Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[misko27]

This is where we start to reach the technological problem. Once you have advanced nuclear reactors, you have nukes even if you don't have nukes, because building one has become a trivial enough task in the modern era. Hence why you start seeing "all-but-nuclear" states being included on maps of the nuclear club (South Korea, Japan, etc.).

Now that would be news to me, especially given the resistance in Japan to nuclear weapons.

But at this point they barely have enough weapon grade material for 6 warheads, if they distribute it optimally, hardly a destructive force.

I'd like to see the President use that argument in a post-nuclear war world: "See? I was right! I said I handled it, and I did! They only could nuke us six times! Ha! I mean, it sucks to be New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC (thank god for the Presidential bunker amirite?), Dallas, and Boston, but we sure nuked them pretty damn well! And that is why you should vote to re-elect me: I stand for statistical advantages."

The other problem with Nuclear Iran is it forces the US to make some very hard choices regarding their stability. Pakistan and North Korea are probably the two most unstable countries to possess nuclear weapons. Both have very large countries heavily invested in them, the US and China respectively. With Pakistan, the US will never be able to wipe their hands of them, because if they collapse all of the nuclear infrastructure (and the nukes themselves) will be very vulnerable to militants of all stripes, anyone else who might want them, and serious accidents. The US is stuck propping them up (and China to North Korea) because nuclear weapons in a country consumed by chaos is simply too volatile.

[LordSlowpoke]

This is where we start to reach the technological problem. Once you have advanced nuclear reactors, you have nukes even if you don't have nukes, because building one has become a trivial enough task in the modern era. Hence why you start seeing "all-but-nuclear" states being included on maps of the nuclear club (South Korea, Japan, etc.).

Now that would be news to me, especially given the resistance in Japan to nuclear weapons.

honestly, the only reason japan doesn't have nukes is that without actually having them but keeping the infrastructure required to build them within a month or two ready, in case of a conflict with china they can be sure the united states will back them. the threat of nuclear annihilation really is enough to build your own nukes, social taboos be damned

[mainiac]

This is where we start to reach the technological problem. Once you have advanced nuclear reactors, you have nukes even if you don't have nukes, because building one has become a trivial enough task in the modern era. Hence why you start seeing "all-but-nuclear" states being included on maps of the nuclear club (South Korea, Japan, etc.).

The entire point of this is that it keeps Iran out of the all but nuclear club.  Iran not only stays at the 5% limit but dismantles the capacity to refine above that limit.

It's not like refining fissile material is a switch you toss on or off.  If they start refining nuclear grade materials again it would take months or years to do so, during which time we would know what they are up to.  The technical problems are hardly minor either, if they dismantle their program, starting it up again would entail a lot of work.

[Descan]

I understand that medical isotopes are inherently volatile (otherwise they'd be rather useless, neh?)

But do they last long enough for Iran to open up trade-routes with other countries for them? Or are they volatile enough that they need to be made in-border, or even in-hospital?

[Baffler]

Most medical isotopes have half lives spanning from a couple hours to about two weeks. One of the more commonly used ones, Fluorine-18, has a half life of about 2 hours, IIRC. According to wikipedia, there are only 3 major sites in the world that produce them so I'm guessing they can be shipped around, though I have no idea how that might be accomplished. It is unlikely that Iran needs to produce its own (though they may want to anyway) if it is logistically feasible for one reactor in the Netherlands to cover almost all of Europe's needs.

Or I just have no idea what I'm talking about.

[Sheb]

Well, you might just want to produce them in borders if half of the world is sanctioning your ass and preventing you from buying.

Also, I totally understand Iran wanting a nuclear deterrent. Israel proved time and time again they are the blodd-thirsty violent midget of Near Eastern politics (not entirely without reasons, but still). Having a deterrent so they don't bomb you at random would be pretty nice.

[Helgoland]

Also, I totally understand Iran wanting a nuclear deterrent. Israel proved time and time again they are the blodd-thirsty violent midget of Near Eastern politics (not entirely without reasons, but still). Having a deterrent so they don't bomb you at random would be pretty nice.

Meh, when did Israel commence military operations without provocation or cause? They do act harshly, but never without reason - they couldn't afford that. Blood-thirsty midget rather reminds me of others... I should read Kishon again sometime soon: I'd especially recommend So Sorry We Won, a collection of satires on the Six Days' War.

[LordSlowpoke]

Also, I totally understand Iran wanting a nuclear deterrent. Israel proved time and time again they are the blodd-thirsty violent midget of Near Eastern politics (not entirely without reasons, but still). Having a deterrent so they don't bomb you at random would be pretty nice.

Meh, when did Israel commence military operations without provocation or cause? They do act harshly, but never without reason - they couldn't afford that. Blood-thirsty midget rather reminds me of others... I should read Kishon again sometime soon: I'd especially recommend So Sorry We Won, a collection of satires on the Six Days' War.

you must have a very loose definition of the word provocation, friend, as a rather well known power plant in the gaza strip would tell you

if it was operational

[Helgoland]

Also, I totally understand Iran wanting a nuclear deterrent. Israel proved time and time again they are the blodd-thirsty violent midget of Near Eastern politics (not entirely without reasons, but still). Having a deterrent so they don't bomb you at random would be pretty nice.

Meh, when did Israel commence military operations without provocation or cause? They do act harshly, but never without reason - they couldn't afford that. Blood-thirsty midget rather reminds me of others... I should read Kishon again sometime soon: I'd especially recommend So Sorry We Won, a collection of satires on the Six Days' War.

you must have a very loose definition of the word provocation, friend, as a rather well known power plant in the gaza strip would tell you

if it was operational

Although I don't know the story of the power plant you're talking about, you'd think continuous shelling with Qassam rockets constitutes at least a slight provocation, wouldn't you? Plus the Hamas has that nasty habit of putting their military infrastructure right in the middle of necessities of civilian lives - it makes for great propaganda...

[Sheb]

The invasions of Lebanon? 1956?

[mainiac]

Well, you might just want to produce them in borders if half of the world is sanctioning your ass and preventing you from buying.

Why would the sanctions bar these materials?  And does Iran even use them?

[Helgoland]

The invasions of Lebanon? 1956?

Attacks against organizations that had conducted abductions and killings of civilians as well as attempted assassination of officials, shelled Israel with rockets, etc etc? Seems legit. A nation that has your obliteration as one of its central policy issues seizes control of the arguably most important trade route in the world from two allies, who then ask you for aid? Okay, it's more complicated than that, but hardly sufficient to call Israel "the blood-thirsty violent midget of Near Eastern politics".

[Leafsnail]

Settlements

[Mictlantecuhtli]

... Settlements! Benghazi! NSA!


Just stating things blithely gets the point across. Do you mean the aggression of the military-police forces against non-Jewish people [threatening kids at gunpoint] near settlement areas? The walls around 'proper' cities, stopping hard working Arabs from getting to their jobs [without getting through..]? You can help explain the Israel situation to people who don't know Israel inside-out, you know. I highly disagree with the settlement policy but by all means its not quite equal to past transgressions.

The oppression of the Palestinians is what I worry about, not Jewish retirees building getting gated communities. Which, in all honestly, you'd think a Jew would be highly averse to [government ran housing complex....].

It may be tied in [regarding how central Israeli policy makers are racists] but far as I can tell the settlement policy is a red herring, there are true wounds being dealt to the non-Jewish inhabitants of Israel.

[Sheb]

Helgolan: 1956 was planned beforehand with the English and French. Lebanon was wildly overreacting. (I mean, sure Hibullah breached the ceasefire. So did Israel, so many time. But then Woooophs, in come the IDF, invade half of Lebanon and kills a thousand civilians.