Do you trust Iran

[musical marv]

Do you trust Iran with this policy being introduced by the key players in the disarmament of Nuclear stockpiles now?

 

[P1nnacle]

What is the question? Iran doesn't have any nuclear weapons, and therefore nothing to be disarmed.

 

[iceclock]

this isnt a place for such discussions.

this is computer tech not religion. politics. gooday sir.

 

[P1nnacle]

this isnt a place for such discussions.

this is computer tech not religion. politics. gooday sir.

This is the news and leisure section, and it's exactly the place for these discussions.

 

[iceclock]

oops my bad, i think i misread that.

i dint even know that toms had such a section.

go on.

 

[amdfangirl]

I trust Iran.

I don't believe states are fanatical enough to risk obliteration to aim a nuclear weapon at the West.

Sucide terrorism in terms of indivdual acts might seem insane, but overall it serves clear strategic aims, with the logic being that you sacrifice a person and some capital for an exponentially greater impact on the enemy state. The loss to the terrorist group is minimal and the loss of life and economic impact to the enemy country is immense.

For suicide terrorism to work, there has to been a large supply of support from the native populace. This is the strategic part. There needs to be enough greviance against a certain enemy state before a terrorist group will gain enough support and resources to strike against the enemy state, that's why you don't see Al Qaeda attack Japanese skyscrapers or metro. The objectives of terrorism are usually nationalistic in nature -> terrorism usually advocates for self-determination or for the withdrawal of foreign influneces - think of Hamas in Israel-Palestine or the Tamil Tigers of India or even historically to the Boxer rebellion in China.

If Iran were to successfully denonate a long range nuclear weapon in a major US city, any military general or ruler will know the US will respond in turn, possibly with much greater fury. In essence they would have to sacrifice their entire country for a little bit of pitieous revenge. Even if a despotic ruler was insane to do so, if any of their subjects were still alive; the remaining citizens would instantly rebel against the government, assuming it still exists. Denonating a nuclear weapon will not achieve the aims of Iran, no sir, but Iran will likely use the threat of a nuclear strike as a bargaining tool to get more leverage out of the international world.

Samuel Huntington stated that in an era dominated by the US and her allies as the primary power, such "weapon states" would pose the greatest threat to international relations. Therein the threat lies - if Iran succeeds in creating a nuclear weapon other states will likely see an opportunity to join the exclusive club of states with nukes.

That or Iran sells nuclear technology to terrorist groups that are dispersed in various states with no direct or central base of operations that the US can strike. Iran might not use the nuke directly, but it might proxy it to one of these said groups (although woe be the terrorist group that claims responsibility). Although the above is unlikely, given my explanations above, it is still a possibility.

 

[P1nnacle]

I'm confused, when did everyone decide that Iran has nuclear weapons? Somebody forgot to tell the international community.

 

[riser]

Do you trust Iran with this policy being introduced by the key players in the disarmament of Nuclear stockpiles now?

Absolutely not. There is so much saber rattling going on within Iran's political structure that there is no way to trust them. As an old member used to say, "As crooked as an Arab's dagger."

If Iran is allowed to even test a nuclear weapon, the entire region's political stability will be up in the air. I think the Obama administrator has fallen flat on this.

I believe we should stand with Israel and other countries in the region. I don't believe it is a time to play a game with Iran to see if they'll do what they say they will.. especially after how many American soldiers they assisted in killing in Iraq and Afghanistan!

 

[Reynod]

Iran has stockpiled uranium which it has refined beyond 20% ... and from that point it is not too difficult to refine it to weapons grade material (<84%) suitable for a decent fission bomb (10 - 24 KT).

All they require then is the technology to compress two slugs of uranium which are sub critical masses, and hold them together for a fraction of a second to achieve a result.

They have medium range ballistic missiles.

Lets face it, they are essentially an extremist Islamic country and have made hundreds of threads toward the US and particularly Israel.

If Israel gets sufficient intel to think they are planning some kind of nuclear attack then they will turn Iran's reactors into cark parks ... with a glass finish.

I don't trust Iran at all.

Personally I see this treaty as an opportunity for them to do the right thing, but I imagine they won't ... then what does the US do?

I know what Israel will do.

"Never again" comes to mind.

 

[riser]

I trust Iran.

I don't believe states are fanatical enough to risk obliteration to aim a nuclear weapon at the West.

Sucide terrorism in terms of indivdual acts might seem insane, but overall it serves clear strategic aims, with the logic being that you sacrifice a person and some capital for an exponentially greater impact on the enemy state. The loss to the terrorist group is minimal and the loss of life and economic impact to the enemy country is immense.

For suicide terrorism to work, there has to been a large supply of support from the native populace. This is the strategic part. There needs to be enough greviance against a certain enemy state before a terrorist group will gain enough support and resources to strike against the enemy state, that's why you don't see Al Qaeda attack Japanese skyscrapers or metro. The objectives of terrorism are usually nationalistic in nature -> terrorism usually advocates for self-determination or for the withdrawal of foreign influneces - think of Hamas in Israel-Palestine or the Tamil Tigers of India or even historically to the Boxer rebellion in China.

If Iran were to successfully denonate a long range nuclear weapon in a major US city, any military general or ruler will know the US will respond in turn, possibly with much greater fury. In essence they would have to sacrifice their entire country for a little bit of pitieous revenge. Even if a despotic ruler was insane to do so, if any of their subjects were still alive; the remaining citizens would instantly rebel against the government, assuming it still exists. Denonating a nuclear weapon will not achieve the aims of Iran, no sir, but Iran will likely use the threat of a nuclear strike as a bargaining tool to get more leverage out of the international world.

Samuel Huntington stated that in an era dominated by the US and her allies as the primary power, such "weapon states" would pose the greatest threat to international relations. Therein the threat lies - if Iran succeeds in creating a nuclear weapon other states will likely see an opportunity to join the exclusive club of states with nukes.

That or Iran sells nuclear technology to terrorist groups that are dispersed in various states with no direct or central base of operations that the US can strike. Iran might not use the nuke directly, but it might proxy it to one of these said groups (although woe be the terrorist group that claims responsibility). Although the above is unlikely, given my explanations above, it is still a possibility.

Your argument started off weak but finished strong with the proxy terrorist groups. 😀

The concern isn't Iran using a nuclear weapon; It is about having one and the technology to create more. In order to Iran to verify it can create a nuclear weapon, they must test and successfully detonate one. That would be significant. In the face of invading them, they could use one. This is a significant deterrent. Or they could use one on a local ally state.

The US wouldn't respond to a nuke with a nuke. But if Iran invaded another country or caused an issue where foreign forces had to intervene, the nuke threat exists. What if the US put 100,000 boots on the ground in Iraq to invade and Iran tossed a bomb over? Again, the US would not likely respond, at least immediately, with a nuke. The US wouldn't put themselves in that position to have to deal with it. Much like the Cuban Missile Crisis, we would back down and save political face.

Another concern is that within the US and any other nuclear carrying country: We don't know that they work anymore.
Would it not be a huge embarrassment that if the US launched a nuke, made the world aware, and then it didn't work? Do we fire off another and hope it works?

We haven't tested a nuclear weapon since.. 1981 or 1987 or something. Google will solve that question.

This would be like rebuilding your car's engine once every other year for 30 years, never once turning it on to verify it ever works. Then, one day you desperately need to get in your car and go somewhere. When you turn the key, does it start and run? Make things complicated another step, consider having 1 technician per decade being the one working on your engine.

Fact is, we don't know if they work. If Iran had one, they would likely use them as proxy terrorist groups like they did in Iran and somewhat in Afghanistan.

The suitcase nuke doesn't exist. It's just too heavy to do that. It wouldn't be too hard to build a few small bombs, half the size of the ones dropped on Japan, and get them close to a city, or fly a 'hijacked' plane, etc.
Or use it in a way no one is really prepared for or has thought of yet.

It is better to not let them have one and do our best to keep it from them than to allow them to make one and hope they don't use it.

 

[P1nnacle]

How can you keep them from eventually making one? By not allowing them access to cheap electricity that benefits the population? Refining technology for nuclear power is the same technology used for normal nuclear power, which is what the current talks are about. They have made concessions worth noting, and it's good we have finally worked out some sort of deal between them and us.

 

[amdfangirl]

I'm sure we can make a solar energy deal with them.

But what happens if they make it into a weapon too?

Capturing the sun's rays into a bomb that detonates and gives everyone bad sunburn could be terrifying to someone like me with a pale complexion.

 

[iceclock]

i think we cant trust a country with such uranium laying around and theyre motivations are unknown for why theyve got so much.

they should sign a treaty to ensure its only used for energy uses and non warfare usage.

interesting comments guys yar.

 

[P1nnacle]

i think we cant trust a country with such uranium laying around and theyre motivations are unknown for why theyve got so much.

they should sign a treaty to ensure its only used for energy uses and non warfare usage.

interesting comments guys yar.

They just signed a temporary treaty with exactly that intention.

1. They can only enrich uranium to 5%
2. Any uranium they have up to 20% must be diluted
3. Only the centrifuges they currently have operating are allowed to operate, and no new ones can be built

Those were the stipulations.

 

[P1nnacle]

Another concern is that within the US and any other nuclear carrying country: We don't know that they work anymore.
Would it not be a huge embarrassment that if the US launched a nuke, made the world aware, and then it didn't work? Do we fire off another and hope it works?

We haven't tested a nuclear weapon since.. 1981 or 1987 or something. Google will solve that question.

This would be like rebuilding your car's engine once every other year for 30 years, never once turning it on to verify it ever works. Then, one day you desperately need to get in your car and go somewhere. When you turn the key, does it start and run? Make things complicated another step, consider having 1 technician per decade being the one working on your engine.

Fact is, we don't know if they work. If Iran had one, they would likely use them as proxy terrorist groups like they did in Iran and somewhat in Afghanistan.

Nuclear weapons aren't like cars, and it's a bad idea to equate their effectiveness over time to that of a car's. For one, nuclear weapons are dead simple in terms of designs, and there really isn't much of a chance that the warhead itself fails to detonate.

Secondly, just because a missile is in a silo doesn't mean that maintenance isn't done on it. You can in fact, relate the missile itself to a car, and the missile does need upkeep. That said, they have mechanics for that. The upkeep itself isn't that complicated, less so than a helicopter or fighter jet would be.

If you need to check that a missile functions properly, you can spool it up as if you were going to fire it, run the systems checks, and power it off.

 

[iceclock]

nice double post 😛

 

[chunkymonster]

I'm okay with Iran.

It's John Kerry and the United Nations that I have no faith in.

I think we should let Israel deal with Iran how they seem fit and stay out of their way.

 

[riser]

How can you keep them from eventually making one? By not allowing them access to cheap electricity that benefits the population? Refining technology for nuclear power is the same technology used for normal nuclear power, which is what the current talks are about. They have made concessions worth noting, and it's good we have finally worked out some sort of deal between them and us.

Making energy grade is easy; making nuclear weapon grade is very, very hard and a slow process. Only a couple countries can actually make it weapons grade. The fact that they're trying is an issue and can still make a dirty bomb.

 

[riser]

Another concern is that within the US and any other nuclear carrying country: We don't know that they work anymore.
Would it not be a huge embarrassment that if the US launched a nuke, made the world aware, and then it didn't work? Do we fire off another and hope it works?

We haven't tested a nuclear weapon since.. 1981 or 1987 or something. Google will solve that question.

This would be like rebuilding your car's engine once every other year for 30 years, never once turning it on to verify it ever works. Then, one day you desperately need to get in your car and go somewhere. When you turn the key, does it start and run? Make things complicated another step, consider having 1 technician per decade being the one working on your engine.

Fact is, we don't know if they work. If Iran had one, they would likely use them as proxy terrorist groups like they did in Iran and somewhat in Afghanistan.

Nuclear weapons aren't like cars, and it's a bad idea to equate their effectiveness over time to that of a car's. For one, nuclear weapons are dead simple in terms of designs, and there really isn't much of a chance that the warhead itself fails to detonate.

Secondly, just because a missile is in a silo doesn't mean that maintenance isn't done on it. You can in fact, relate the missile itself to a car, and the missile does need upkeep. That said, they have mechanics for that. The upkeep itself isn't that complicated, less so than a helicopter or fighter jet would be.

If you need to check that a missile functions properly, you can spool it up as if you were going to fire it, run the systems checks, and power it off.

If you want to make it that simple sure, you can make a point. But reality is that our nuclear weapons haven't been tested. They have been refurbished many times by different engineer and groups. Many still date back to the 50s and replacing parts can be difficult, or re-engineering pieces that haven't been made in 20 years.

The weapons are far more complex than you make out. The detonation process is very simple; what goes into it, the fail safes, the radiation protection, and much, much more make them very complicated. It takes weeks to months to refurbish a single nuclear warhead due to the complexity. Any time an item is disassembled and reassembled, there is potential for issue. That is plain and simple.

 

[P1nnacle]

The weapons are far more complex than you make out. The detonation process is very simple; what goes into it, the fail safes, the radiation protection, and much, much more make them very complicated. It takes weeks to months to refurbish a single nuclear warhead due to the complexity. Any time an item is disassembled and reassembled, there is potential for issue. That is plain and simple.

I recognize they are more complicated, and that they require maintenance. I know from my experience as a mechanic for helicopters (note that I'm not claiming to be a missile mechanic or SME, that the dedication of the soldiers who work on any part of the military's equipment and the standards which we hold ourselves to when fixing and maintaining, are above and beyond the civilian world. My unit is still flying the oldest helicopter in the military. At 53 years old, and a veteran of multiple wars, she still runs like brand new.

Put simply: Our shit works.

Making energy grade is easy; making nuclear weapon grade is very, very hard and a slow process. Only a couple countries can actually make it weapons grade. The fact that they're trying is an issue and can still make a dirty bomb.

Here's the problem: Enriching Uranium for Weapons is the exact same process as enriching Uranium for energy. They aren't (So they claim) enriching to make a bomb, they are enriching to create nuclear fuel. the new agreement between the P5+1 and Iran states that they cannot enrich over 5% EU, and their already enriched 20% EU has to be diluted.

 

[iceclock]

its a thin line between nuclear energy and making nuclear weapons thats why its so touchy.

 

[musical marv]

this isnt a place for such discussions.

this is computer tech not religion. politics. gooday sir.

This is a place for politics sir you are wrong!

 

[musical marv]

I'm okay with Iran.

It's John Kerry and the United Nations that I have no faith in.

I think we should let Israel deal with Iran how they seem fit and stay out of their way.

I totally agree with you about Israel let them do their own thing and let us mind our own business for a change.

 

[P1nnacle]

I totally agree with you about Israel let them do their own thing and let us mind our own business for a change.

As a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN, this is the US's business.

 

[Reynod]

This recent decision will go down in history as one of the worst behind closed doors negotiation the US has ever made.

1. It has signicantly weakened the US's previous stong position regarding nuclear materials.
2. It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power ... whether other feel so or not ... they do.
3. It isolates Israel and empowers the more radical Islamic states.
4. Saudi Arabia will now purchase nuclear warheads from Pakistan.
5. Syria will now work harder with Iran to destabilise the Sunni's.

The US might just as well given everyone in the area 5 nukes.