Iran Enriches Uranium- Now's the Time to Strike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

from your own quotes...

Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009

you should be able to do the math avon, madmike... 2009-2006=how much longer than NOW that everyone has...

ample time in which to take whatever action... after rationally, taking all factors into account... they even say the same thing above...

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.

--Mike

[MadMike]

I have a little bit more insight into the subject matter than most people on this forum (I only worked on nuclear weapons for over a decade). Care to educate us?

I suppose in your eyes, the Israeli Osirak strike was unjustified. The question is not if or when the Iranians will have enrichment facilities on line, but how much weapons grade material they already possess.

Given the fact that Ahmadinijad once again threatened Isreal with annihilation, the facts speak for themselves.

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

I have a little bit more insight into the subject matter than most people on this forum (I only worked on nuclear weapons for over a decade). Care to educate us?

that makes you an expert on what... the guidance contained in the targeting packages... the policy on first use... the physicist who knows the results of radiation contamination as a result of such use...

or maybe it was your expertise on the production of enriched uranium that made you jump up and shout STRIKE NOW... surely you inexhaustable expertise must've deduced that Iran as obtaining tons of the stuff overnight as to make them a credible and present threat...

aaahhhhhh :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: this is almost too comical... you must be stringing me along on one long joke line... surely noone could be as serious about this as you appear to be...

hey... i still have my gun card and training certifs (and a few other papers) which were required by me in my job, as we transported nukes and nuc materials throughout the european theatre during the 70s... yet you don't see me asserting myself as some nuclear expert, like you're trying to pass yourself off as... you have a bit more insight to nothing... with the possible exception of your own perceived self worth... and that is purely subjective...

i didn't see Rumsfeld or Bush calling for MadMike during any of the last couple of months... i guess they just forgot about your overwhelming expertise... right...

surely you can't expect me to take anything you say with more than a grain of salt... you are an authority on nothing except turning a few wrenches and some safety procedures...

hey, i wasn't at the SAC command post during the cold war, but i did sleep at a holiday inn the other night... that, and your grand expertise, plus 95 cents, still won't get either of us a seat on a nyc bus...

you're nobody... just like me... another nobody with an opinion...
just like me...

get used to it... there's a million of us walking around the place...

Given the fact that Ahmadinijad once again threatened Isreal with annihilation,

you and him seem to be cut from pretty much the same mold... alarmist, over reactive, given to outburst of uncontrolled vociferous babbling... not much difference in his outburst, and yours STRIKE NOW!!!!, isn't that what you said...

do you seriously think that he is a representation of the entire geopolitical scene in Iran... or do you think that his is the ravings of a madman... eh, MADMike...

that was a rhetorical statement, and not a question... for why would i ask such a question of one so obviously incapable of answering it...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense

from your own quotes...

Iran could have its first nuclear weapon in 2009

you should be able to do the math avon, madmike... 2009-2006=how much longer than NOW that everyone has...

So? Do you want a gold star for you math abilities?

ample time in which to take whatever action... after rationally, taking all factors into account... they even say the same thing above...

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.

So? What do you think I quoted it for? There is indeed an opinion to keep trying diplomatic channels.

Personally, I put my money on that leading nowhere. Iran is laughing in everyone's faces.

MadMike claims to have works with/on nukes. Do you have any idea what exactly his job was before you belittle him because you were a glorified nuke delivery boy?

BTW, since no one is a greater expert than you and the article I linked to doesn't really talk about it, how long would it take Iran to produce dirty nuke bombs, not from "weapons grade" material the article is discussing. Anyone else know?

[MadMike]

Wow, you had a small arms certification card and were probably non-critical PRP certified... were you an SP or MP (or heaven forbid, an aircrew member?).
Nah, don't expect anyone in the Bush administration to consult me, why should they? My statements mirror my technical insight (of which you have absolutely none) into "special weapons".
However, I digress. I'm not the one writing incomplete sentences with innumerable exclamation points.
Neal Stevens has visited my website and can confirm what I did for a living. :|\

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

then how in god's name would you jump to the wild claim that we should strike em now, merely because they've announce their intentions to go ahead with their enrichment program...

even i am aware that it would take many many months for them to aquire sufficient nuclear material to be able to make even one nuc... and that assumes them to be capable of even doing as much... and i don't have an atomic union card like you do...

then comes the development and testing of a credible mode of delivery...

naaahhhh madmike... from the statements you are making, you seem to be the last person i'd want to even be certified to get within 10 miles of any nuclear materials... much less have anything to do with the policies regarding their employment...

both of you ought to team up and write a doomsday novel... for children...

--Mike

[TteFAboB]

Credible mode of delivery.

[MadMike]

If you have a munitions background fine, we can argue points. Otherwise, we have nothing to discuss. So please feel free to list your former MOS or AFSC.

Avon Lady can verify what I did for a living (please check your PM).

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

arguement!!! why would i waste time arguing with you... you've already shown that you are prone to wild and irrational outbursts on this topic...

sorry, i've got no interest in going back and forth with someone who obviously has lil or no regard for the facts...

more rational and knowledeable people, who are a lot closer to the events than either you or i, have clearly stated their assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities... and their statements make your position on this topic, apparent for what it is... an unqualified, alarmist kneejerk reaction...

you and avon go on without me... please... go on without me...

--Mike

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Oh my God, doomsday is just one day ahead, the sky is falling, we must strike immediately, or we all will be lost...!!! (compare to 2003: "The memo shows that Iraq now has the capability to equip a missile with biological or nuclear material and strike london with only 35 minutes prewarning")

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4902178.stm

So they have mastered one more step in a longer chain of technical developement, what a surprise. The material they can create by that (so far we only have their word for that, btw.) IS NOT sufficient to build nuclear bombs with it. It is the type of material needed in nuclear powerplants. If they currently can produce even the quantities needed for powerplants - this news does not say, it only says they now know how to do it, and that they have tested successfully their setup. doing something in an experiemntal lab, and doing it so that it produces industrial quantities is seme0thing different. Without doubt they will get there - and still would be years away from producing material that could be sued in weapons technology. An Uran-bomb or even a plutonium bomb needs further refinement of this material. There is no indication whatever that they still are not years away from acchieving that. Months before that would be the right time to give the military a prewarning. Today - probably would be years too early.

I still wait to learn how a military strike could be successful, btw. So far, noone has lined out a plan which chances for failure does not dominate it's chances for success. Players may be satisfied by that. Politicians and militaries should not.

What I say on this? Keep a sharp eye on them, but currently no need to become hysterical. The time to strike - is not now.

Words of sanity there Sky. The only slight quibble I have was the "35 minutes" thing. The claim in the September, 2002 dossier and to what PM Blair mentioned in his headline grabbing speech to the House of Commons was that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order to do so. As it turned out, it was revealed later at the Hutton inquiry that the infamous "45 minute claim" wasn't as credible as had originally been thought. It was claimed to have come from a high ranking Iraqi officer within Saddams command structure. In fact internal Foreign Office documents released at the Hutton Inquiry showed that this was not the case and that the information was based on hearsay information and second hand in nature. Later Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, said of the claim: "That was said on the basis of security service information - a single source, it wasn't corroborated."

[Skybird]

35 minutes, 45 minutes - who cares. It was complete nonsens, written off from a student'S 10 years-old work, I vaguely remember. It surely was one of the biggest laughs in the attempts to justify the war.

BTW, the enrichment level they are said in the medias to have accieved is 3%. this is enough to fuel a nuclear popwer plant with it (if it is efficient operation is something different). But you need material with an enrichement level of almost 90% to build an uranium (not plutonium) bomb. For plutonium, the material needs to be additionally reprocessed - a step they have not conducted so far.

[The Avon Lady]

The UN starts to apply agressive diplomatic pressure to turn the thumbscrews on Iran:

Believe it or not: Iran becomes UN disarmament leader
Anne Bayefsky

On April 10th the UN Disarmament Commission elected Iran as one of its three Vice-Chairpersons.

Afterwards, the UN's Under Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs, Nobuaki Tanaka, said the Commission "played a unique role" with "the advantage of being a fully universal deliberative body." This is the UN fiction which brings us closer to nuclear war with each passing day. The allusion is to universal democracy, though the majority of voters are non-democratic and include thugs, racists and war-mongers.

The Indonesian representative speaking for the so-called Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which holds the balance of power in all universal UN bodies, praised the Commission's importance and the UN framework. He then maintained non-proliferation should be chained to disarmament.

Bringing up the rear was the new Iranian Vice-Chairperson. Mehdi Danesh-Yazdi sought to reassure his UN comrades about Iran's disinterest in acquiring nuclear weapons by stating: "the national security of non-nuclear-weapon States was in deep jeopardy." A not-so-subtle indication of the rationale behind Iran's sprint to the nuclear arms finish-line.

Posted: Friday, April 14, 2006

That'll teach 'em!

[MadMike]

As expected, Hense.

Reactor grade plutonium can be used in weapons, as verified in a 1960's U.S. nuclear test.

Uranium enriched above 20 percent is used in nuclear weapons.

Yours, Mike

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

As expected, Hense.
Reactor grade plutonium can be used in weapons,

what are you babbling about now mad... first of all, i didn't say anything at all about plutonium, why are you directing your post at me... you're so anxious to say something... anything... that you don't even know who you should be directing your comments to... go back and read the posts again s... l... o... w... l... y..... this time...

second... all plutonium is made in a reactor... a uranium reactor... wouldn't it seem sort of ass backwards to try and make a plutonium device that would be of significantly lower yield, and would reqire more expertise as far as handling, than to enrich uranium in facilities that they already have...

third... why go through all the trouble of producing and handling plutonium... why not just make a non nuclear 'dirty' explosive device from the spent uranium... or for that matter, from any of the radioative materials at various labs and hospitals all over the world could be used...

avon says...

That'll teach 'em!

teach em what!!! they ignore the UN imperitives at will... what's it gonna teach em

ya know... with every post you make, it becomes more clear that you know very little about what you assert to be your field of expertise... or maybe it's some irrational fear that's making you post such obvious drivel... or maybe it's something else... maybe like avon, you too are on some sort of religiously motivated crusade...

either way... the snooze alert is on... both of you are really starting get quite boring as far as this topic is concerned...

--Mike

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense

sorry, i've got no interest in going back and forth with someone who obviously has lil or no regard for the facts...

Mike lied. People died.

avon says...

teach em what!!! they ignore the UN imperitives at will... what's it gonna teach em

I was mocking the UN. Did you bother reading the 4 paragragh article I posted?

In any event, now that you say that UN "imperitives" won't teach Iran anything, what other suggestions, if any, do you have to deal with this situation? Or are you saying that the US should simply do nothing, other than perhaps aim a vast amount of their underground and sub-based nuclear tipped missiles at Iran and wait for the Iranians to shoot first? That's a possibile strategy, BTW, that no one's suggested here, if I haven't missed a post.

ya know... with every post you make, it becomes more clear that you know very little about what you assert to be your field of expertise... or maybe it's some irrational fear that's making you post such obvious drivel... or maybe it's something else... maybe like avon, you too are on some sort of religiously motivated crusade...

I never knew that trying to save one's life qualifies as a "religious crusade". Keep it up, Mike.

either way... the snooze alert is on... both of you are really starting get quite boring as far as this topic is concerned...

But you've said that already.

You just can't stay away, can you!