WAS COVERT ATTEMPT TO NUKE IRAN FOILED BY LEAK?

Bernie, I think you said it all.

I think there is a maniac running loose in this thread.

0 Replies

I looked up oralloy and found (I knew already)

Oralloy ...

Oralloy was the code name often used for the enriched uranium being

produced at Natanz.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:
The time for negotiations has ended now. Now is the time to drop high explosives on people.

Invading and occupying Iran would be rather difficult.

Simply dumping a quantity of high explosives on their heads shouldn't pose any major difficulties.

We should certainly pull the carriers back out of range of any Sizzler anti-ship missiles though.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Iran says they are not developing nuclear weapons.

They are lying.

Steve 41oo wrote:

The UN inspectors have found no evidence that they are developing nuclear weapons.

The evidence is the fact that they conducted the program in secret for 20 years.

Steve 41oo wrote:

The Russians say they are not helping the Iranians to develop nuclear weapons.

They are not helping Iran in a technical capacity. But they are helping by preventing any meaningful sanctions from being placed on Iran.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

3) Under article X, Iran can withdraw from the NPT if they conclude that to do so is in their best interests. It is unclear what range of options the Security Council might have in response. But because of 1) above, none of this really matters.

If Iran would have withdrawn from the treaty and then started work on nuclear weapons, that would have been legitimate.

But since they've had a nuclear weapons program while still a party to the treaty, their nuclear weapons are illegal.

blatham wrote:

5) Non-compliance with treaties to which a nation is a signatory is usually unfortunate for the international community. Quite aside from America's rich tradition of violation of its own internal treaties, it's violation of international treaties are numerous, including treaties on trade, human rights and torture. Israel too is has been in violation of treaties on human rights and torture to which it is signatory. And it is in violation of numerous UN resolutions.

What trade treaties have we violated? What human rights treaties have we violated?

As for torture, no one seems to complain when US POWs are tortured. So why should we care about the CIA torturing al-Qa'ida's leadership?

blatham wrote:

6) our friend here who is root root rooting for bombs to fall on dirty innocent muslim women and children

I don't recall rooting for that.

I'm rooting for bombs falling on Iran's illegal nuclear weapons complexes.

I really wouldn't want to be a civilian downwind from the Isfahan site though. I doubt a B61-11 will be dropped there, but if it is, the fallout will resemble Chernobyl.

Without the nuke, it will still be an unpleasant downwind experience, as the bombing of the aboveground uranium conversion facility will result in the release of tons of caustic and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.

But that's Iran's fault, not ours.

blatham wrote:

has a boner for bombs, particularly of the radioactive sort (look up, just for fun, "oralloy" and "bockscar".

Weapons are cool, and nukes doubly so, but they are not a source of sexual arousal.

I picked the artwork painted on Bockscar's nose because of all the Hiroshima/Nagasaki arguing I do.

There are a lot of people out there who make absurd claims about us nuking Japan (things like saying the cities weren't military targets, or that Japan tried to surrender before the bombs were dropped, etc), and one of my hobbies is setting that sort of nonsense straight.

0 Replies

Quote:

What trade treaties have we violated?

Numerous trade treaty violations, as previously adjudicted by the WTO.

Quote:

What human rights treaties have we violated?

The "UN convention on torture..."

Quote:

As for torture, no one seems to complain when US POWs are tortured. So why should we care about the CIA torturing al-Qa'ida's leadership?

Your first sentence is a lie.

Your second sentence is not merely a justification for gross immorality, it is also a justification for violating precisely the treaty which you suggest has not been violated.

Quote:

Weapons are cool,

But which is cooler... the weapon itself or the little child blown apart whose brain and eyeballs are plastered on the wall? Or are they both equally cool?

How cool is the IED? How cool were those jets laden with fuel and so imaginatively and effectively used as weapons? How cool is a lightstick when it is shoved up your ass?

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

There are a lot of people out there who make absurd claims about us nuking Japan (things like saying the cities weren't military targets, or that Japan tried to surrender before the bombs were dropped, etc), and one of my hobbies is setting that sort of nonsense straight.

America did nuke Japan.
It was an experiment with the two different types of bomb.
They needed to test them on a real live cities, mainly to impress the Russians.
Thats why hiroshima and nagasaki were relatively untouched, so they could measure the bomb's capability.
Japan was trying to surrender with terms about the Emperor, rejected by the US until suddenly Japan surrendered after the Nagasaki bomb, and guess what the Emperor was untouched, just as they wanted. The experiment with the uranium and plutonium devices was over, thats what ended the war.

(Regarding Iran if you have knowledge of their secret bomb program these last 20 years, suggest you bring it to the attention of your President...otherwise its just guesswork on your part and worth nothing)

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
What trade treaties have we violated?
Numerous trade treaty violations, as previously adjudicted by the WTO.

There are a lot of disputes over trade treaties. I'd hardly call such disputes "treaty violations". (And if they were violations, the biggest violators would probably be the EU with their illegal ban on genetically modified food.)

blatham wrote:

Quote:
What human rights treaties have we violated?
The "UN convention on torture..."

You mentioned torture in addition to human rights, which led me to believe that you were claiming human rights violations in addition to torture.

If all you meant was the torture, then I agree with your assessment that we are violating that treaty.

blatham wrote:

Quote:
As for torture, no one seems to complain when US POWs are tortured. So why should we care about the CIA torturing al-Qa'ida's leadership?
Your first sentence is a lie.

No it isn't, though it is possible that I am mistaken.

Do you have some evidence of a great outcry over the torture of US POWs?

blatham wrote:

Your second sentence is not merely a justification for gross immorality, it is also a justification for violating precisely the treaty which you suggest has not been violated.

I agree that we have violated the prohibitions against torture.

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Weapons are cool,
But which is cooler... the weapon itself or the little child blown apart whose brain and eyeballs are plastered on the wall? Or are they both equally cool?

The weapon is what is cool, not the victim.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

America did nuke Japan.

Yes.

Steve 41oo wrote:

It was an experiment with the two different types of bomb.

Not really. They did take measurements, but they do that every time a new weapon is used in combat.

The difference in bomb type had nothing to do with the bombing.

Steve 41oo wrote:

They needed to test them on a real live cities, mainly to impress the Russians.

No, there was no "need" to test on live cities. And the point was to impress the Japanese.

The whole point of dropping the bombs was to make Japan surrender.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Thats why hiroshima and nagasaki were relatively untouched, so they could measure the bomb's capability.

We left cities untouched so the Japanese would understand the overwhelming power of the bombs.

Steve 41oo wrote:

Japan was trying to surrender with terms about the Emperor, rejected by the US until suddenly Japan surrendered after the Nagasaki bomb,

They weren't trying hard enough. Japan only managed to convey a request to surrender after Nagasaki was bombed.

Japan was in control over when they offered to surrender. Any complaints over surrender timing should be addressed to them.

Steve 41oo wrote:

and guess what the Emperor was untouched, just as they wanted.

Japan asked us to guarantee he Emperor's position (though they only asked after Nagasaki). Instead we guaranteed that MacArthur had the power to depose the Emperor at will.

Steve 41oo wrote:

The experiment with the uranium and plutonium devices was over, thats what ended the war.

The only experiment over uranium vs. plutonium devices was the Trinity test back in the US. That experiment was over before any nukes were dropped on Japan.

Steve 41oo wrote:

(Regarding Iran if you have knowledge of their secret bomb program these last 20 years, suggest you bring it to the attention of your President...otherwise its just guesswork on your part and worth nothing)

The President already knows about it. It is the reason we are gearing up to blow up Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
The experiment with the uranium and plutonium devices was over, thats what ended the war.
The only experiment over uranium vs. plutonium devices was the Trinity test back in the US. That experiment was over before any nukes were dropped on Japan.

Wrong. Trinity was a test of the plutonium device only. The uranium bomb was certain to work. As an enthusiast you should do more research.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
The experiment with the uranium and plutonium devices was over, thats what ended the war.
The only experiment over uranium vs. plutonium devices was the Trinity test back in the US. That experiment was over before any nukes were dropped on Japan.
Wrong. Trinity was a test of the plutonium device only. The uranium bomb was certain to work.

The fact that the gun bomb was certain to work, and the implosion bomb was tested at Trinity, shows that I am not wrong. There were no questions left on the issue of gun vs. implosion after the Trinity test. Before Trinity they knew how the gun design would work. After trinity they knew how both the gun and implosion designs worked.

Japan was nuked twice because they surrendered between the second and third bombs. If they had surrendered between the third and fourth bombs they would have been nuked three times.

Steve 41oo wrote:

As an enthusiast you should do more research.

That isn't possible. There is no research I haven't already done on the subject. Smile

0 Replies

oralloy

It's very difficult to stay angry with you. But I'm going to try.

0 Replies

Having an exchange with Orally leaves one with the feeling that he or she has squandered valuable time.

He might be putting us on with his nonsensical statements.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Having an exchange with Orally leaves one with the feeling that he or she has squandered valuable time.

He might be putting us on with his nonsensical statements.

I challenge you to demonstrate how even one of my statements is nonsensical.

0 Replies

O, you said: "Bush should make it clear that if Iran nukes Israel, the US will nuke Moscow and Leningrad."

That is a stupid statement. Haven't you heard of mutually assured destruction? We will be a cinder should we attack Russia.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

O, you said: "Bush should make it clear that if Iran nukes Israel, the US will nuke Moscow and Leningrad."

That is a clear statement of my opinion. Nothing nonsensical about it.

Advocate wrote:

That is a stupid statement.

Was it stupid of JFK to say: "It will be the policy of the United States Government to regard any missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack upon the United States by the Soviet Union, requiring a full retaliatory response."

Advocate wrote:

Haven't you heard of mutually assured destruction?

Yes. I was applying that principle when I proposed holding Russian cities hostage to Iran's good behavior.

After all, they are not only providing diplomatic cover for Iran's development of nuclear weapons, they are doing all they can to prevent any defenses against Iranian missiles.

Advocate wrote:

We will be a cinder should we attack Russia.

They'll be a bigger cinder.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

be an unpleasant downwind experience, as the bombing of the aboveground uranium conversion facility will result in the release of tons of caustic and toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.

I wonder if the Agent Defeat Weapon would allow the safe destruction of the uranium conversion facility.

I never thought of that before. Hmmm....

0 Replies

That we will be a bigger cinder makes me feel much better.

"Fanaticism is ... overcompensation for doubt."
Robertson Davies

Kennedy was wrong in drawing the line in Cuba. Had he attacked, we would have lost 90 million people.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Kennedy was wrong in drawing the line in Cuba. Had he attacked, we would have lost 90 million people.

Better dead than red.

0 Replies

WAS COVERT ATTEMPT TO NUKE IRAN FOILED BY LEAK?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know