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?

 

[gropouce]

Hmm... if i have to come, i'd ask Oldman to pick me to the airport...
He can protect me, i know he has enough guns to invade Paris.

 

[P1nnacle]

Ok ill bite, as a serving british soldier I dont normally like engaging in political "discussions" but you as a civilian just assume us in the military all do bad things. Remember there is no news like bad news, we do lots of things around the world that can make you proud of serving.

+1 for Mike. Believe it or not, most soldiers don't sign up just to shoot people. US "News" is the most ridiculous source of crap in the world. Personally, I get my news from other sources, like the Economist (British).

We will continue to maintain a security presence in the region, but that is a major step down from our previous operational status.

A security presence ?
For who ??!!?!!

Look, the US invaded Iraq, and then Afghanistan. We essentially ripped out their entire political system and gave them a new one. Was it the right thing to do? I can't answer that. I have my opinions, but as a representative of the US Army and Government, my comment is that I fully support the actions taken. That said, when your do something like that, it tends to destabilize things. The ANA is nowhere near ready to defend Afghanistan by themselves, and a security presence is necessary to keep Afghanistan from becoming even more of a failed state.

From the POV of a big part of the world: there is NOTHING to be proud being an american soldier.

Bright side of being an American Soldier and living in America? People tend to think highly of soldiers, just as I'm sure other countries do when it comes to their soldiers. What you see on the news is the worst of the worst, and YouTube videos show tons of soldiers goofing off and making the best of their situation.

So, if you feel like educating yourself a bit this morning, try looking at what US Soldiers and Marines actually do, courtesy of Funker530, which is a group of veterans, not a media source.

Bullet Whizzes Through Entire Patrol - Helmet Cam Firefight

Or maybe that doesn't quite do it for you. Here, try a US Soldier reacting to a shrapnel wound.

Gunner Hit by Shrapnel in Neck

You can say all you want about the US Military, but when push comes to shove, there is no military (No offense Mike) that is as professional as ours.

 

[P1nnacle]

The US (and the UK) have both previously upgraded their weapons systems using the same core material for the initiator, and repackaging the weapon accordingly.

Short term maintenance included the battery to initiate the primary chemical explosives to compress the core;

Replacement of the tritium gas used for boosted fission devices (this is inserted into the elevated pit just prior to firing, on a dial a yeild device. Tritium has a half life of about 12 years so the supply needs to be replaced periodically ... plus it decays into He which is unhelpful.

Mid and long term maintenance includes replacing (repackaging in most cases) the older primary chemical explosives in early devices, along with repackaging for the shift to dry lithium (too hard to explain here) for larger two stage devices.

Testing of the firing circuits is simple and periodic.

The biggest issue is their interest in plutonium ... 5 (10kgs is a critical mass) kgs of that compressed as a boosted fission device (with tritium inside the pit) is 25KT.

You need a lot more weapons grade uranium to achieve a similar result - 50kgs ... usually split as a gun type device (60 or 70 if lower grade). Results are messy with lots of fallout ... the neighbours won't be impressed ... your mum probably won't speak to you again.

Simply do the math

See, had he mentioned anything about Plutonium, that would have been obvious. I recognize Plutonium as a threat, not Uranium. That said, when the permanent agreement comes through, I would expect the P5+1 to have some stipulation about the byproducts of the plants. Maybe Iran will get lucky and get to give all their byproduct to another country to deal with.

As for the maintenance, I already said I'm not an SME on nuclear weapons, don't plan to be anytime soon. I may not have phrased myself well, but it was my intent to say that even if you have to do (complicated) maintenance on the missiles or warheads, you know what the problems are, and have the necessary tools and equipment to fix them. I don't see one of our missiles failing to detonate, should we ever have to use one.

 

[P1nnacle]

Interesting topic. Some of this might feel a bit off topic but here goes...

Iranian people are Persians. Not Arabs. So there is a bit of a distinction there that people need to be aware of.

The way I see it is that the US has every right to want to prevent them from gaining a nuclear missile. Iran isn't really the issue but the hate that comes from the Middle East towards the US and other Western countries is. Now maybe Iran has no issue with the US as long as the US leaves them alone, but the problem that comes up here is not Iran but the countries around Iran and the rebel and terrorist groups in the Middle East. You put a nuclear warhead in any of those countries and the national security of their enemies needs to be ramped up. Why would these groups not try to get their hands on these weapons when it’s basically at their doorstep...

I think this is the issue. It’s not that you can't trust one of these countries. It's not really the country that is in question, except maybe for North Korea which is off topic and I only see them as the little child in the world looking for attention. But the people and fanatical groups that live in these countries are the issue. Sadly I don't know enough about everything going on in the Middle east to really say what will happen. But that’s the thing, almost no one has any idea what will happen. Syria currently has a Civil war that’s still going on and has for years. Iran supports them. Israel wants to bomb anything that might be able to bomb them and then there are all these so called "terrorist" groups that are fighting for control over their own land and also trying to kill off as many "Infidels" as possible. If the Middle East and what’s going on there doesn't make you uncomfortable then maybe you should look at the picture a bit closer.

I'm not a fan of American politics and I'm not a fan of their bullying attitude at times and in general I'm not really in support of them. I don't trust the USA but I also have to say that I don't trust any country. All the countries in the world have something to hide especially the strongest ones. I'm also not into all of the "WW3" talk and paranoia but sadly, when looking at the past year, something has to hit the fan at some point. Things are just ramping up. It cools off for a while and then just ramps up some more etc.

A lot of people want to support Russia now for standing up to America with the whole Syria chemical weapons situation etc but keep in mind this is the same country that thrives on an extremely high oil price and they want it to be high. Most of their economy relies on it. So they will do what they need to do to make sure that oil is selling at a very high price. It’s actually just one huge "F*ck you" to the rest of the world. So I don't trust them either.

Trusting any country is a bad Idea. It might sound extremely paranoid and negative but look at the state of the world today. Things don't need to be so expensive etc. but they are and it’s all about money and control. I tend to ignore these things and try to live my life without worrying about these things. But it doesn't mean that they aren't there and when the basic cost of living has skyrocketed then maybe people need to start looking at these things.

My point is. No, Iran is not to be trusted and neither is any other country. The Middle East in general is one huge problem without any real solution and something needs to happen. But what I don't know.

A lot of what I say might seem off topic but I promise you all of it is linked in some way.

+1 for being informed before you post. You're not paranoid, you're a Defensive Realist.

Cool tidbit: The US and Iran have been having secret meetings for the past year, made an agreement, and then the US pushed the EU group when they had talks with Iran.

 

[gropouce]

What humility ...
I guess you base your judgment on a perfect knowledge of all the world's armies.
And they say that these are the French who are arrogant? ...



Filming war.. that's sick. and that sucks.
btw, i'm not impressed.

 

[P1nnacle]

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 strong position regarding nuclear materials.

It closed down the ability for Iran to enrich Uranium past 5%, while helping to improve US/EU (this was a joint conference, remember)-ME relations.

Pffft ... so the agreement now includes an acknowledgement that they can ... previously it didn't. There is a difference.

There was no agreement previously. Iran was in violation of the NPT, which is what brought sanctions down on them in the first place. Thus, now that they are cooperating (lightly using the word), we have lifted some sanctions.

2. It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power ... whether other feel so or not ... they do.

Yes, but does legitimizing them change the fact that they were already a nuclear power? You telling me that I can't fix computers, does not make me incapable of fixing computers.

You might want to try a different tack on this arguement ... A nuclear power is considered one which has nuclear weapons. Australia for instance has a few reactors ... but we don't enrich materials beyond medical isotopes. If we wanted we could ... but there is no reason to do so. We are not a nuclear power ... neither is Iran. North Korea is.

Excuse me, let me change my wording to "Nuclear State". Could you please clarify:
" It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power" "We are not a nuclear power ... neither is Iran" Your attempt at using semantics seems to have failed.

3. It isolates Israel and empowers the more radical Islamic states.

Israel is a worse offender than most Islamic states, they routinely disregard UN directives, and act like spoiled brats.
These Arab states around Israel have invaded them 5 times ... obviously again you don't read your history. Israel responds in kind ... an eye for an eye. So far they have not resorted to WMI's ... but they feel (because Iran has repeatedly stated publically they will wipe Israel off the map) that they are under threat.

I would disagree with the concept of Iran being a "radical state". I'd also like to comment on the fact that you use "Islamic state". Why bring religion into this?

Your clearly misinformed if you don't consider Iran a dangerous radical islamic state. I didn't bring religion into this- it HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT RELIGION.

This comes to mind:

It's estimated (because nobody actually knows) that Israel has somewhere around 150 nuclear weapons. Personally, I think we should be looking at Israel as the "radical" state.

"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

Former French President Jack Chirac 02/01/07

[SIDENOTE] You're clearly misinformed about the proper abbreviation of "you are". Take the time to use good grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I promise, it will help you in the long run.

4. Saudi Arabia will now purchase nuclear warheads from Pakistan.

Ok, your line is missing. If you could put it back so I could connect the dots on this one, it would be greatly appreciated.

Saudia Arabia backed the failed removal of the Syrian regime (Sunni vs Shia) and Iran and Syria are Shia.

Ok, getting closer... I guess. I recognize the religious differences, but I'm still lost as to where Pakistan is in all of this, and you can't honestly expect a US ally to get away with purchasing nukes from Pakistan (or expect Pakistan to be selling nukes when India is right next door)

5. Syria will now work harder with Iran to destabilise the Sunni's.

Again, you're losing me on the concept of how a nuclear power treaty directly relates to destabilization of the region.

Read the news and study the issues between the Shia and Sunni states. Sanction reductions on Iran and legitimising their program will empower them to act in this theatre in an increased capacity. The Allawites are basically Shia.

Yes, that's one way to look at it, specifically, a realist perspective. The Israelis would call it appeasement, and relate it to how Hitler spread by taking more than what was conceded.

A liberal (Me in this case) would say that now that Iran has seen that working with large powers has gotten them some of their money back (the UN froze the money held in the world bank, our sanctions reduction included giving them their money back), they will be much more willing to cooperate in the future, because hey, it worked before.

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

How you draw the conclusion that Iran's ability to create nuclear power is even somewhat akin to giving all states in the ME 5 nukes is beyond me.

Well if the Arabic states all become nuclear armed how long before they nuke Israel or someoene else?

Hmm, why would that be a bad idea? Lets take a look at what Iran sees:

If the state has leaders that think Iran should continue to stay on the map, they wouldn't fire a nuclear weapon, even if they had one.

While I'm usually a Neorealist when it comes to IR, I think you slapped me all they way to Liberalism.

Thats ok ... I forgive you.

For what? Having a different (and probably more well rounded) perspective than you?

 

[iceclock]

interesting diagram p1nnacle. also i agree in the signed agreement they shall not use plutonium as a weapon base or use it at all. they can use uranium without plutonium.

them saying they use plutonium as an excuse for energy is bull.

 

[P1nnacle]

What humility ...
I guess you base your judgment on a perfect knowledge of all the world's armies.
And they say that these are the French who are arrogant? ...

Filming war.. that's sick. and that sucks.
btw, i'm not impressed.

My goal was not to impress, rather to inform. If you want, I'm perfectly fine linking you to some videos of the French, British, or Canadians, all who have very professional soldiers as well.

 

[MikeEOD]

Keep your teeth my friend. How can you know if i'm a civilian?
Read again, please. I don't talk about being a soldier. I'm talking about being an american soldier.

I know perfectly well that the falling tree makes more noise than the growing forest.
I also know that soldiers have the untouchable status in Anglo-Saxon countries. No luck I'm not anglo saxon. 😀
But when an army behaves with as much dignity as a dead oyster, she questions her values ​​rather than talks about pride.

I know you are a civilian because as a squaddie I can spot one a mile off. And I do not need to read your comment again at all, the Americans are very professional and proficient at what they do. And as everywhere else they have their bad fish in the pond. The thing is you see where the military goes and what they do and think its the boots on the ground who are the bad people. Do not forget who has the final word on deploying an armed force, that solely sits in the politicians laps.

And by no means are we untouchable a royal marine had just been jailed for murdering an insurgent. But that is my say over, I hate politics so I will not continue my end of the discussion. But please remember not to paint all soldiers with the same brush be it American or others, if you have an issue switch fire to a politician.

Cheers, mike.

 

[iceclock]

the way i see it. every soldier is different. like a civilian. u got bad ones and good ones.

its not rocket science. and not all have the same conscience and are doing bad things as many think they are.

stating that soldiers do more bad than good is a bold and untrue statement, they usually talk about the bad things people do but dont really focuse on the positive things theyre doing.

 

[P1nnacle]

interesting diagram p1nnacle. also i agree in the signed agreement they shall not use plutonium as a weapon base or use it at all. they can use uranium without plutonium.

them saying they use plutonium as an excuse for energy is bull.

I assume you're referring to the Map of the Middle East? If so, I can't take credit for it, it was a map my professor created.

 

[iceclock]

lol, i meant how u diagrammed ur point. interesting how u wrote and outlined it.

 

[chunkymonster]

I mean like sure, you might obliterate New Jersey, but... New Jersey 😛.

Hey, hey, hey there! Don't hate on New Jersey! Where would the world be without the likes of J-Wow, Snooki, and Pauly D?!?!

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

 

[P1nnacle]

Keep your teeth my friend. How can you know if i'm a civilian?
Read again, please. I don't talk about being a soldier. I'm talking about being an american soldier.

I know perfectly well that the falling tree makes more noise than the growing forest.
I also know that soldiers have the untouchable status in Anglo-Saxon countries. No luck I'm not anglo saxon. 😀
But when an army behaves with as much dignity as a dead oyster, she questions her values ​​rather than talks about pride.

I know you are a civilian because as a squaddie I can spot one a mile off. And I do not need to read your comment again at all, the Americans are very professional and proficient at what they do. And as everywhere else they have their bad fish in the pond. The thing is you see where the military goes and what they do and think its the boots on the ground who are the bad people. Do not forget who has the final word on deploying an armed force, that solely sits in the politicians laps.

And by no means are we untouchable a royal marine had just been jailed for murdering an insurgent. But that is my say over, I hate politics so I will not continue my end of the discussion. But please remember not to paint all soldiers with the same brush be it American or others, if you have an issue switch fire to a politician.

Cheers, mike.

Hooah Mike, thanks for your service.

"I know you are a civilian because as a squaddie I can spot one a mile off. " - So true.

 

[P1nnacle]

lol, i meant how u diagrammed ur point. interesting how u wrote and outlined it.

That was my second thought. Thank you, I'm glad you like it.

 

[MikeEOD]

"You can say all you want about the US Military, but when push comes to shove, there is no military (No offense Mike) that is as professional as ours"

P1nnacle, none taken mate

 

[iceclock]

i cant speak of professional. but i know the us army is organized. somethimes i questions certain missions the us is involved in but we dont have actual say on where they go as a civilian. so i guess i try to support the army the best i can.

 

[gropouce]

Your comment does not surprise me.
You're just confirming my point of view.

The statements made by two guys who judge on speculation will not suffice to offset the too many exactions committed by Western forces.
Begin by explaining to your colleagues that the Geneva Conventions do not only concern the canton of Geneva.
When this is done and we stop hearing about soldiers pissing on corpses (one example among many others) we'll talk about professionalism and pride. And I would be the first to defend the soldiers.
Meanwhile, the low profile is required.

Sorry, you're probably serious guys, but I've seen enough shit to learn to be wary of the army.

 

[iceclock]

again this is a point of view ur saying. and others are as well.

gropouce unless ur a real soldier and seen warfare i doubt uve seen real horrors.

theyres always gonna be bad seeds. but thats in every society that includes the army as well.

 

[gropouce]

gropouce unless ur a real soldier and seen warfare i doubt uve seen real horrors.

Think about the guy who have to cut a civilian leg after a bombing.
I have no need to justify my experience here.
I'm not here to get into this kind of futile discussion.

 

[iceclock]

im just saying ur talking about specific situations, if your gonna post stuff back it up.

and i highly doubt ur a solider. u speak as a civilian thats fine, but dont put all the soldiers in the same boat.



thanks my friend.

 

[P1nnacle]

Begin by explaining to your colleagues that the Geneva Conventions do not only concern the canton of Geneva.

They do, however, only apply to lawful armed combatants, wearing a recognized uniform. Terrorists don't fit into that category very well.

 

[iceclock]

ur sarcasm kills oldmangamer.

 

[amdfangirl]

gropouce unless ur a real soldier and seen warfare i doubt uve seen real horrors.

Think about the guy who have to cut a civilian leg after a bombing.
I have no need to justify my experience here.
I'm not here to get into this kind of futile discussion.

<3

 

[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 strong position regarding nuclear materials.

It closed down the ability for Iran to enrich Uranium past 5%, while helping to improve US/EU (this was a joint conference, remember)-ME relations.

Pffft ... so the agreement now includes an acknowledgement that they can ... previously it didn't. There is a difference.

Iran was in violation of the NPT, which is what brought sanctions down on them in the first place. Thus, now that they are cooperating (lightly using the word), we have lifted some sanctions.

There was no agreement previously. EXACTLY ... none ... now there is one. Now your making my point. Allowing something when noning was previously allowed is ... what?


2. It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power ... whether other feel so or not ... they do.

Yes, but does legitimizing them change the fact that they were already a nuclear power? You telling me that I can't fix computers, does not make me incapable of fixing computers.

You might want to try a different tack on this arguement ... A nuclear power / state is considered one which has nuclear weapons. Australia for instance has a few reactors ... but we don't enrich materials beyond medical isotopes. If we wanted we could ... but there is no reason to do so. We are not a nuclear power ... neither is Iran. North Korea is.

Excuse me, let me change my wording to "Nuclear State". Could you please clarify:
" It legitimised Iran as a nuclear power" "We are not a nuclear power ... neither is Iran" Your attempt at using semantics seems to have failed.

Er what is your point ... the US is a nuclear state ... Iran is not. ???

3. It isolates Israel and empowers the more radical Islamic states.

Israel is a worse offender than most Islamic states, they routinely disregard UN directives, and act like spoiled brats.

These Arab states around Israel have invaded them 5 times ... obviously again you don't read your history. Israel responds in kind ... an eye for an eye. So far they have not resorted to WMI's ... but they feel (because Iran has repeatedly stated publically they will wipe Israel off the map) that they are under threat.

I would disagree with the concept of Iran being a "radical state". I'd also like to comment on the fact that you use "Islamic state". Why bring religion into this?

Your clearly misinformed if you don't consider Iran a dangerous radical islamic state. I didn't bring religion into this- it HAS ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT RELIGION.

This comes to mind:

It's estimated (because nobody actually knows) that Israel has somewhere around 150 nuclear weapons. Personally, I think we should be looking at Israel as the "radical" state.

Why?? Isreal has more than 200 nuclear warheads and has never deployed one ... if anything they are more responsible as a nuclear power than any of the rest ... they have resisted using nuclear weapons in 3 sucessive wars after aquiring the technology. The US nuked Japan twice ... after testing their first device ... once (Trinity).

"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200 meters into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed."

Former French President Jack Chirac 02/01/07


Correct ... "Never Again". You might want to look that phrase up on the internet as it has special significance to them.


In the special case of Iran who has repeatedly threatened Israel, it is highly likely they will strike at Iran's reactors if they get any hint of uranium processing beyond the 5%.

[SIDENOTE] You're clearly misinformed about the proper abbreviation of "you are". Take the time to use good grammar, spelling, and punctuation. I promise, it will help you in the long run.

Don't lecture me about my writing skills - shall we compare salary and occupation ... then you can brag? I post with no editing as I don't really care ... during the day is a different matter. If that's your best effort after losing the arguement then your a sore loser. Also treat a mod with a bit of respect.

4. Saudi Arabia will now purchase nuclear warheads from Pakistan.

Saudia Arabia backed the failed removal of the Syrian regime (Sunni vs Shia) and Iran and Syria are Shia.

Ok, getting closer... I guess. I recognize the religious differences, but I'm still lost as to where Pakistan is in all of this, and you can't honestly expect a US ally to get away with purchasing nukes from Pakistan (or expect Pakistan to be selling nukes when India is right next door)

The Saudi's have repeatedly asserted that they will purchase nuclear material from Pakistan for self defence and have short and mid range ICBM's and therefore some limited capacity to deploy nuclear weapons. Pakistan is interested. The US had previously supported SA due to the need for oil / gas. SA have helped fund the rebels in Syria. SA are annoyed over this change of tack by the US as it does not like Syria or Iran ... irrespective of OPEC.

5. Syria will now work harder with Iran to destabilise the Sunni's.

Again, you're losing me on the concept of how a nuclear power treaty directly relates to destabilization of the region.

Read the news and study the issues between the Shia and Sunni states. Sanction reductions on Iran and legitimising their program will empower them to act in this theatre in an increased capacity. The Allawites (Syria's ruling elite) are basically Shia.

Yes, that's one way to look at it, specifically, a realist perspective. The Israelis would call it appeasement, and relate it to how Hitler spread by taking more than what was conceded.

I don't know where you are going with that statement.


A liberal (Me in this case) would say that now that Iran has seen that working with large powers has gotten them some of their money back (the UN froze the money held in the world bank, our sanctions reduction included giving them their money back), they will be much more willing to cooperate in the future, because hey, it worked before.

i doubt it ... they will (are) calling this a massive win ... a triumph. Read their news service.

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

How you draw the conclusion that Iran's ability to create nuclear power is even somewhat akin to giving all states in the ME 5 nukes is beyond me.

Well if the Arabic states all become nuclear armed how long before they nuke Israel or someoene else?

Hmm, why would that be a bad idea? Lets take a look at what Iran sees:

If the state has leaders that think Iran should continue to stay on the map, they wouldn't fire a nuclear weapon, even if they had one.

While I'm usually a Neorealist when it comes to IR, I think you slapped me all they way to Liberalism.

Thats ok ... I forgive you.

For what? Having a different (and probably more well rounded) perspective than you?

I don't think so, your simply failing to understand the topic properly because you lack the perspective on the various cultures in the region and their history. You probably just need to spend more time studying instead of posting ... and ripping into me.