5/20/2008 10:28:04 AM

On what way of reckoning does initiating a world war count as success?

5/20/2008 11:51:37 AM

Rat is one of the bigger neocons here, massive amounts of death in order to ensure US hegemony is not a problem as long as the US is the last man standing.

5/20/2008 12:05:53 PM

^^^ Rat posts the best defense-related images--"'dial-a-yield' feature." LOL!

5/20/2008 12:16:40 PM

^A 757 has a "dial a yield" feature, too. Minimal damage arises from hitting the top floor of a skyscraper, but for greater damage select a lower floor; optimal results are achieved at around 2/3 of building height. LOL!

5/20/2008 12:47:39 PM

Wow.

5/20/2008 12:54:25 PM

setting off a bomb equipped for 100s of kT at less than 1 kT is going to leave a lot of bomb grade material scattered around

5/20/2008 1:02:53 PM

If this ever happened all we'd have to do is call bullshit and say an earthquake happened that set off their nuclear reactors.

You far left wing queer fucks will get your wishes granted soon enough by sucking on Al Qaedas dick when we elect your jihadist sympathizing junior senator, so feel free to take it easy with the 9/11 jokes for now.

5/20/2008 1:10:45 PM

Quote :

"say an earthquake happened that set off their nuclear reactors"

please tell me this is some kind of joke.

For Christ's sake, no human is supposed to be this stupid.

5/20/2008 2:50:45 PM

damn i'm glad to know that while clinton was getting his dick sucked he was also creating that b61 bomb thing...that looks bad ass...gg clinton

5/20/2008 3:40:01 PM

Quote :

"he was also creating that b61"

and now you're trashing his hoar of a wife. lol. what a fucktard.

5/20/2008 3:42:49 PM

so? what does me trashing his "hoar" of a wife got to do with anything? lol what an idiot

5/20/2008 3:44:55 PM

lol that you think bill clinton built this bomb. clinton cut the dept of def in half while he was in office.




lol

5/20/2008 3:46:35 PM

i thought that pic u posted said something like "stockpiled in 97" or something

5/20/2008 3:47:37 PM

of a 40 year old design.




lol @ liberals. education #1!!!!!111

5/20/2008 3:48:26 PM

lol

5/20/2008 3:49:08 PM

oh they modified it during clintons term..i gotcha


gg on getting your dick sucked and modifying this 40 year old bomb clinton

5/20/2008 3:50:44 PM

Quote :

"Better do something quick, or else they might start burning it in nuclear power plants - reducing their fossil fuel use. Save me republicans. Oh save me please."

Please tell me you aren't this naive. Do you really think Ahmadinejad is going to go through all this trouble to just supply his country's nuclear power plants? I'm sure it's something he plans on doing and it gives a legitimate guise to their nuclear research, but if you think he's going to obtain the means to make a nuclear weapon and then not do it, you're about as delusional as Bush or Cheney.

5/20/2008 3:54:21 PM

Quote :

"You far left wing queer fucks will get your wishes granted soon enough by sucking on Al Qaedas dick when we elect your jihadist sympathizing junior senator, so feel free to take it easy with the 9/11 jokes for now."

The cruise is over, Rat. Please step off the failboat. Homophobia plus xenophobia does not, in fact, equal win.

5/20/2008 4:11:46 PM

a multi-billion dollar nuclear power plant is not a trivial front for other activities.

Quote :

"Do you really think Ahmadinejad is going to go through all this trouble to just supply his country's nuclear power plants?"

Yes, do you need references? There are more for this position than for yours.

5/20/2008 4:13:38 PM

(Hand on head)

References for what?

5/20/2008 4:15:21 PM

iran is so peaceful

if they could they would take us by the hand and fly higher than an eagle. they would personally guarantee the happiness of every liberal / conservative of this country happiness and prosperity once they get their nuclear weapons grade chemicals finished.

i love you iran. i really do, and all your warm hearted liberals that support you.

5/20/2008 4:32:08 PM

Quote :

"The cruise is over, Rat. Please step off the failboat. "

5/20/2008 4:35:00 PM

So you actually think it's a good idea to attack Iran, then?

5/20/2008 4:35:21 PM

If molecular manufacturing ever becomes reality, controlling weapons proliferation will be almost impossible. This could conceivably happen within a decade or two. What will the debate look like then?

5/20/2008 4:42:11 PM

http://cdn1.libsyn.com/brettwinterble/CovertRadio080516.mp3?nvb=20080519232405&nva=20080520232405&t=0d0a69be703bea8d8a655

Almost everything you need to know about Iran and why its a bad idea to actually bomb them.

Also includes good options for cold war type strategy.

5/20/2008 4:57:46 PM

Quote :

"Yes, do you need references? There are more for this position than for yours."

One doesn't need references if they have logical thought. Here, I'll play this out for you.

Why does Iran need nuclear power plants? For power.

Can they get these power plants without developing them themselves? Yes. A number of countries, most notably Russia, have already agreed to build such power plants for Iran, if they will but quit developing their own nuclear technology.

But wait, maybe Iran doesn't want to be dependent on other countries for power, huh? A semi-legitimate point, but one would ask why.

If Iran is doing nothing wrong, why should they worry about being dependent on other countries for power? Here's where you'll pop up and say Bush and Cheney have already proven they're nuts enough to go to war/press for sanctions over nothing. And you would be right. Thankfully (and I say this with a large dose of sarcasm) we're already spread so thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, that we aren't able to present an overpowering military threat to Iran at this point. Not without a draft at least. Not to mention Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Rice don't have the stomach for war in Iran and are in open opposition to it. And then you factor in the fact that the United States and countless other countries depend on Iran to keep the price of oil under $200 a barrel. Iran could just as easily deny it's oil supplies to the rest of the world, as the world could deny Iran nuclear power. All of this makes a sudden halt to Iran's newly acquired nuclear power (by way of Russia) very unlikely.

So, being dependent on other countries to construct nuclear power plants, while less than ideal, isn't a big deal.

So if Iran can rely on other countries for nuclear power without fear of having it denied, why does it continue to pursue the costly development of such power on their own? What could they gain from developing their own nuclear technology that they couldn't get from someone else? They risk sanctions and worse every day they continue to pursue technology that has already been offered to them.

My conclusion based on playing out the scenarios above:

The only thing I can see Iran gaining from developing their own nuclear technology (that they couldn't have already) is the ability to produce their own nuclear weapons.

Give me another reason and I'll seriously consider it.

As to what the United States should do about all of this, I'm still up in the air. But I believe Iran has ulterior motives in their pursuit of nuclear power, nevertheless.

5/20/2008 5:01:11 PM

i agree with that but i dont think that means you are voting for obama

5/20/2008 5:03:39 PM

^^ uh, you really need to listen to that link I just posted ^^^

The parts about what Admadenijahsdeadedad wants is scary.

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 5:15 PM. Reason : das]

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 5:39 PM. Reason : da]

5/20/2008 5:15:08 PM

BEU: That was a good interview. It made me rethink some of my positions a little bit. I agree with most of what she said, but I think it would be easy to get carried away. For instance, trying to support the regime that seems like the "good guys" to advance our interests has never faired well. Blowback can happen by supporting any group strongly. I think that's sort of a part of the rules of country to country relations. We don't like the people in power in a number of countries, but trying to covertly overthrow them, is...

statered: Thanks for giving a real response

There is a strong opinion that oil reserves in the nation should be preserved and used for more valuable things than burning it. The "supreme leader" of Iran has said that stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam. I'm sure there are factions that would like to see a nuclear arsenal built, but that opinion is not strong in the public arena - even though I think some people try to lead us to believe so.

I understand the economics of nuclear power fairly well. And you're right about those factors. It is high technology that is developed on a global scale, causing an unneeded R&D burden if you isolate your program. The capital cost of the plant overshadows all fuel cycle costs, and given scaling concerns, it doesn't make much economic sense to enrich unless you plan to compete on the world market anyway.

However, an agreement to "quit developing their own nuclear technology" is not a black and white issue. The US and India have been locking horns on this since forever ago. Wanting a fully vertically integrated industry is a different thing from turning down a turnkey project. That is funny, and it always points fingers towards weapons.

But... are they NOT working with other world powers? Isn't the Bushehr I plant being built with Russia? How is that consistent with doing this all for weapons? How do we know they wouldn't work with us right now? We're so dug in with our mutual isolation that it's impossible to know.


There is a lot of progress we need to make. We need to have inspectors in there, really need it. That might be a little difficult without diplomatic ties

[Edited on May 20, 2008 at 7:22 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2008 7:21:12 PM

Why do countries like North Korea and Iran get more disturbing the deeper you look into them?

5/20/2008 7:53:31 PM