Iran Enriches Uranium- Now's the Time to Strike

[Kapitan]

America would be alot better off in fact the world would be if it just butted out and kept its big ore out of forign climbs.

But they dont and i agree that iran shouldnt have nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors for power then maybe.

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

America would be alot better off in fact the world would be if it just butted out and kept its big ore out of forign climbs.

But they dont and i agree that iran shouldnt have nuclear weapons, but nuclear reactors for power then maybe.

Your statement says says in a nut shell to me... I am a big wimp and don't have the nut sac to step up to the pump and do what "I know is right" so I'll cower in the back of the crowd and throw stones at the ones who do have the ballz....your pathetic Kap.

[Kapitan]

America has poked its nose in many a time in forign affairs only to get it smacked out of joint.

I dont sit back im normaly up front, i have no issue with america going to war in iran as i do agree that they shouldnt have any nuclear material.

But america going to war in iraq was plain stupid popularity levels for both presidents have never stooped so low.

I wouldnt say sit back and throw stones i aint they kind of person i like to be the problem in your face up front nose to nose, not half a mile back going should we shouldnt we.

If you cant accept another persons views then dont come to the forum, we all have a right of free speech and also say roughly what we want, i can understand that your a patriot but so am i.

But tell me thiss was iraq realy worth the hundreds of deaths based wholey on a bunch of lies that a bunch of imcompetent wa*kers made up just so some little retard we call bush can go to war?

WAS IT WORTH IT ?

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

i think that the first war was entirely justified... the Iraqi armed move into the territories of Kuwait, constituted a strategic threat, a clearly identifiable and present one at that, not only to an ally of the US, but to the strategic interests of this nation, to the stability (?) of the region, and to the all precious supply of oil...

they wrote their own ticket to that movie... and all hell should've been unleashed upon the Iraqi military forces and the Iraqi regime at that time... this latest action is sheer folly though... and the public relations attempt to justify it is almost embarrassing...

the eventual outcome will surely be one of shock and awe...

read winning the peace by ret gen zinni... he has served... honorably...

his comments...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in618896.shtml

view his his interview on the same page...

yeah, i stand up and applaud this guy...


(the borg... rotflmao :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: good one)

--Mike

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense

read winning the peace by ret gen zinni... he has served... honorably...

his comments...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in618896.shtml

view his his interview on the same page...

yeah, i stand up and applaud this guy...


(the borg... rotflmao :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: good one)

--Mike

I'm sure there will be many attempts to discredit the guy and not his arguments as is the way things seem to operate over there. there probably will be some kiddy porn allegations, or he is only out to sell a book, or he is a bitter old man ra ra ra. I agree with what you have to say on this one.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by GunnersMate

Mount an airstrike and blame on the Israelis.

Just for that, in protest, I have told my kids to put their long range jetpacks back in the storage room.

That'll teach yas.

[MadMike]

Hysterical Mike "Red October" Hense writes-

"yes... now's definitely the time to strike... by all means, lets unleash a unprecedented attack on Iran... kill off the entire Iranian nation...

what would you suggest we use MMike... nucs, conventionals, biologicals, harsh language...

i dunno... have ya stopped to think past the immediate consequences on this move Mike... i mean, once you irradiate all the oil over there, the cost of that new set of wheels you're gonna want to buy is gonna rocket sky high..."

You obviously didn't bother to fully read my post. Who said anything about using nukes?
The facts are obvious and clear. Iranian nuclear facilities must be put out of order, and the quicker the better (whether it's the Israeli Air Force or USN/USAF).

Yours, Mike

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Konovalov

I'm sure there will be many attempts to discredit the guy and not his arguments as is the way things seem to operate over there. there probably will be some kiddy porn allegations, or he is only out to sell a book, or he is a bitter old man ra ra ra. I agree with what you have to say on this one.

Zinni, a book, and co-authored with Tom Clancy, well, the military books (not the novels) by Tom Clancy surely are not the kind of literature I would trust blindly, but the book Clancy co-authored with ret. gen. Fred Franks (Into The Storm) was spectacularly good - in those chapters that had been written by Franks himself, concerning the matter I see it as a mandatory reading. If Zinni also had written the deciding chapters himself, I might be willing to spend money for this book as well.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

America has poked its nose in many a time in forign affairs only to get it smacked out of joint.

Im going to use this opportunity to be a little angry. Do we stick our noses in alot of things? Yup. I'd never deny or disagree with that. As a serviceman, ive been in far too many place, most of which id never care to see, nor see again. I do not see my country as being victimzed (IE, "Poor us! waaahh"), nor the great guardian of "freedom" (its become a meangless rhetorical buzzword now, and hearing it makes my gut wrench)... but.....

We are damned if we do, and w'ere damned if we don't. In so many facets of the world community, there is alot expected of us. Foreign aid, UN support, etc. Im not very well versed in the details, i only know that if we were to withdrawl all support, from the global community, there would be probably an almost equal outry as sending troops to some islamic rathole like iraq or afganistan.

The people ive met in this world, up front, they seem to like your money and what your presence can do for their economy, but the instant you turn your back their quick to sink a knife into it. "welcome" on one hand, and "F**k you GI" on the other. Yes i'm bitter. Korea's a great example of that. Personnaly i wish we'd withdraw ALL of our troops, my hope is those bastards resume their civil war and blow themselves to bits, and id laugh, without the slightest twinge of guilt over feeling the way i do. I think illl add Iraq to that list too. They can all go to hell.

To summerize my bitterness, if there were a president to have this as his campaing platorm,

http://bvml.org/webmaster/patton.html
i would vote for him and not bat an eyelash about it:

Originally Posted by Kapitan

a*kers made up just so some little retard we call bush can go to war?

WAS IT WORTH IT ?

What do you think genius? Depends on who you ask. American opinion is divided on this issue. Personnaly im not into the blame game. Too late for that horse**** now. Was it worth it or who's responsible doesnt mean crap right now. The only thing that does matter is, What are we going to do about it. I have friends/comrades still in uniform over there, and if i was still in, id be over there too. Life sucks as a combat engineer.





as an aside, my apologies ahead of time for this tangent rant of a post. The simmering teapot boiled over so to speak.

[Kapitan]

The was it worth it question was directed soley at iceman, but thankyou for answering

[The Avon Lady]

Cox & Forkum hit the mark again:

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

Hysterical Mike "Red October" Hense writes-

if anyone's hysterical, it's you... just look at the title of your topic...

STRIKE NOW!!!!

do you have any idea whatsoever how long it would take them to make enough enriched, weapons grade uranium, to be able to produce even a small nuclear bomb...

you don't know one single fact about what you are babbling about... yet you are ready to set defcon1 and flush the bombers...

... and yet you have the audacity to call someone else hysterical

educate yourself...

The Clock is Ticking, But How Fast?
By David Albright and Corey Hinderstein The Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) March 27, 2006

..........
..........

Recent comments by US officials about Iran’s timeline to nuclear weapons differ from official, community-wide US intelligence assessments. In testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on February 2, 2006, John Negroponte, Director of National Intelligence, stated that Iran is judged as probably having neither a nuclear weapon nor the necessary fissile material for a weapon. He added that if Iran continues on its current path, it “will likely have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon within the next decade." The basis for this estimate remains classified, although press reports state that Iran’s lack of knowledge and experience in running large numbers of centrifuges is an important consideration. Most interpret Negroponte’s remark to mean that Iran will need 5-10 years before it possesses nuclear weapons. (http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...rancascade.pdf).

By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 5, 2006

............
............
Estimates of just when Iran might acquire a nuclear weapon range from alarmist views of only a few months to roughly 15 years. American intelligence agencies say it will take 5 to 10 years for Iran to manufacture the fuel for its first atomic bomb. Most forecasters acknowledge that secret Iranian advances or black market purchases could produce a technological surprise.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

Iran and the Bomb, View From Moscow

March 23, 2006
RIA Novosti news agency.
United Press International

............
............

Q. Back to Iran. Can it ultimately create a nuclear weapon?

A. Of course, it can. Any highly developed country can do this, it's available on the Internet, if you like. The truth is that one needs much money and time. In the case of Iran, I think, they will do it in five to 10 years. I mean, they will be able to build a basic nuclear weapon. This weapon will not be as modern as Russian or American, but it does not matter --

these people, who, by the way, have a very good idea about what they are talking about, seem to think that STRIKING em NOW might be just a lil premature...

yup... you seem to be the hysterical one here...

ignorance... that is the only basis for you alarmist post... ignorance of any fact, extrapolation of fact, or anything resembling fact, from which to draw a rational opinion...

you can join the cartoon girl above, and open your eyes wide shut as well...

--Mike

[Skybird]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4908948.stm

[Abraham]

@ All:
Let's keep the discussions civil, let's not call names and let's not provoke other forum members.

Abraham

(with moderator cap on)

[The Avon Lady]

Snippets:

The Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) at Isfahan has continued to operate since its restart in August 2005, following the breakdown in the suspension. By late February 2006, Iran had produced about 85 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride, where the quantity refers to uranium mass. With roughly 5 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride needed to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, this stock represents enough natural uranium hexafluoride for over 15 nuclear weapons. Although this uranium hexafluoride contains impurities that can interfere with the operation of centrifuges and reduce their output, most IAEA experts believe that Iran can overcome this problem and believe this problem has been overblown in the media. Iran is known to be working to improve the purity of its uranium hexafluoride. If necessary, Iran could use its existing stock of impure material, if it had no other material. It could take additional steps to purify this uranium hexafluoride, or it could use the material in its own centrifuges and experience reduced output and a higher centrifuge failure rate.

Given another year to make enough HEU for a nuclear weapon, where some inefficiencies in the plant are expected, and a few more months to convert the uranium into weapon components, Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009. By this time, Iran is assessed to have had sufficient time to prepare the other components of a nuclear weapon, although the weapon may not be small enough to be deliverable by a ballistic missile.

Conclusion

The international community needs to be committed to a diplomatic solution in an agreement whereby Iran voluntarily forswears having any deployed enrichment capability. Looking at a timeline of at least three years before Iran could have weapons capability means that there is still time to pursue aggressive diplomatic
and time for measures such as sanctions to have an effect, if they become necessary.

It is vital to understand what Iran has accomplished, what it still has to learn, will reach a point when a plan to pursue nuclear weapons covertly or openly succeed more quickly than the international community could react. Although estimates include significant uncertainties, they reinforce the view that Iran
foreswear any deployed enrichment capability and accept adequate inspections. Otherwise, we risk a seismic shift in the balance of power in the region.

- The Clock is Ticking, But How Fast?, by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), March 27, 2006