitted.

The US executes spies, too, you know.

In this case, though, the spies were not executed. Fancy that.

Now try reading the entire article and see who else denounced the "verdict" and the reaction of the Iranian Jewish community.

Now try reading the entire article and see who else denounced the "verdict" and the reaction of the Iranian Jewish community.

So some assholes hate Jews in Iran. Same goes for here in the States.

www.jewwatch.com

Doesn't make it government policy.

Also, read the edited version of my post.

So some assholes hate Jews in Iran. Same goes for here in the States.

www.jewwatch.com

Doesn't make it government policy.

Also, read the edited version of my post.

So the Gov't sponsors terrorists against a JEWISH state and has shown persecution against its own.

Also, read the entire article. Muslims were indicted AFTER it came out that only Jews were being prosecuted.

That's odd... I just read on the BBC that Iran only has a hundred or two hundred centrifuges... nowhere near enough to make a nuclear bomb any time soon. I'd be interested to see where this figure of 50000 comes from.
They don't have them yet - they have the SPACE for them. As it stands, it's many many years before Iran could produce a bomb, assuming they want to.
Drunk Commies, I have instructions (albeit vague) on how to make a nuclear bomb - hell, they're on the internet (Nuclear Weapons FAQ) and in The Sum of All Fears. Also, the US sold Russian nuclear secrets to Iran...

Also, read the entire article. Muslims were indicted AFTER it came out that only Jews were being prosecuted.

Methinks you're being paranoid. You have no reason to hate Iran or Iranians. They have nothing against Jews or Jewish people and, for the most part, have nothing againsy Israel except Israeli occupation of Palestinian land (which is being rectified as we speak).

Look, I am a Jew and I still trust Iran more than I trust the US.

Methinks you're being paranoid. You have no reason to hate Iran or Iranians. They have nothing against Jews or Jewish people and, for the most part, have nothing againsy Israel except Israeli occupation of Palestinian land (which is being rectified as we speak).

Look, I am a Jew and I still trust Iran more than I trust the US.

Did I say I "hate" Iran or Iranians? No.

You really need to take your blinders off. The leader of the country has proposed wiping Isreal off the map etc. and is a holocaust denier. He is supported by thousands in the populace in Gov't sponsored anti-israel demonstrations. They don't allow "moderates" to even run in their elections.

By their own admission, they are developing nuclear capable weapons that can hit Isreal while at the same time developing a nuclear program.

You've also gone from pretending to be US military to having a hate-on for it and the US and an apologist for violent extremists.

I did a little bit of research. Heres what I found.

The person who says Iran can make a nuke in 16 days is Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation. Stephen Rademaker works for Robert Joseph. That's the same Robert Joseph who was charged with muscling the CIA into letting President Bush say that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa in the 2003 State of the Union Address (which we all now know was a heaping pile of steaming bullshit). He actually managed to get it done, even after the Alan Foley and others at the CIA told him repeatedly they didn't think it was true.

This 16 day crap is not very credible.

Speaking of the number 16...
The president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.

It is all quite symbolic.

U.S. Says: Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days.


Shock and Awe works both ways.

You really need to take your blinders off. The leader of the country has proposed wiping Isreal off the map etc. and is a holocaust denier.

So? The leader of my country says a magical sky fairy called him to be President. Doesn't make us all nuts.

By their own admission, they are developing nuclear capable weapons that can hit Isreal while at the same time developing a nuclear program.

Again, so what? Just because they have them, doesn't mean they'll use them. The US is the only country who has used nukes.

You've also gone from pretending to be US military to having a hate-on for it and the US and an apologist for violent extremists.

A few posts here and there means nothing. I never seriously pretended to be military and, cripes man, that was nearly 2 years ago. Let it go. Everyone else has.

As for being an apologist for violent extremists, you're wrong there too. You've yet to show any proof that Iran is violently extreme. They've done nothing but talk. Talk is cheap. If they wanted war with Israel, they wouldn't need nukes to do it. They have conventional weapons, you know.

The leader of Iran is a man who is pretty open with his hatred. He thinks Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth (I, personally, don't think it should have ever existed), and that the holocaust never happened. Why would he lie about making nukes for destructive purposes? I think he is crazy enough to say "Yeah I'm making nukes, you got beef?"

Besides, Iran has not done anything to violate the NPT yet.

So? The leader of my country says a magical sky fairy called him to be President. Doesn't make us all nuts.

Does he march down the street w/ thousands in Gov't sponsored parades calling for countries to be "wiped off the map"?



Again, so what? Just because they have them, doesn't mean they'll use them. The US is the only country who has used nukes.


Is the US calling for countries to be "wiped off the map"?

"Our answer to those who are angry about Iran obtaining the full nuclear cycle is one phrase, we say: Be angry and die of this anger," he said late on Wednesday, in comments reported by the official IRNA news agency."

Who said that now?



A few posts here and there means nothing. I never seriously pretended to be military and, cripes man, that was nearly 2 years ago. Let it go. Everyone else has.

Not when you continue to make generalized derogatory statements about the military. It also was a lot more recent than "two years", that's for sure.

As for being an apologist for violent extremists, you're wrong there too. You've yet to show any proof that Iran is violently extreme. They've done nothing but talk. Talk is cheap. If they wanted war with Israel, they wouldn't need nukes to do it. They have conventional weapons, you know.


They openly support violent terrorist groups against Israel and are developing conventional weapons as well while holding Gov't sponsored Anti-Israel days which seem to be well supported.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

A US state department spokesperson said it...it must be true!

Does he march down the street w/ thousands in Gov't sponsored parades calling for countries to be "wiped off the map"?

Uhhh ... yeah. Afghanistan and Iraq, plus he spoke before Congress of the "Axis of Evil".

Not when you continue to make generalized derogatory statements about the military. It also was a lot more recent than "two years", that's for sure.

Yeah, it was nearly two years ago. Waaay back in 2004 and I've apologized for it ... 10,000 posts ago. The fact that you can't accept the apology doesn't matter to me. I'm over it. If you're not, well, life is hard. Buy a helmet.

They openly support violent terrorist groups against Israel

Proof, please.

Uhhh ... yeah. Afghanistan and Iraq, plus he spoke before Congress of the "Axis of Evil".

Uhh, no. Show me where he said those countries needed to be destroyed or wiped off the map. Try again.



Yeah, it was nearly two years ago. Waaay back in 2004 and I've apologized for it ... 10,000 posts ago. The fact that you can't accept the apology doesn't matter to me. I'm over it. If you're not, well, life is hard. Buy a helmet.

Your 'apology' included praising the military which you now sweepingly condem on a regular basis. You say you "wait and see" while condemning them yet fawn all over countries like Iran who support terrorists just because they're predominantly Muslim.



Proof, please.

Oh my god. Are your blinders that thick? They openly support Hezbollah. Are linked to the attack on Kobar Towers, still maintain the fatwah against Rushdie. The list goes on.

Or, alternatively, they might use their newfound capabilities to create nuclear power-plants and take better care of the world their God made them the caretakers of.
Nuclear power plants are considered environmentally friendly now?

A few talking heads in the government are religious fundamentalists.
The talking heads are the ones who control the nuclear technology.

Does the President of Iran speak for 100% of the Iranian people?
Well, they elected him. They seem to happily live in a fundamentalist society most accurately likened to 15th century England.

Does George Bush speak for you?
I'm not an American, so no he doesn't.

So what! The US government holds a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, but they're not happy with anyone else holding these type of weapons.
Anyone else? The US seems to be rather tolerant of the seven other nuclear powers.

As a matter of fact, I bet Rabbi Yousef Hamadani-Cohen, Iran's Chief Rabbi, would be very interested in hearing about this "Death to Jews" policy as well.
I don't think that anyone without an anti-Jewish axe to grind denies the Holocast.

Look, I am a Jew and I still trust Iran more than I trust the US.

So do I, but only due to the former's lack of power.

I thought you were a Muslim. :confused:

So? The leader of my country says a magical sky fairy called him to be President. Doesn't make us all nuts.
You're the only one who's talking about generalising the inhabitants of entire countries. I'm talking about the government of Iran.

If they wanted war with Israel, they wouldn't need nukes to do it. They have conventional weapons, you know.
Israel is a nuclear power, so Iran needs those weapons to pose a threat to Israel.

Uhhh ... yeah. Afghanistan and Iraq, plus he spoke before Congress of the "Axis of Evil".
What? Those two countries still exist.

Look at it this way:

Israel has the bomb. Israel ignores the UN council. Israel has an openly racist attitude towards his muslim population. Israel has invaded neighbouring countries and is illegally occupying land that does not belong to them. And they have the bomb. Did I mention that they, the ennemy, have the bomb?

If I was in a position of authority in Iran, I would like to have the bobm too. Not to use it but to act as a deterrent to a hostile neighbour that is being backed by a hostile country that has just invaded left and right of me.

Seeing as the bomb looks like a good deterrent for North Korea, I'd be a fool not to seek it.

Iran is fighting for his survival from an invading force that uses the UN when it wants and ignores it when it does not. So, of course they're going to ignore the UN since every time they cooperated with the IAEA and the UN, the internationnal body got tougher in it's demands because it was used as a tool by some countries that want to keep their strategic advantage.

Having the bomb doesn't mean they'll use it though. Therein lies the difference. Israel has the bomb and they didn't push the red button when Iran said they should be wiped off the map. Why should it be different for Iran?

Oh my god. Are your blinders that thick? They openly support Hezbollah. Are linked to the attack on Kobar Towers, still maintain the fatwah against Rushdie. The list goes on.

I asked for proof. You didn't provide. Also, get with the times. The Rushdie fatwah has been recinded.

What? Those two countries still exist.

Not exactly. Iraq isn't what it used to be.

So some assholes hate Jews in Iran. Same goes for here in the States.

www.jewwatch.com

Doesn't make it government policy.

Also, read the edited version of my post.

Dude, thank you.

That website made me laugh my ass off. "Frank Weltner, M.A. English & Certified Librarian, Presents His Famous Scholarly Library of Factual Links Known Around the World", comedy gold.

Not exactly. Iraq isn't what it used to be.

Did he call for them to be wiped off the earth?

I asked for proof. You didn't provide. Also, get with the times. The Rushdie fatwah has been recinded.

Nah, the rushdie fatwa is still in effect I believe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4260599.stm

Dude, thank you.

That website made me laugh my ass off. "Frank Weltner, M.A. English & Certified Librarian, Presents His Famous Scholarly Library of Factual Links Known Around the World", comedy gold.

I was particularly pleased with the "This is not a hate site" line. Made me laugh.

Did he call for them to be wiped off the earth?

Not in so many words, but Bush makes very sure nothing can stick to him. He's better at that than Reagan ever was.

We already know he's a liar.

Erm, sanity check please. They could have enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in 16 days, with 50,000 centrifuges. They have 164 and plan to build 3,000. So that's consistent with a civilian nuclear programme, and if they wanted to build a nuke with that, it would take them forever and a day.

I think we can reasonably accuse the US government of chatting shit on this one.

Nah, the rushdie fatwa is still in effect I believe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4260599.stm

Huh ... oh I see ... it was recinded by "people not qualified" to recind it.

Meh ...

I asked for proof. You didn't provide. Also, get with the times. The Rushdie fatwah has been recinded.

Proof that you'll ignore, I'm sure:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9155/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1908671.stm
http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=3101

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/3/5764
http://www.michaelheiser.com/iran.htm

The Fatwa:

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1458

You have something new? Prove it.

Not in so many words, but Bush makes very sure nothing can stick to him. He's better at that than Reagan ever was.

We already know he's a liar.

You claimed he called for them to be destroyed. Now you're sidestepping.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b45/Norwinkie/image0262626.jpg

Erm, sanity check please. They could have enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in 16 days, with 50,000 centrifuges. They have 164 and plan to build 3,000. So that's consistent with a civilian nuclear programme, and if they wanted to build a nuke with that, it would take them forever and a day.

I think we can reasonably accuse the US government of chatting shit on this one.

You trust the word of the Iranian government more then you trust the American government? The viewpoints on this forum just keep getting crazier and crazier.

You trust the word of the Iranian government more then you trust the American government? The viewpoints on this forum just keep getting crazier and crazier.

At least the Iranian government is open and truthful in their hatred. The American government would be a little more credible if they just said "we are going to war in the middle east because we hate brown people." Hell, its more truthful than "9/11, WMDs, Al-Qaeda, yada yada yada..."

And the now-emerging mobile biological lab scandal further negates the credibility of the American gov.

You trust the word of the Iranian government more then you trust the American government? The viewpoints on this forum just keep getting crazier and crazier.

Well, let's examine the track record of the US government since, oh say 2003...

More than that Iran is at least being open about wanting to build these facilities. They're also open about wanting to maintain their soverignty, as any established nation would.

Right now I believe the words coming out of their mouths more than I believe the words of the shrub, Prick, Rummy, and anyone else associated with this government. They CAN earn my trust by dropping the constant lying and exadurating bit they seem to love so much.

They openly support violent terrorist groups against Israel and are developing conventional weapons as well while holding Gov't sponsored Anti-Israel days which seem to be well supported.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
Do you know what NORAID is? Glass house stone time!

The most trustworthy source of evidence that you gave, by the way, says that Hezbollah WERE funded. Not are, were. Meaning no longer funded. MIPT says they were as of 2004.

Anyways, as I said in a previous thread, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Unlike most terrorist organisations I know of, Hezbollah actually fight in the field - guerilla warfare, true, but war nonetheless.

Not exactly. Iraq isn't what it used to be.
Its government changed. Its borders did not change. It was not absorbed into the territory of another country.

Not in so many words, but Bush makes very sure nothing can stick to him. He's better at that than Reagan ever was.

We already know he's a liar.
OK, so while Bush didn't say Iraq should be wiped off the Earth, we know that he was thinking it. :rolleyes:

At least the Iranian government is open and truthful in their hatred. The American government would be a little more credible if they just said "we are going to war in the middle east because we hate brown people." Hell, its more truthful than "9/11, WMDs, Al-Qaeda, yada yada yada..."

Do you really think that the US has in the past five years launched two wars, spent some $300 billion and lost some 2,500 (mostly white) soldiers just because they wanted to kill lots of "brown people"?

If that was the goal they would be much more effective and much less costly to just drop nuclear bombs.

Well, let's examine the track record of the US government since, oh say 2003...

More than that Iran is at least being open about wanting to build these facilities. They're also open about wanting to maintain their soverignty, as any established nation would.

Right now I believe the words coming out of their mouths more than I believe the words of the shrub, Prick, Rummy, and anyone else associated with this government. They CAN earn my trust by dropping the constant lying and exadurating bit they seem to love so much.
How do you know that the Iranians are not also lying and exaggerating?

I wouldn't trust the word of either government.

Erm, sanity check please. They could have enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in 16 days, with 50,000 centrifuges. They have 164 and plan to build 3,000. So that's consistent with a civilian nuclear programme, and if they wanted to build a nuke with that, it would take them forever and a day.

I think we can reasonably accuse the US government of chatting shit on this one.

Not really....but on the whole shit thing... damn straight.

Do you know what NORAID is? Glass house stone time!

The most trustworthy source of evidence that you gave, by the way, says that Hezbollah WERE funded. Not are, were. Meaning no longer funded. MIPT says they were as of 2004.

Anyways, as I said in a previous thread, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Unlike most terrorist organisations I know of, Hezbollah actually fight in the field - guerilla warfare, true, but war nonetheless.

And yet you present no evidence that they've stopped. Good show.

Try reading up on the hostage taking, bombings, etc, that they've been linked to.

I guess this was part of their "freedom fight"?

two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five).

It is going to be a primitive Uranium 235 device. Probably using critical mass.

And yet you present no evidence that they've stopped. Good show.

Try reading up on the hostage taking, bombings, etc, that they've been linked to.

I guess this was part of their "freedom fight"?

two major 1990s attacks on Jewish targets in Argentina—the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy (killing twenty-nine) and the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center (killing ninety-five).
Is there any proper evidence (historical standard) that they are funded? I'm talking newspaper articles from a paper of record, transcripts of statements by people who might actually know (not Congressmen/women, unless they are on the Intelligence Committee, nor analysts from think-tanks), spy reports, etc?
Evidence they've stopped? Well, the BBC said they WERE funded, and the MIPT said they were funded until 2004. Meaning they might know something we don't, being one of the world's leading news agencies and connected with American government somehow, respectively.

As for the terrorist attacks, remember that if I wanted to, I could cherry-pick US attacks and make it look like they only killed civilians too. I'm not saying it's right, but war ain't right either, and nor is occupation and oppression.

It is going to be a primitive Uranium 235 device. Probably using critical mass.

Most likely, but they have the heavy water?

It is going to be a primitive Uranium 235 device. Probably using critical mass.
All nuclear weapons need critical mass.

Is there any proper evidence (historical standard) that they are funded? I'm talking newspaper articles from a paper of record, transcripts of statements by people who might actually know (not Congressmen/women, unless they are on the Intelligence Committee, nor analysts from think-tanks), spy reports, etc?
Evidence they've stopped? Well, the BBC said they WERE funded, and the MIPT said they were funded until 2004. Meaning they might know something we don't, being one of the world's leading news agencies and connected with American government somehow, respectively.

As for the terrorist attacks, remember that if I wanted to, I could cherry-pick US attacks and make it look like they only killed civilians too. I'm not saying it's right, but war ain't right either, and nor is occupation and oppression.

Translation: "I'm not going to accept any sources I don't like, won't provide any evidence supporting my stance, and will do some old fashion US bashing to try and deflect the arguement."

The problem with religious fundamentalists is that they tend to love apocalypse fantasies. They might use their weapons to realise them.
You know... that reminds me of a country... OH yeah! America!;)

Translation: "I'm not going to accept any sources I don't like, won't provide any evidence supporting my stance, and will do some old fashion US bashing to try and deflect the arguement."
I'm sorry, but the only source there that said they were being funded was the Iranian.ws one, which only quoted a Congresswoman (who although a member of a relevant subcommittee, didn't actually say anything about funding, just said that Hezbollah and Iran are going in the same direction) and a random think-tank guy, neither of whom are in any sort of position to actually know whether funding is going through or not.
As for the inisistence on sources, I'm a history student.
And there was no US-bashing. The oppression bit was talking about Israel and why Hezbollah feel the need to fight.

EDIT: A little sleuthing has turned up the transcript of the hearing. It's here: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa98810.000/hfa98810_0f.htm
I shall read through and see if I find anything relevant to funding. If there is, I shall admit I am wrong.

EDIT 2: Wasn't that quick? Page nine... $80 million and ordnance. It'd be nice to see where the figure came from, admittedly, but as of tonight I haven't the time to sleuth it out. So, I shall admit I am wrong, at least provisionally (if sleuthing finds that it is conjecture, I shall retract it), and go and watch the West Wing, where everything is right with the world because the Democrats will save the day.


Oops, I think my eyes rolled out of my head there.

I'm sorry, but the only source there that said they were being funded was the Iranian.ws one, which only quoted a Congresswoman (who although a member of a relevant subcommittee, didn't actually say anything about funding, just said that Hezbollah and Iran are going in the same direction) and a random think-tank guy, neither of whom are in any sort of position to actually know whether funding is going through or not.
As for the inisistence on sources, I'm a history student.
And there was no US-bashing. The oppression bit was talking about Israel and why Hezbollah feel the need to fight.

I have a Masters in history.

Practically every source I've listed shows various terrorist activities and who funded them. You stated that they had been funded throughout '04 and that it has stopped w/o presenting evidence that it has.

Here's a Aus Gov't report for '03:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/RN/2002-03/03rn42.pdf

And a US gov report from '05 stating current funding.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/LevittTestimony.pdf

Notice that they also fund suicide bombers.

I have a Masters in history.

Practically every source I've listed shows various terrorist activities and who funded them. You stated that they had been funded throughout '04 and that it has stopped w/o presenting evidence that it has.

Here's a Aus Gov't report for '03:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/RN/2002-03/03rn42.pdf

And a US gov report from '05 stating current funding.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/_files/LevittTestimony.pdf

Notice that they also fund suicide bombers.

Yeah, I made my admission of incorrectness just after you posted. What topic did you do for your masters, if I may ask? (This is not suspicion, merely curiosity.) I shall read your sources tomorrow, because I have been on the internet waaaay too long today.

Yeah, I made my admission of incorrectness just after you posted. What topic did you do for your masters, if I may ask? (This is not suspicion, merely curiosity.) I shall read your sources tomorrow, because I have been on the internet waaaay too long today.

Read them now when they are fresh. :O

Yeah, I made my admission of incorrectness just after you posted. What topic did you do for your masters, if I may ask? (This is not suspicion, merely curiosity.) I shall read your sources tomorrow, because I have been on the internet waaaay too long today.

European history focus w/ a world secondary. I didn't do a thesis track but my personal focus was on modern military history.

European history focus w/ a world secondary. I didn't do a thesis track but my personal focus was on modern military history.

Sweet. :)
Was it fun?

Sweet. :)
Was it fun?

I loved it. If I ever win the lottery, I plan on being a professional student.

What the f***?!

What 50,000 centrifuges?

Most likely, but they have the heavy water?

Great point, I have yet to hear if they have heavy water or are developing the capabilities to produce it.

Great point, I have yet to hear if they have heavy water or are developing the capabilities to produce it.

You can't build the bomb without the Heavy water unless you are going for a much more high-tech design. So this report is utter shit until I see them making the bombs myself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm
Thursday, 12 January 2006, 19:44 GMT
Iran has alarmed the international community by removing the seals at its nuclear fuel research sites - but experts say it is several years away from being capable of producing a nuclear bomb.
...
Iran already has 164 centrifuge machines installed at its pilot centrifuge plant at Natanz, but that is only a fifth of the total it needs before it is fully operational.

The commercial-scale facility could ultimately house as many as 50,000 centrifuges, according to some estimates...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4606356.stm
Doesn't mean they have 50,000 of them.

Doesn't mean they have 50,000 of them.
Exactically.

They enriched a tiny bit of uranium to a very low level in a laboratory. Maybe I missed the link to OD's full article...but how the hell does that give them 50,000 centrifuges to make a nuke in 16 days?

Exactically.

They enriched a tiny bit of uranium to a very low level in a laboratory. Maybe I missed the link to OD's full article...but how the hell does that give them 50,000 centrifuges to make a nuke in 16 days?

Stupid sensationist claims.

Iran doesnt have 50,000 centrifuges, it wants to build 50,000 centrifuges...

I have a Masters in history.what kind of job can History Master get these days.. Are you like a school teacher?
(I ask because my cousin wants to go for a Masters in History)

...but how the hell does that give them 50,000 centrifuges to make a nuke in 16 days?I think you should ask the US Gov.. and while you are at it.. ask them if they have some Nigerian cake left :D

how the hell does that give them 50,000 centrifuges to make a nuke in 16 days?
That's not the frightening part. Imagine if they had 1,000,000 centrifuges. They could make a nuke in a week! :eek:

I think what you don't relize is that Iran would still have to install the centrifuges..

So what. Nuke, big deal. So the world blows up, then what?

Sure the Saudi's or inuit might feel at home but really why nuke?

that stuff is expensive.

If every country had a nuke, security would be much tighter and defence spending would go up, no?

Read them now when they are fresh. :O
Well, they're from a few years back, so I think it's not that time critical.
Basically, Kecibukia, I accept your point, although there are a few things I'd like to add. This is from the Australian report:
Nonetheless, Hezbollah is said to be more involved overseas nowadays in fundraising than committing terrorist acts, leading some to suggest that Hezbollah now limits itself to conflict with Israel and would have little to gain in the modern climate from attacking the US.
Supporting my point that Hezbollah have a claim (please note the emphasis) to be seen as legitimate - 1994 was their last terrorist-style attack, at least so far as I can establish.
Also, they have never been properly linked with most of the terrorist activities they are accused of - although I'm obviously not saying that none of them were carried out by Hezbollah. Most if not all very probably were.
On a less confrontational note, so you did a taught Masters then, I assume?

As for heavy water, it is completely unnecessary for a uranium bomb - it's a means to produce plutonium, tritium, and lithium deuteride, all ingredients in thermonuclear weapons. It's also only one of the ways to make plutonium. To make a nuke, all they need very simply is two sub-critical lumps of enriched uranium and a 'gun' assembly to fire one into another.
I think you could make a nuclear weapon involving heavy water (replacing the tritium and lithium deuteride in a thermonuclear weapon) but it would be much less effective than using gases. Might not even work.

The problem with religious fundamentalists is that they tend to love apocalypse fantasies. They might use their weapons to realise them.

This describes Dubya and his friends fairly well, but what's your point?

Right, that's why they were found in posession of instructions for constructing a nuclear weapons test facility. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020702126.html

Whoa. Iran has, "sophisticated," drawings of a hole. Compare this to Iraq which had actual aluminum tubes... and Nigeran uranium. Given the current regime's performance in matters of truth, I'm waiting for the French to back this up.

I'm not a fan of the French, but they have a better track record lately than the Bushies. God, that's pathetic.

So having that information makes you more likely to be a Klansman. Buying rope and yelling death to N_____s would clinch it.

"Death to Nazis?"

Do you really think that the US has in the past five years launched two wars, spent some $300 billion and lost some 2,500 (mostly white) soldiers just because they wanted to kill lots of "brown people"?

Oh no no. The US did it because ISRAEL hates brown people. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have been more clear.

Whoa. Iran has, "sophisticated," drawings of a hole. Compare this to Iraq which had actual aluminum tubes... and Nigeran uranium. Given the current regime's performance in matters of truth, I'm waiting for the French to back this up.

I'm not a fan of the French, but they have a better track record lately than the Bushies. God, that's pathetic.indeed.

That's not the frightening part. Imagine if they had 1,000,000 centrifuges. They could make a nuke in a week! :eek:

Two million and the have a Nuke right now! :eek:

Erm, sanity check please. They could have enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in 16 days, with 50,000 centrifuges. They have 164 and plan to build 3,000. So that's consistent with a civilian nuclear programme, and if they wanted to build a nuke with that, it would take them forever and a day.

However, once the Bushehr reactor is finished, Iran could in theory extract weapons grade plutonium from the reactor fuel and use that instead of uranium to make nukes.

Of course, building the installations necessary to actually extract the plutionium would be equivalent to putting up a huge neonsign with "we are making bombs here".

However, once the Bushehr reactor is finished, Iran could in theory extract weapons grade plutonium from the reactor fuel and use that instead of uranium to make nukes.

Of course, building the installations necessary to actually extract the plutionium would be equivalent to putting up a huge neonsign with "we are making bombs here".

True.....but until I see heavy water....no deal on them making nukes.

However, once the Bushehr is finished, Iran could in theory ....:D

Of course, building the installations necessary to actually extract the plutionium would be equivalent to putting up a huge neonsign with "we are making bombs here".I agree.

I agree.

As soon as they try to build them the UN will pounce on them though. :O
So why does America have to be the first to do it?

As soon as they try to build them the UN will pounce on them though. :O
So why does America have to be the first to do it?:confused: I dont know.
Maybe because what the NoeCons really want is "Regime Change" ???

:D

It could happen, and it could happen in our lifetime :P
And I actually never noticed the irony of the name "bushehr" in this context...

It could happen, and it could happen in our lifetime :P
And I actually never noticed the irony of the name "bushehr" in this context...I have a sixth-sense for "noticing" stuff.

here (NS) I do it for free (wont charge you :p )

when I work as a consultant.. usually I get paid over 200$/hour to use my sith-sense.(money very well invested;) )

Methinks you're being paranoid. You have no reason to hate Iran or Iranians. They have nothing against Jews or Jewish people and, for the most part, have nothing againsy Israel except Israeli occupation of Palestinian land (which is being rectified as we speak).



Are you serious?

http://www.intelligence.org.il/Eng/sib/4_04/as_iran.htm
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw97-8/iran.html

Two million and the have a Nuke right now! :eek:

Ten million and they have a nuke last year!

Heavy water isn't necessary for plutonium manufacture - it's just one of the ways it can be made (it's only used as a coolant). Also, if the reactor at Bushehr is useful for producing power, it won't be useful for making weapons-grade plutonium from the spent fuel - could be run as a breeder I suppose, but building a breeder would be suspicious... Even then, breeding will result in a drop in power output, because it has to be run in an inefficient manner (inefficient for making nuclear power, that is).

A few talking heads in the government are religious fundamentalists. Does the President of Iran speak for 100% of the Iranian people? Does George Bush speak for you?
How many people does it take to launch a nuclear bomb in Iran? In the US? They don't even need 10%.

Are you serious?

http://www.intelligence.org.il/Eng/sib/4_04/as_iran.htm
http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw97-8/iran.html
He's actually right about the majority of the younger population. Unfortunately, said younger population isn't in control.

Also, if the reactor at Bushehr is useful for producing power, it won't be useful for making weapons-grade plutonium from the spent fuel - could be run as a breeder I suppose, but building a breeder would be suspicious... Even then, breeding will result in a drop in power output, because it has to be run in an inefficient manner (inefficient for making nuclear power, that is).
The reactor there is being built by Russia, not Iran. It is difficult to obscure details of the design when it is huge and being built in the open for every earth observation satellite to see. Anyone who took a close interest would have enough photos to build a cutaway scale model by now. Also I think Russia would notice if halfway through the project, the Iranians started requesting interesting design changes.

So I think you and others are right in suggesting that trying to extract plutonium from a civilian power plant is a non-starter.

Too obvious if they try that. ^-^ We'd know if they were building one.

Too obvious if they try that. ^-^ We'd know if they were building one.

Sure about that?

Sure about that?
Oh yes. America sees and knows everything. It knew there weren't any MWDs in Iraq for example. :)

Sure about that?

Yes. Not to mention Russia and Iran have an agreement stating that all the Bushehr fuel will be returned to Russia. Return too little and it would be quite obvious.

U.S. Says: Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days.
(Update2)
Bloomberg,Iran; defying United Nations Security Council demands to halt its nuclear program, may be capable of making a nuclear bomb within 16 days, a U.S. State Department official said.
...
`Using those 50,000 centrifuges they could produce enough highly enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon in 16 days,'' Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, told reporters today in Moscow.
-- OcceaNNews©2006--
April 12 2006

Comment: holy Gacamoly :D
(BTW No. I do not Trust US Gov)


To be honest this sounds a bit like the 45 minite Report from Iraq

Ten million and they have a nuke last year!

One hundred million and they would have a nuke back in 1975 :eek: They could rule the world retroactively!

Iran is not going to make nukes.

ZOMG, I guess should sleep comfortably tonight because someone on the interbuttz has assured me that Iran will not make nukes.

ZOMG, I guess should sleep comfortably tonight because someone on the interbuttz has assured me that Iran will not make nukes.

If they make nukes, they won't be launching.

If they make nukes, they won't be launching.

ZOMG, thank you Anonymous for reassuring me that Iran will not launch their non-existant nukes. Your words will allow me to sleep peacefully tonight.

ZOMG, thank you Anonymous for reassuring me that Iran will not launch their non-existant nukes. Your words will allow me to sleep peacefully tonight.

I'll ZOMG peacefully now, that you've ZOMGed my ZOMG and that I can ROFL in all WTFBBQ.

ZOMG, thank you Anonymous for reassuring me that Iran will not launch their non-existant nukes. Your words will allow me to sleep peacefully tonight.

Do I smell a puppet?

I'll ZOMG peacefully now, that you've ZOMGed my ZOMG and that I can ROFL in all WTFBBQ.

ZOMG We got Copy Pasta on the motherf*cking plane!

Do I smell a puppet?

No, that's just the 4Chan party van.

ZOMG We got Copy Pasta on the motherf*cking plane!

* is inclined to lower his intelligence to match that of 4CHAN *


Beh. Nevermind. Posting 'ZOMG' already lowered me enough.