Iran Enriches Uranium- Now's the Time to Strike

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Has anyone seriously expected that Israel is NOT planning for this eventual option?

Ya'alon's comments are old news here. I don't remember exactly when he came out with them but it was about a week or 2 ago.

Nothing unanticipated.

[Kapitan]

Avon from reading your posts it seems like you chatting aload of catwaddel just my opinion.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Avon from reading your posts it seems like you chatting aload of catwaddel just my opinion.

And you base this on? What is it you don't agree with?

[Kapitan]

Well just by this stupid argument.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

Well just by this stupid argument.

Then you should be addressing your complaints to Hense, as he has initiated the tones you are seeing on this threads and on others.

But if it makes you happier to blame me, I'm happy for you.

[The Avon Lady]

Back to the future.................

10 years till Iran has the bomb?

8 years till Iran has the bomb?

3 Years till Iran has the bomb?

16 days till Iran has the bomb?

And just like N. Korea pulled some fast ones on the rest of the world, seems possible that no lessons have been learned.

[Abraham]

@ The Avon Lady:

I find the link you gave confusing.

April 12 (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.

Iran will move to ``industrial scale'' uranium enrichment involving 54,000 centrifuges at its Natanz plant, the Associated Press quoted deputy nuclear chief Mohammad Saeedi as telling state-run television today.

``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...

I have always heard that Iran could not produce a nuclear bomb before 2010 - which is by the way just more than three years from now. Other sources say it will even take them five to ten years.
Producing the enriched uranium within sixteen days doesn't mean producing a workable nuclear device within a few weeks, does it?
I hope we have at least a year or so for debates (and to end this thread...).

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Abraham

@ The Avon Lady:

I find the link you gave confusing.

I have always heard that Iran could not produce a nuclear bomb before 2010 - which is by the way just more than three years from now. Other sources say it will even take them five to ten years.
Producing the enriched uranium within sixteen days doesn't mean producing a workable nuclear device within a few weeks, does it?
I hope we have at least a year or so for debates (and to end this thread...).

Would someone here care to go back a few years and list all of the in-the-future predictions on how long it was expected to take N. Korea to produce nuclear weapons?

There's a pattern here.

[The Avon Lady]

Or if 16 days is too short for some and 10 years too long for others, maybe 271 days will bring a smile to everyone's faces.

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

@ Avon...

Avon from reading your posts it seems like you chatting aload of catwaddel just my opinion.

HAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAA.... :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Neal says...

US, UK, France, Russia, China have them, why not everyone?

it's not just those countires... you also gotta include India and Pakistan, and Irael...

plus, why is the North Korean situation much different from this one... we didn't flush the bombers on that one... why do it here... at least at such an early stage, and with such lil contingency planning...

why didn't anyone decide to take out the Indian or Pakistani nuclear enrichment facilities when they decided to go nuclear...

the genie is out of the bottle... this is the price we are paying for the global proliferation of the know how, and the cold war sabre rattling that has dominated the 50s, 60s, up to the current time...

lets hope that we don't have to pay a higher price because of either rash action, or lack of firm decisive justifiable action...


that guy at the head of the Iranian government likes to go into his lunatic tyrades... he likes to make speeches and threats... the Iranians are as stupid as this one person... there are others in power there that will control him when he goes too far... the factions that govern Iran do not appear to be suicidal...

remember... it was Kruschev that boasted on the floor of the UN thaat he would bury us... 40 years later, American and Russian astronauts share the orbiting space station, and send naval vessels in good will exchange tours to each others ports...

the alarmists who pushed for the quick preemptive strike on the Soviets didn't win out back then... and the clock took a step back from the brink...

lets give common sense and good judgement a chance... then, if that don't work, well...

--Mike

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

There's a pattern here.

What the heck are you on about?


Clinton giving North Korea the light-water reactors to make the plutonium?

How long it took the DPRK to finish their reprocessing facilities and then announce they were removing the fuel rods for plutonium extraction?

Clinton handing Iran the blueprints to an implosion nuke, with all the numbers multiplied by 1.1, then telling the Russian courier that they had been multiplied by 1.1?


There's a lot of leeway with your "pattern".




@Mike

The Russians weren't suicidal, nor did they embrace a religion that supports suicide. There is a significant difference, and that difference is hope for life....not death.

[MadMike]

"Clinton handing Iran the blueprints to an implosion nuke, with all the numbers multiplied by 1.1, then telling the Russian courier that they had been multiplied by 1.1?"

Edited- I found the reference on the net to the story, sounds like pure hogwash due to several inconsistencies in the story.
First, the Iranians alrealy have design info for a weapon (compliments of A.Q. Khan). They don't need the CIA's or Clinton's help in building a bomb.
Info regarding that has been in the public domain for decades, not the least of which are several pictures readily available on the web-

Very first firing set for "The Gadget" (round tub on aft sphere)-

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/...getB339c10.jpg

Yours, Mike

[DeepSix]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

...
Iran knows China, Russia, and much of Europe won't take action, and will actively criticize the US if we stop Iran. So, if we are not going to do anything (useless UN sactions and blah blah UN hot air aside) to stop Iran, are we prepared to let them possess nuclear weapons? Look what diplomacy and sanctions did to stop North Korea... nothing.
...

As much as I dislike the idea of the U.S. making pre-emptive strikes, this is precisely the bottom line that I believe we face.

[John Channing]

Here is a bottom line that I face (on a much smaller scale, mind you).

I have a great deal of regard and respect for all of the people involved in this thread.

HOWEVER...

A number of Neal's rules have been bent to the breaking point here. So, without taking sides, I would ask that everyone here do their best to take the temperature down just a bit. The topic at hand is complex enough that a general airing of divergent points of view can be very enlightening... but only if EVERYONE shows each other the mutual respect they deserve.

Lets see the level of debate that I know you are capable of, and not childish name calling and snide retorts.

Thanks as always,

JCC

[Mike 'Red Ocktober' Hense]

@ John...

Edited: As John said, no name calling, Mike. Thanks, NS



@ Neal...

And since everyone sat on their hands from 1933 till 1939, Hitler built up his forces and the world paid dearly

this is true... but lets look at the differences between the world of 1933 and the world of today... as well as the differences in US polices of then and now...

it's a lot smaller world, and the US is not in the isolationist mood that marked that period... Iran is under constant surveillance, by all sorts... the same situation could not take place as it did back then...

@ Tycho...

@Mike

The Russians weren't suicidal, nor did they embrace a religion that supports suicide. There is a significant difference, and that difference is hope for life....not death

the Iranian people are not suicidal either... nor does the religon they follow condone any of these suicidal acts, that are so commonly attributed to it... for you to make such far reaching blanket statements only shows that you neither know the Iranian people, nor do you know anything about their religion... and that is the danger here... reacting out of fear and suspicion...

the consequences of such action i doubt that you have even stopped to consider... even when/if justifiable miltary force is employed... the eventual outcome will surprise many of us...

when and if a credible threat presents itself, i believe that clear and decisive action should be taken... but surely not before then... and definitely not from unfounded fear and suspicion...

i've been to Iran...i've seen the place first hand... i've seen the people (well not all, but some of em)... who here has braved the bus ride from the airport to the International (hotel) in Tehran...

now, granted, this has been some time ago... but at least i have some first hand face to face with the people there... has anyone else who is so convinced that they are all terrorists?

--Mike