Jump to content

Iran With Five Nukes?

3rdnlng
 Share

Recommended Posts

3rdnlng Hall of Famer

3rdnlng

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The guy really is f***ing this place up. And people keep feeding him.

 

 

Now Jim, I hope you don't think I'm feeding him by starting a post. His crusading is messing the board up, but have a little patience. :devil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
....lybob Veteran

....lybob

Posted
Posted

I'm shocked that they just derive the five nukes figure from from uranium enriched to 3.5% plus uranium already processed into nuclear fuel rods, they are leaving out all that uranium laying in the ground- you might as well include that in the total because it has about as much relevance to nuclear weapons as 3.5% enriched uranium.

 

While an attack on Iran seems to me like a monstrously stupid course of action, I know it will be supported on this board as a justified preemptive defensive action because at some time five to ten years in the future Iran may make a nuclear weapon and be irrational enough to use it- an existential threat so to speak- I wonder if the board supports any country's right for preemptive defensive action? for example if the Chinese government decided that a war in the Middle East had the potential for drastic and prolonged disruption of energy supplies which could cause an existential treat to their regime, decided to nip it the bud by launching missiles at Israel's air force installations, missile sites both conventional and nuclear, nuclear subs, Negev Nuclear Research Center, and command and control as needed.

 

When you hear this discussed on the mainstream news shows you have to be a complete dunderhead not to understand what a farce the whole thing is for example they argue for both the rationality and irrationality of the Iranian government at the same time. The Iranian government is so irrational that they would if they obtained a nuclear weapon use it immediately without provocation even though it would result in their destruction and yet the Iranian government is so rational that it would take an extensive bombing with nothing more than token retaliation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OCinBuffalo All Pro

OCinBuffalo

Posted
Posted

I'm shocked that they just derive the five nukes figure from from uranium enriched to 3.5% plus uranium already processed into nuclear fuel rods, they are leaving out all that uranium laying in the ground- you might as well include that in the total because it has about as much relevance to nuclear weapons as 3.5% enriched uranium.

 

While an attack on Iran seems to me like a monstrously stupid course of action, I know it will be supported on this board as a justified preemptive defensive action because at some time five to ten years in the future Iran may make a nuclear weapon and be irrational enough to use it- an existential threat so to speak- I wonder if the board supports any country's right for preemptive defensive action? for example if the Chinese government decided that a war in the Middle East had the potential for drastic and prolonged disruption of energy supplies which could cause an existential treat to their regime, decided to nip it the bud by launching missiles at Israel's air force installations, missile sites both conventional and nuclear, nuclear subs, Negev Nuclear Research Center, and command and control as needed.

 

When you hear this discussed on the mainstream news shows you have to be a complete dunderhead not to understand what a farce the whole thing is for example they argue for both the rationality and irrationality of the Iranian government at the same time. The Iranian government is so irrational that they would if they obtained a nuclear weapon use it immediately without provocation even though it would result in their destruction and yet the Iranian government is so rational that it would take an extensive bombing with nothing more than token retaliation.

For the last time:

Iran's government is predicated on the very real, very serious belief, however ridiculous, that provoking world war/apocalypse is the only way for the identity of the 12th Prophet or Mahdi, to become known, and, that he will lead "the Islamic armies"...whatever they are...in that total war. They believe that his leadership...alone...will prove to be the ultimate weapon, and that therefore victory is guaranteed. :lol:

 

Now, as far as what is rational and irrational, at the same time? Yeah, this is certainly 1st place.

 

If you believe that you can't lose, provided that you merely carry out one act of war to kick things off, then doing it is perfectly rational. However, to the rational observer, believing in this crap, especially the part that the leadership of a single commander, not excellent leaders at all levels, not weapons capability, training, logistical superiority, etc., will nullify all of these? Yeah, nothing could be more irrational.

 

The worst part about this: it's not even original. There have been lots of "Mahdis" ever since Muslim countries were so easily defeated and colonized. They were defeated precisely because of their peoples' prolonged exposure to irrational beliefs. That means they didn't invent the airplane, machine gun, or railroad, even though they had a 700 year head start in engineering. Instead, they sat around "studying" their own beliefs, and themselves, and learned: nothing, or, fairy tales. And, you wonder why I am against "identity majors"? :lol: Look what "the study of myself" did to the Muslim world.

 

However, recycling the Mahdi story is a rational act, as it seems to be a good vehicle for getting a lot of idiot Muslims to throw their lives away on behalf of whomever can successfully tell it. Again, rational and irrational, at the same time.

 

They believe that retaliation/minor skirmishes WILL NOT bring about the Mahdi. Hence the need for nukes. So, little to no response is in fact a rational expected result of an Israeli attack. Why waste the resources if the Mahdi won't show? Better to save them for when he does. :wacko: That's rational though, if you believe this fairy tale to be true.

 

Now, since we are on the topic of the rational vs. irrational...which is which?

Obama decided not to support the 2009 Iranian uprising....because he believed his expert ability to negotiate with the current, nutjob regime was the superior approach. :lol:

 

...lybob...talking in terms of rationality....hysterical. Before you criticize this board, perhaps you should take a look at Team Obama? Without their aggressive stupidity on this topic, there would be nothing to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...