PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Concern rising about Iran military nuclear work: IAEA


Donger
09-02-2011, 01:31 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/concern-rising-iran-military-nuclear-iaea-161835957.html

VIENNA (Reuters) - The watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency is "increasingly concerned" about possible work in Iran to develop a nuclear payload for a missile, the IAEA said in a confidential report obtained by Reuters on Friday.

In addition to addressing the issue of alleged military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program, the report said Tehran had begun installing machines for higher-grade uranium enrichment in an underground bunker near the holy city of Qom.

Shifting enrichment activity to such a subterranean site could offer greater protection against any attacks by Israel or the United States, which have both said they do not rule out pre-emptive strikes to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons.

At a separate research and development site, the Vienna-base IAEA said, Iran had begun enriching uranium experimentally with a more advanced model of centrifuge than the erratic, 1970s vintage machine it has been using for years.

Uranium enriched to a low level of fissile purity is suitable for running civilian nuclear power plants. If refined to a much higher degree, it forms the core of nuclear bombs.

The developments highlighted in the IAEA's latest quarterly inspection report on Iran are likely to fan Western worries about the underlying nature of Iran's nuclear activity, which Western powers suspect is aimed at developing atom bombs.

The IAEA report said it was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear-related activities involving military-related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile, about which the agency continues to receive new information."

Iran denies harboring any nuclear weapon ambitions, saying it wants to refine uranium only for electricity or isotopes for medicine and agriculture. But it has long restricted the access of IAEA inspectors, stoking concerns abroad.

For several years, the IAEA has been investigating Western intelligence reports indicating Iran has coordinated efforts to process uranium, test explosives at high altitude and revamp a ballistic missile cone to accommodate a nuclear warhead.

The IAEA, tasked with ensuring that nuclear technology is not diverted for military aims, says Iran has not engaged with the agency in substance on these issues since 2008.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 01:33 PM
Iran building a nuke, China planning to attack us? lots of paranoia in the DC section.

Donger
09-02-2011, 01:35 PM
Iran building a nuke, China planning to attack us? lots of paranoia in the DC section.

Is it paranoia if it's accurate?

Hog Farmer
09-02-2011, 01:37 PM
Well , Iran has 16 months until Perry is President so it looks like Israel is fucked !

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 01:39 PM
Is it paranoia if it's accurate?

Iraq is building nukes. It's a slam dunk.

Donger
09-02-2011, 01:42 PM
Iraq is building nukes. It's a slam dunk.

There is only one reason to experiment with the type of explosives that they are apparently doing. And that is uniform core compression.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 01:43 PM
There is only one reason to experiment with the type of explosives that they are apparently doing. And that is uniform core compression.

So they'll nuke the United States?

Donger
09-02-2011, 01:45 PM
So they'll nuke the United States?

I'd rather remove the possibility of Iran being able to in the first place.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 01:46 PM
How would they hit the United States with a nuke?

Pants
09-02-2011, 01:47 PM
How would they hit the United States with a nuke?

Give it to a couple suicidal terrorists and have them sneak across the southern border?

Donger
09-02-2011, 01:47 PM
How would they hit the United States with a nuke?

:spock:

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 01:57 PM
How many nukes have Iran dropped?

Donger
09-02-2011, 01:57 PM
How many nukes have Iran dropped?

None.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 01:59 PM
None.

You are truly Quick Draw Mcdong. How many have we dropped?

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 02:00 PM
Where is Irans Army?

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:02 PM
You are truly Quick Draw Mcdong. How many have we dropped?

Two.

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:02 PM
Where is Irans Army?

Mostly in Iran.

FishingRod
09-02-2011, 02:02 PM
You are truly Quick Draw Mcdong. How many have we dropped?

Two on cities, lots just for fun

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 02:07 PM
Okay, so we've dropped two (Because Japan's airforce killed our people I get it) and Iran has dropped none. Right now our army is scattered throughout the middleeast killing more people than most of us know, some cilivian some not. So by that rationale doesn't that give Libya, Afgan, Iraq, Iran, and whoever else we may or may not be bombing reason to drop a nuke on us?

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 02:08 PM
There are only a few countries going around from country to country blowing shit up and hate to tell you guys this but, WE ARE ONE OF THEM.

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:09 PM
Okay, so we've dropped two (Because Japan's airforce killed our people I get it) and Iran has dropped none. Right now our army is scattered throughout the middleeast killing more people than most of us know, some cilivian some not. So by that rationale doesn't that give Libya, Afgan, Iraq, Iran, and whoever else we may or may not be bombing reason to drop a nuke on us?

Not if they are prevented from getting them.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 02:12 PM
Not if they are prevented from getting them.

I had to ask, thanks Dong.

alnorth
09-02-2011, 02:13 PM
1) Iran could only be stopped with a full-scale massive land invasion

2) #1 above is politically impossible, and if you think we should do it, you are insane.

3) Sanctions are irrelevant and not worth bothering with. China/Russia won't respect them, and it won't deter Iran.

4) Bribing Iran would be stupid. They would take our money, and carry on. See: North Korea.

5) Given #1 through #4 above, there's nothing we can do about it.

6) We really have no moral right to tell Iran that they can not have a nuclear weapon in any case.

Given all of the above, don't worry about it. If Iran launches a nuke, turn that country into a massive sheet of glass.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2011, 02:14 PM
There is only one reason to experiment with the type of explosives that they are apparently doing. And that is uniform core compression.
I am going to quote a Marine I know from another board who I happen to agree with:


Good. The fear of retaliation just might keep us from making another huge mistake. Notice how North Korea is no longer numero uno on the hit list since it became obvious that they have nukes? Notice how we don't really challenge Pakistan despite the higher ups belief that they're (not so) secretly supporting the Taliban/AQ?

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:15 PM
1) Iran could only be stopped with a full-scale massive land invasion

2) #1 above is politically impossible, and if you think we should do it, you are insane.

3) Sanctions are irrelevant and not worth bothering with. China/Russia won't respect them, and it won't deter Iran.

4) Bribing Iran would be stupid. They would take our money, and carry on. See: North Korea.

5) Given #1 through #4 above, there's nothing we can do about it.

6) We really have no moral right to tell Iran that they can not have a nuclear weapon in any case.

Given all of the above, don't worry about it. If Iran launches a nuke, turn that country into a massive sheet of glass.

I'm not sure about the moral part, but Iran is a signatory of the NPT. And, I don't agree that a full-scale land invasion would be required to stop their nuclear program. Not even close.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2011, 02:16 PM
1) Iran could only be stopped with a full-scale massive land invasion

2) #1 above is politically impossible, and if you think we should do it, you are insane.

3) Sanctions are irrelevant and not worth bothering with. China/Russia won't respect them, and it won't deter Iran.

4) Bribing Iran would be stupid. They would take our money, and carry on. See: North Korea.

5) Given #1 through #4 above, there's nothing we can do about it.

6) We really have no moral right to tell Iran that they can not have a nuclear weapon in any case.

Given all of the above, don't worry about it. If Iran launches a nuke, turn that country into a massive sheet of glass.

Excellent post and naturally I agree 100%. :thumb:

I'm just wondering when Donger is going to evaluate your mental health by labeling you "crazy" for it?

BucEyedPea
09-02-2011, 02:17 PM
I'm not sure about the moral part, but Iran is a signatory of the NPT.

When is Israel going to sign the NPT?

How many times did the former Soviet Union violate it's arms treaties? Did we invade Russia or bomb them?

alnorth
09-02-2011, 02:18 PM
I'm not sure about the moral part, but Iran is a signatory of the NPT.

So?

Step 1) Build Nuke

Step 2) Test Nuke

Step 3) Declare yourself a nuclear power, thus removing your country from anyone's list of nations to attack.

Step 4) Regarding the NPT, say "oops"

Amnorix
09-02-2011, 02:18 PM
1) Iran could only be stopped with a full-scale massive land invasion

2) #1 above is politically impossible, and if you think we should do it, you are insane.

3) Sanctions are irrelevant and not worth bothering with. China/Russia won't respect them, and it won't deter Iran.

4) Bribing Iran would be stupid. They would take our money, and carry on. See: North Korea.

5) Given #1 through #4 above, there's nothing we can do about it.

6) We really have no moral right to tell Iran that they can not have a nuclear weapon in any case.

Given all of the above, don't worry about it. If Iran launches a nuke, turn that country into a massive sheet of glass.

Pretty silly assumption to believe that any nuclear weapon Iran discharges comes from a missile obviously launched from their territory.

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:20 PM
So?

Step 1) Build Nuke

Step 2) Test Nuke

Step 3) Declare yourself a nuclear power, thus removing your country from anyone's list of nations to attack.

Step 4) Regarding the NPT, say "oops"

Not really anything other than proving to the world that they have lied for years about their intentions. Then again, I'd rather see #1 never happen.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 02:20 PM
1) Iran could only be stopped with a full-scale massive land invasion

2) #1 above is politically impossible, and if you think we should do it, you are insane.

3) Sanctions are irrelevant and not worth bothering with. China/Russia won't respect them, and it won't deter Iran.

4) Bribing Iran would be stupid. They would take our money, and carry on. See: North Korea.

5) Given #1 through #4 above, there's nothing we can do about it.

6) We really have no moral right to tell Iran that they can not have a nuclear weapon in any case.

Given all of the above, don't worry about it. If Iran launches a nuke, turn that country into a massive sheet of glass.

We are the only country that have dropped nukes, so why is everyone worried about other countries doing so. People can debate all day about whether or not there was a reason to, but the fact is that we did it. Why is everyone so quick to wipe Iran out if they drop a "NUCLEAR CUP O CHEESE", when we already have? Why does the fact that we did it get overlooked and people say "well they bombed us first". We bomb people all of the time. "Yea but we had a reason too". So did they.

alnorth
09-02-2011, 02:23 PM
Pretty silly assumption to believe that any nuclear weapon Iran discharges comes from a missile obviously launched from their territory.

Don't care. Due to #1 through #4 in my earlier post, there's nothing we can do. "Dirty bombs" are more frightening than they are effective. A full-functional nuclear missile requires sovereign-level technology. If you are frightened, then you may be reading too many thriller terrorist-fiction novels.

alnorth
09-02-2011, 02:25 PM
We are the only country that have dropped nukes, so why is everyone worried about other countries doing so. People can debate all day about whether or not there was a reason to, but the fact is that we did it. Why is everyone so quick to wipe Iran out if they drop a "NUCLEAR CUP O CHEESE", when we already have? Why does the fact that we did it get overlooked and people say "well they bombed us first". We bomb people all of the time. "Yea but we had a reason too". So did they.

Your opinion is insane, because we now live under, and must live under, a world where the doctrine of mutually assured destruction exists. The fact that we dropped bombs in Japan is no longer relevant. We should not be able to unilaterally launch an unprovoked nuclear attack, and neither should anyone else.

The effective use of a nuclear weapon today is just to deter war. They are not meant to be used.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2011, 02:25 PM
We are the only country that have dropped nukes, so why is everyone worried about other countries doing so.

It's called projection. Since we did it, they see the likelihood in others. It's natural.
Especially since we've also become an aggressor nation by going into Iraq.
The current elite of America don't want any checks and balances on the planet
because it will get in their way of global hegemony. So far we've been picking on poor countries that can barely defend themselves.
This is called being a bully.

alnorth
09-02-2011, 02:27 PM
Then again, I'd rather see #1 never happen.

Nothing we can do about it. We can't stop it. So, don't worry about it.

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:31 PM
Nothing we can do about it. We can't stop it. So, don't worry about it.

Of course there's something we can do about it. It's not a fait accompli.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 02:33 PM
Your opinion is insane, because we now live under, and must live under, a world where the doctrine of mutually assured destruction exists. The fact that we dropped bombs in Japan is no longer relevant. We should not be able to unilaterally launch an unprovoked nuclear attack, and neither should anyone else.

The effective use of a nuclear weapon today is just to deter war. They are not meant to be used.

Perhaps my point was missed. I apologize for not stating it more clearly. There have been countless threads where people are freaking out because big bad Iran has nukes, all I'm saying is so do we and we are the only ones that have used them. So shouldn't the rest of the world be looking at us saying "we need to wipe them out because they used a nuke?" Similar to your post stating that if they launch nukes we need to destroy them. I don't want anyone to be killed, but for people (not you just people) to sit here and say how awful Iran is and now they have nukes so that makes them doublely (is that a word?) awful is amazing. We are one of the only counties whose army is in multiple countries blowing shit up. Who are we to say who or who isn't the bad guy?

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:39 PM
Perhaps my point was missed. I apologize for not stating it more clearly. There have been countless threads where people are freaking out because big bad Iran has nukes, all I'm saying is so do we and we are the only ones that have used them. So shouldn't the rest of the world be looking at us saying "we need to wipe them out because they used a nuke?" Similar to your post stating that if they launch nukes we need to destroy them. I don't want anyone to be killed, but for people (not you just people) to sit here and say how awful Iran is and now they have nukes so that makes them doublely (is that a word?) awful is amazing. We are one of the only counties whose army is in multiple countries blowing shit up. Who are we to say who or who isn't the bad guy?

The points are that we dropped the two weapons:

1) To end a world war, one that we didn't start.

2) That was 66 years ago.

3) They were dropped on Japan.

So, it's not really very relevant to today. Add to the fact that we've had more than a few wars since then and haven't used our nuclear arsenal in any of them, and I hope you see reasoning.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 02:52 PM
The points are that we dropped the two weapons:

1) To end a world war, one that we didn't start.

2) That was 66 years ago.

3) They were dropped on Japan.

So, it's not really very relevant to today. Add to the fact that we've had more than a few wars since then and haven't used our nuclear arsenal in any of them, and I hope you see reasoning.

I thought the bombing is what got us into the war, but that's not important. I understand it was a long time ago, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and it is very relevant to what is goes on today. I go back to the same statement, we are the only country to have dropped them and comparatively speaking our military is far more dangerous now than it was back then. Plus, we are one of a handful of countries that go around "policing the world" like someone appointed us "CHIEF WORLD PROTECTOR." We are the bullys not Iran. "Oh you want to be Mr. Dr. Evil Dictator huh? .....CUP O CHEESE and so on and so forth. I'll let you guys carry on, typically I stay out of these discussions, but I was bored. Please continue.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 02:54 PM
Give it to a couple suicidal terrorists and have them sneak across the southern border?

ROFL

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 02:55 PM
:spock:

So you can't answer the question. Didn't think so.

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:55 PM
I thought the bombing is what got us into the war, but that's not important.

Huh? You thought that us dropping the bombs go us INTO the war?

I understand it was a long time ago, but that doesn't change the fact that it happened and it is very relevant to what is goes on today. I go back to the same statement, we are the only country to have dropped them and comparatively speaking our military is far more dangerous now than it was back then. Plus, we are one of a handful of countries that go around "policing the world" like someone appointed us "CHIEF WORLD PROTECTOR." We are the bullys not Iran. "Oh you want to be Mr. Dr. Evil Dictator huh? .....CUP O CHEESE and so on and so forth. I'll let you guys carry on, typically I stay out of these discussions, but I was bored. Please continue.

No, it isn't relevant to today.

Donger
09-02-2011, 02:56 PM
So you can't answer the question. Didn't think so.

Oh, I thought you were being silly.

You are aware that there any many ways to deliver a physics package, right? You were suggesting that since they don't have an ICBM that can deliver one, we should be unconcerned?

evenfall
09-02-2011, 02:58 PM
I'm sure glad Carter let that nice Ayatollah guy take over. We can only hope the "Arab Spring" turns out so well.

...

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 02:58 PM
Oh, I thought you were being silly.

You are aware that there any many ways to deliver a physics package, right? You were suggesting that since they don't have an ICBM that can deliver one, we should be unconcerned?

Thank you for validating post #2.

Donger
09-02-2011, 03:00 PM
Thank you for validating post #2.

Acknowledging that there are many ways to deliver a physics package is paranoia?

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:01 PM
ROFL

I don't mean to go all Frankie on you, billay, but you're not smart enough to pull that "ROFL" off. Sorry.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-02-2011, 03:02 PM
Acknowledging that there are many ways to deliver a physics package is paranoia?

You can deliver one on the PC, and many actually enjoy physics in video games.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:04 PM
I don't mean to go all Frankie on you, billay, but you're not smart enough to pull that "ROFL" off. Sorry.

Signed,

The guy who says terrorist will sneak nukes across the border.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:05 PM
Acknowledging that there are many ways to deliver a physics package is paranoia?

You think it's going to happen? Pakistan has had nukes from awhile and ties to Al Aqeada and the Taliban. I don't see any threads suggesting we invade Pakistan.

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:06 PM
Signed,

The guy who says terrorist will sneak nukes across the border.

A. I never said that.
B. They very easily could.

KC native
09-02-2011, 03:07 PM
Unfortunatey for us, Dubya fucked up our ability to do anything about this. If we hadn't gne into iraq, then we could get away with bombing iran's facilities. Some countries may have bitched but they really wouldn't have cared.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:07 PM
A. I never said that.
B. They very easily could.

Yea it's real easy that's why they do it all the time.

Donger
09-02-2011, 03:07 PM
You think it's going to happen?

I'd rather not have to face that possibility.

Pakistan has had nukes from awhile and ties to Al Aqeada and the Taliban. I don't see any threads suggesting we invade Pakistan.

And I'd rather they not have nukes either. But, if you don't see the difference between Pakistan and Iran, I really don't know what to tell you.

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:08 PM
Yea it's real easy that's why they do it all the time.
Who's they?

evenfall
09-02-2011, 03:08 PM
Signed,

The guy who says terrorist will sneak nukes across the border.

Iran could give the tech to a terrorist group, along with a large sum of money. They could move it by ship to Mexico, transfer it to a pickup truck to transit the border, and drive to their intended destination.

Is this impossible?

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:09 PM
And I'd rather they not have nukes either. But, if you don't see the difference between Pakistan and Iran, I really don't know what to tell you.

Yea one had to do with 9-11 the other didn't. Pssst you want to attack the wrong one, again.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:09 PM
Iran could give the tech to a terrorist group, along with a large sum of money. They could move it by ship to Mexico, transfer it to a pickup truck to transit the border, and drive to their intended destination.

Is this impossible?

Muslims could install Sharia Law in America. Is this possible?

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:10 PM
Iran could give the tech to a terrorist group, along with a large sum of money. They could move it by ship to Mexico, transfer it to a pickup truck to transit the border, and drive to their intended destination.

Is this impossible?

They don't need to do all that. They can just give a Mexican drug lord a couple hundred million dollars to get access to the underground tunnels leading from Mexico to California, Texas and Arizona (probably New Mexico by now too).

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:11 PM
Muslims could install Sharia Law in America. Is this possible?

No, it's impossible.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-02-2011, 03:12 PM
Unfortunatey for us, Dubya ****ed up our ability to do anything about this. If we hadn't gne into iraq, then we could get away with bombing iran's facilities. Some countries may have bitched but they really wouldn't have cared.

This is just more trumped up BS, just like Iraq. I guess fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. We must love being con'd here.

KC native
09-02-2011, 03:13 PM
They don't need to do all that. They can just give a Mexican drug lord a couple hundred million dollars to get access to the underground tunnels in California, Texas and Arizona (probably New Mexico by now too).

You are fucking nuts if you think a drug cartel is going to fuck up their gravy train by allowing arabs to bomb the US through Mexico. Would you give up an annual billions of dollars business for a one time payment that would result in the border being locked down completely?

Donger
09-02-2011, 03:13 PM
Yea one had to do with 9-11 the other didn't. Pssst you want to attack the wrong one, again.

I didn't agree with invading Iraq in 2003.

Donger
09-02-2011, 03:14 PM
Iran could give the tech to a terrorist group, along with a large sum of money. They could move it by ship to Mexico, transfer it to a pickup truck to transit the border, and drive to their intended destination.

Is this impossible?

They wouldn't even need to get it ashore.

KC native
09-02-2011, 03:14 PM
This is just more trumped up BS, just like Iraq. I guess fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. We must love being con'd here.

I'm very skeptical of anything our government claims but this is coming from the IAEA. Iran is most definitely trying to develop nuclear weapons.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-02-2011, 03:17 PM
I'm very skeptical of anything our government claims but this is coming from the IAEA. Iran is most definitely trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Then wait a week or two and they'll say something different. Doesn't really matter at this point our rape and pillage fund is empty, so i guess we should concentrate on taking care of Americans.

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:18 PM
You are ****ing nuts if you think a drug cartel is going to **** up their gravy train by allowing arabs to bomb the US through Mexico. Would you give up an annual billions of dollars business for a one time payment that would result in the border being locked down completely?

The only thing that could ever come close to fucking that gravy train up, billay, is making drugs legal.

Donger
09-02-2011, 03:20 PM
It should also be noted that others in the ME have vowed to become nuclear-armed if Iran does, namely the Kingdom.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 03:20 PM
Huh? You thought that us dropping the bombs go us INTO the war?



No, it isn't relevant to today.

What, no, but I'm not going to get into that. Sorry, but no matter how many times you say it, dropping a fucking nuclear weapon on a country, regardless if it is not the current country we're dealing with, is relevant to a discussion about who or who shouldn't have nukes. You can't just say "yea we killed thousands upon thousands of people with a nuke and here we are talking about nukes but that point is irrelevant". Around 200,000 people were killed, that shit counts regardless of what you are talking about.

KC native
09-02-2011, 03:22 PM
The only thing that could ever come close to fucking that gravy train up, billay, is making drugs legal.

If the US found out that terrorist snuck a nuclear bomb across the border with a payment to the cartels, everything would change. A fence would definitely be put up. Checkpoints would be militarized. An all out war would be declared on the cartels. It would be a death sentence for them.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:26 PM
The only thing that could ever come close to ****ing that gravy train up, billay, is making drugs legal.

Are you implying that he's my fake account? You really come off as desperate in this conversation.

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:31 PM
Are you implying that he's my fake account? You really come off as desperate in this conversation.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. That post was not implying anything except for the fact that you can never ever stop the flow of drugs as long as there's a shit ton of money to be made.

Even if you can, my original point still stands. You wouldn't even have to enter into a contract with the people in charge. You pay enough money to the right folks and you could get access to those tunnels with no question asked about the nature of the contraband.

Who were you talking about though, I'm curious.

go bowe
09-02-2011, 03:32 PM
We are the only country that have dropped nukes, so why is everyone worried about other countries doing so. People can debate all day about whether or not there was a reason to, but the fact is that we did it. Why is everyone so quick to wipe Iran out if they drop a "NUCLEAR CUP O CHEESE", when we already have? Why does the fact that we did it get overlooked and people say "well they bombed us first". We bomb people all of the time. "Yea but we had a reason too". So did they.

hey frankie, how ya doin'?

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:35 PM
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. That post was not implying anything except for the fact that you can never ever stop the flow of drugs as long as there's a shit ton of money to be made.

Even if you can, my original point still stands. You wouldn't even have to enter into a contract with the people in charge. You pay enough money to the right folks and you could get access to those tunnels with no question asked about the nature of the contraband.

Who were you talking about though, I'm curious.

Kc Native was the one who made the point about how the drug cartels gravy train would be fucked up not I.

Pants
09-02-2011, 03:37 PM
Kc Native was the one who made the point about how the drug cartels gravy train would be ****ed up not I.

Oh my bad. LMAO

I don't know why I assumed it was you who originally quoted me.

Chocolate Hog
09-02-2011, 03:44 PM
Oh my bad. LMAO

I don't know why I assumed it was you who originally quoted me.

Lol alright I thought you were trying to say he was my dupe.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 03:45 PM
hey frankie, how ya doin'?

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/104/4/4/I_see_what_you_did_there_by_puppetcore.png

evenfall
09-02-2011, 03:49 PM
They wouldn't even need to get it ashore.

How do you mean?

If Iran supplied a crated weapon I presume it could be moved by truck. I'm sure the WW2 era bombs weighed several thousand pounds, but presumably today it could be moved in a truck bed. A wooden crate wouldn't arouse too much suspicion.

They need logistics worked out like an area where a safe border crossing is likely, but this is surely less complex than 9/11, no one needs to become a trained airline pilot or anything. All they need is the weapon and a few thousand dollars for a vehicle, fuel, etc

Donger
09-02-2011, 03:52 PM
How do you mean?

If Iran supplied a crated weapon I presume it could be moved by truck. I'm sure the WW2 era bombs weighed several thousand pounds, but presumably today it could be moved in a truck bed. A wooden crate wouldn't arouse too much suspicion.

They need logistics worked out like an area where a safe border crossing is likely, but this is surely less complex than 9/11, no one needs to become a trained airline pilot or anything. All they need is the weapon and a few thousand dollars for a vehicle, fuel, etc

I mean that they could detonate it offshore. Obviously not as effective from a damage perspective compared to a denotation on land, but just imagine a nuclear detonation a few miles (or closer) to, say, Los Angeles.

evenfall
09-02-2011, 04:02 PM
I mean that they could detonate it offshore. Obviously not as effective from a damage perspective compared to a denotation on land, but just imagine a nuclear detonation a few miles (or closer) to, say, Los Angeles.

Maybe the east coast would be preferable.. radiation spreading inland afterward?

I wonder what the chances would be of a small vessel carrying the weapon getting through to the lower bay area in New York, without harassment from authorities?

Donger
09-02-2011, 04:07 PM
Maybe the east coast would be preferable.. radiation spreading inland afterward?

I wonder what the chances would be of a small vessel carrying the weapon getting through to the lower bay area in New York, without harassment from authorities?

Prevailing winds would be a determining factor, I would suspect.

go bowe
09-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Maybe the east coast would be preferable.. radiation spreading inland afterward?

I wonder what the chances would be of a small vessel carrying the weapon getting through to the lower bay area in New York, without harassment from authorities?

probably a pretty good chance...

there's always the cargo container to fall back on...

although trucks and boats would work too...


the iranians want the bomb to deter attack and/or destroy israel...

probably more to deter attacks...

ahmanutjob is a bit paranoid about us attacking them since we talk about it a lot...

and we do have them surrounded with our military forces...

go bowe
09-02-2011, 04:19 PM
Prevailing winds would be a determining factor, I would suspect.

as far as the fallout goes that's very true...

if the blast were within even a few miles of a coastal city, wouldn't the devastation still be horrendous?

Donger
09-02-2011, 04:22 PM
as far as the fallout goes that's very true...

if the blast were within even a few miles of a coastal city, wouldn't the devastation still be horrendous?

That depends on the yield. This is a fun tool...

http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

KILLER_CLOWN
09-02-2011, 04:22 PM
probably a pretty good chance...

there's always the cargo container to fall back on...

although trucks and boats would work too...


the iranians want the bomb to deter attack and/or destroy israel...

probably more to deter attacks...

ahmanutjob is a bit paranoid about us attacking them since we talk about it a lot...

and we do have them surrounded with our military forces...

The best part about being surrounded is you can attack in any direction.

KC native
09-02-2011, 04:50 PM
.

Even if you can, my original point still stands. You wouldn't even have to enter into a contract with the people in charge. You pay enough money to the right folks and you could get access to those tunnels with no question asked about the nature of the contraband.

No. There's no way in hell the cartels would give a tunnel up for a payment. It's not going to happen. The cartels know that if they allowed something like that to happen then their gravy train all of a sudden becomes a much more difficult endeavor.

Why do you think the rampant violence that is so prevalent in Mexico has stayed in Mexico?

The cartels aren't stupid.

Donger
09-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Great. The IAEA reports also apparently states that Iran now has 70kg of 20%-enriched uranium.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2011, 05:59 PM
Great. The IAEA reports also apparently states that Iran now has 70kg of 20%-enriched uranium.

So


Iran Allows Access to IAEA Inspectors (http://news.antiwar.com/2011/08/23/eu-angered-as-iran-allows-access-to-iaea-inspectors/)


Iran allowed IAEA team to inspect nuclear sites, says IAEA envoy (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1658700.php/Iran-allowed-IAEA-team-to-inspect-nuclear-sites-says-IAEA-envoy)

...and this has actually angered Europeans. Something smells of wanting a war regardless. There is still no evidence Iran is developing a bomb.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2011, 06:02 PM
I'm sure glad Carter let that nice Ayatollah guy take over. We can only hope the "Arab Spring" turns out so well.

...

Yeah, right, as if he had full control inside another country. Or as if this is the role of our govt to be involved there like that.
That revolution was bound to come no matter who was in power because we arranged that coup back in the 1950s that installed the ruthless Shah who tortured his people, his opposition, with the help of our CIA. It's okay when it's our dictator and torturers though isn't it?

Donger
09-02-2011, 08:03 PM
So


Iran Allows Access to IAEA Inspectors (http://news.antiwar.com/2011/08/23/eu-angered-as-iran-allows-access-to-iaea-inspectors/)


Iran allowed IAEA team to inspect nuclear sites, says IAEA envoy (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1658700.php/Iran-allowed-IAEA-team-to-inspect-nuclear-sites-says-IAEA-envoy)

...and this has actually angered Europeans. Something smells of wanting a war regardless. There is still no evidence Iran is developing a bomb.

Yes, I realize that this news won't bother your type.

And, yes, one-off access for the IAEA isn't exactly openness. I'm not surprised at all that they aren't happy about it.

durtyrute
09-02-2011, 08:41 PM
Almost there

ForeverChiefs58
09-06-2011, 09:45 PM
No snap checks of atomic units: Iran nuclear chief

Iran clarified on Tuesday that its offer of allowing "full supervision" of its atomic programme in return for lifting of sanctions does not include snap checks by UN inspectors of its nuclear units.

On Monday, Iran nuclear chief Fereydoun Abbasi Davani, told the ISNA news agency that Tehran was prepared to give the International Atomic Energy Agency "full supervision" of its controversial nuclear programme for five years if UN sanctions are lifted.

ISNA asked him on Tuesday whether this offer includes the implementation of the additional protocol of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which calls for tougher and snap inspections of atomic activities of its signatories.

Abbasi Davani said the offer does not include such inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.

"We will not accept any more obligations," he told ISNA.

"We have always had full cooperation with the agency," Abbasi Davani said, adding that Iran's cooperation is "within the standards and regulations" of the UN nuclear watchdog.

The Iranian proposal was immediately rejected Monday as insufficient by the European Union, which said the Islamic republic must first re-establish confidence for any sanctions to be lifted.

"Iran still has to comply with its international obligations, despite today's announcement," Michael Mann, spokesman for EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, told AFP.

Ashton has made a "concrete proposal" to Iran aimed at building confidence over the aims of its atomic programme, Mann said. "Unfortunately, so far, Iran has not taken up this offer to enter into meaningful talks."

"Existing UNSC (UN Security Council) resolutions foresee the lifting of sanctions once confidence has been re-established," he said.

Iran is targeted by four sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment amid fears in the West that it seeks to build a nuclear bomb -- a charge it vehemently denies.

Much of Iran's nuclear activities are already under the control of the IAEA, including uranium enrichment -- a process which can produce the fuel for a nuclear reactor and also the fissile material for an atomic warhead.

http://news.yahoo.com/no-snap-checks-atomic-units-iran-nuclear-chief-133635275.html

go bowe
09-07-2011, 09:02 PM
Much of Iran's nuclear activities are already under the control of the IAEA, including uranium enrichment -- a process which can produce the fuel for a nuclear reactor and also the fissile material for an atomic warhead.


i didn't know that...

if we can monitor their uranium enrichment doesn't that preclude the development of the bomb?

Donger
09-07-2011, 09:08 PM
i didn't know that...

if we can monitor their uranium enrichment doesn't that preclude the development of the bomb?

If we can monitor every site 24/7/365, yes, that would preclude indigenous enrichment to WG. Plutonium is a by-product of reactors (either intentionally or not) so their reactors would have to be monitored as well.

go bowe
09-08-2011, 12:06 PM
If we can monitor every site 24/7/365, yes, that would preclude indigenous enrichment to WG. Plutonium is a by-product of reactors (either intentionally or not) so their reactors would have to be monitored as well.
well, ahmanutjob won't allow 24/7/365, so i guess there's no hope of preventing their acquisition of weapons grade material short of a military strike, and i think they have probably hardened their underground facilities to the point where it would take a nuclear bomb to destroy them...

i don't see any feasible way of stopping them...

ForeverChiefs58
09-28-2011, 10:25 PM
We would blast them out of the water wayy sooner than Iran thinks

Iran plans to send ships close to US waters: report

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's navy is going to deploy ships close to US territorial waters, its commander in chief was quoted as saying on Tuesday.

"As the global oppression (the US) is present not far from our maritime border ... our navy is going to have a strong presence not far from US territorial waters," the Irna news agency quoted Admiral Habibollah Sayyari as saying.

On July 19 Sayyari also said that Iran was going to send "a flotilla into the Atlantic".
Iran raised the prospect on Tuesday of sending military ships close to the United States' Atlantic coast, in what would be a major escalation of tensions between the long-standing adversaries.

"Like the arrogant powers that are present near our marine borders, we will also have a powerful presence close to American marine borders," the head of the Navy, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari said, according to the official IRNA news agency.

Speaking at a ceremony marking the 31st anniversary of the start of the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, Sayyari gave no details of when such a deployment could happen or the number or type of vessels to be used.

The declaration comes just weeks after Turkey said it would host a NATO early warning radar system which will help spot missile threats from outside Europe, including potentially from Iran. The decision has angered Tehran which had enjoyed close relations with Ankara.

And it comes a few months after Iran sent warships through the Suez canal, after the fall of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the first time the Islamic Republic had deployed navy vessels in the Mediterranean.

The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to stop it getting nuclear weapons. Tehran denies it is developing nuclear arms saying its atomic program is for purely peaceful purposes.

Iran has dismissed the threats, warning that it will respond by hitting U.S. interests in the Gulf and Israel if any such attack happened.

Analysts say Tehran could retaliate by launching hit-and-run strikes in the Gulf and by closing the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway where about 40 percent of all traded oil passes.

The Islamic state often launches military drills in the country to display its military capabilities amid persistent speculation about a possible U.S. or Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The remarks come as another high-ranking Iranian appeared to reject a recent US request to establish a "red phone" link between the countries to avoid unwanted confrontation between their armed forces in the Gulf region.

"When we are in the Gulf of Mexico, we will establish direct contact with the United States," Ali Fadavi, commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, was quoted in press reports as saying.

"In the view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the presence of the US in the Persian Gulf is illegitimate and makes no sense."

The Iranian navy has been developing its presence in international waters since last year, regularly launching vessels in the Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden to protect Iranian ships from Somali pirates operating in the area.

Iran also sent two ships into the Mediterranean for the first time in February, via the Suez Canal, to the annoyance of Israel and the United States.

And in July, leaders announced that a Kilo class submarine had completed an inaugural mission in the southern Indian Ocean and the Red Sea.

BucEyedPea
09-28-2011, 10:30 PM
Yep, already saw it on anti-war.com. My reliable, and impeccable source for such things. This is being done in response to provocative moves by the US in the Persian Gulf though—a la Lincoln at Sumter to provoke. Did anyone expect otherwise?

I said all along, they can do some damage even if we ultimately prevail, if we keep up the belligerence toward them. Don't get me wrong, this scares the shit outta me living on the Gulf coast and in the vicinity of Command Central.
It scares me more than them getting a nuke.

On second thought, how could they manage to get out of the Persian Gulf to get here. Unless they use an ally.