Iran, to Expand its Enrichment Program to up to 54k Centrifuges
#22
Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:05 PM
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#24
Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:12 PM
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#25
Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:27 PM
My Political Compass
Sieben Elefanten hatte Herr Dschin
Und da war dann noch der achte.
Sieben waren wild und der achte war zahm
Und der achte war's, der sie bewachte.
#26
Posted 08 November 2007 - 07:37 PM
and B) If you think the borders are too secure, then put it in a cargo container and ship it. I know for a fact that only a tiny percentage of those are inspected before they are allowed to enter a country.
#27
Posted 08 November 2007 - 08:33 PM
i remember a story i was told once. someone working in a swedish nuclear power plant went to work, and as they were going inside the nuclear material sensors went beserk. nobody really understood why the sensors would go off on a guy that was on his way inside the plant, because its meant to check if people from the inside got any radioactive materials on them while working. this was around the 26th-27th of april in 1986.
and to containers? most ports these days got radioactivity sensors because they are very aware of the risks of nuclear materials coming through ports.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#28
Posted 08 November 2007 - 08:44 PM
#29
Posted 08 November 2007 - 10:47 PM
~Fear My Kirovs!~
#31
Posted 09 November 2007 - 02:28 AM
Nuclear weapons can be fit inside suitcases and carried by a single person. They are not the huge bombs that were dropped on Japan 60 years ago.
you whatched too much james bond movies...
~Fear My Kirovs!~
#32
Posted 09 November 2007 - 02:33 AM
I'd picture more a truck bomb close to a large US compund in Iraq. How close would one actually have to get to destroy a base with a tactical sized nuke?
Even that would cause massive retaliation, we aren't stupid, we'd know where it came from.
Though a dirty bomb tracked to Al-Quada might provide that cover.
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#33
Posted 09 November 2007 - 06:01 PM
the bombs dropped on japan were around 13-15 kilotons, and thats probably what you want to have before a nuclear attack is defined as a proper nuclear attack.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#34
Posted 09 November 2007 - 07:06 PM
#35
Posted 09 November 2007 - 10:16 PM
besides, the smallest briefcase nuke is at least around 25 kilos, and that is the core only. the original briefcase bombs needed two people to be deployed. one with the explosives and one with the detonating tools. its not something you carry with ease in one hand. also, the lighter the tools the less radioactivity-protection there will be, thus the easier it will be to detect.
anyway, if it gets you off the track that you have to smuggle it into a country, most of the middle-eastern countries have acceptable missiles that would reach more than far enough to get into most of the middle-eastern countries and some European. the question is, why would they willingly do that if they know the retaliation will be completely asymmetrical? unless they just feel like doing the first national suicide theres not any good reasons for it.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#36
Posted 10 November 2007 - 04:27 AM
http://www.telegraph...4/16/do1609.xmlany explosion big enough gets a mushroom cloud.
besides, the smallest briefcase nuke is at least around 25 kilos, and that is the core only. the original briefcase bombs needed two people to be deployed. one with the explosives and one with the detonating tools. its not something you carry with ease in one hand. also, the lighter the tools the less radioactivity-protection there will be, thus the easier it will be to detect.
anyway, if it gets you off the track that you have to smuggle it into a country, most of the middle-eastern countries have acceptable missiles that would reach more than far enough to get into most of the middle-eastern countries and some European. the question is, why would they willingly do that if they know the retaliation will be completely asymmetrical? unless they just feel like doing the first national suicide theres not any good reasons for it.
http://www.frif.com/new2005/shi.html
http://primarysource...the-hidden-imam
http://www.iranian.c...Myth/index.html
The list goes on why they would nuke another nation. It's right out of Lord of the Rings, Staw Wars, or christians believing Jesus will return at Armageddon...
It would be laughable except that some world leaders are making descisions based on these myths.
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#37
Posted 14 November 2007 - 10:05 PM
the hidden imam reminds me of the Thule society. small cult that has supported some greater evil, but at the same time too much credit is given to them for how much influence they really got. face it, if we are going to war against Iran because "we got information that says that a few politicians in Iran has mentioned the hidden imam"... personally i would say thats grasping for straws. at least the argument that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction sounds better than "their leader seems to be a part of a cult that believes in the end of the world and wants to make it happen".
secondly, if they really want to try to make the world go under by dropping a nuke on someone, let them. at the least, the world opinion would antagonize them so much they wouldnt be able to do shit, most likely they would be carpet-bombed for months, and quite likely someone would counter-attack with nukes, but hopefully people are sane enough not to do that.
what i am saying is if Iran nukes someone first with their own homebrew, its not going to be enough to make the world go under, and its going to cause retaliation on them that makes anyone else in the neighborhood think twice about doing the same.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#38
Posted 14 November 2007 - 11:37 PM
You asked why Iran would launch a nuke. So I posted relevant links.well if the list goes longer than the hidden imam, i am sure you would be able to mention some of those things too?
Save the environment, use green text
Some Bullshit Somewhere
#39
Posted 15 November 2007 - 01:22 AM
as said before, if they throw the first rock, thats not going to help their nation regain greatness. if they want to blow themselves up indirectly, let them throw the first rock. i believe a certain philosophy on war goes something like "avoid it at all costs, but if dragged into it, fight with all your might". the law of world opinion works in the way that if someone attacks you first, you pretty much get a free pass to attack them without repercussions.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#40
Posted 15 November 2007 - 06:55 AM
~Fear My Kirovs!~
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users