Iran Catch-All | Protester Massacre? CBS reports 12,000+ killed

  • Thread starter Thread starter theel4life
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 71K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
This is an idiosyncratic view and not really supported by the evidence.

Also, you don't get to pull the "are you really a lawyer" card given that you're not a lawyer and generally know nothing about the law. Leave that shit to the rest of us.

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You were enlarging the five-to-six days stuff and also denying that you think Iran can build a nuke in a week. Honestly, your position is inscrutable and seems to be internally contradictory to me. Maybe that's because you're responding to many different posts, but I'm not slamming on you. I really don't know what point you think you're making.

The point is twofold:

1. If Iran was really 5 to 6 days away from enriching that much uranium, then none of these attacks are going to compromise their ability to produce a bomb because they are almost there. They don't need more than one centrifuge. Having many centrifuges speeds up the process, and that's all. So if they were 5 days away, maybe now they are 100 days away. They have not been crippled at all, on this theory.

2. As suggested previously, the 5 to 6 day claim beggars belief. If it's true, it means that they weren't enriching this whole time. If not, then well it's wrong. It doesn't help your case either way.

Generally speaking, your posts on this thread have cut against your argument as much as supporting it. You should stop to think a little bit. You're veering wildly, in my view.
Click to expand...
Not that you asked for my opinion on this, but it’s all good. He only got his hackles raised because of some of the things I said to him. And he’s admitted now he doesn’t really know anything about all the things he claimed (for pages) to know all about, so I think we can put this all behind us now and move on to more interesting discussions of what comes next.
 
superrific said:
This is an idiosyncratic view and not really supported by the evidence.

Also, you don't get to pull the "are you really a lawyer" card given that you're not a lawyer and generally know nothing about the law. Leave that shit to the rest of us.

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You were enlarging the five-to-six days stuff and also denying that you think Iran can build a nuke in a week. Honestly, your position is inscrutable and seems to be internally contradictory to me. Maybe that's because you're responding to many different posts, but I'm not slamming on you. I really don't know what point you think you're making.

The point is twofold:

1. If Iran was really 5 to 6 days away from enriching that much uranium, then none of these attacks are going to compromise their ability to produce a bomb because they are almost there. They don't need more than one centrifuge. Having many centrifuges speeds up the process, and that's all. So if they were 5 days away, maybe now they are 100 days away. They have not been crippled at all, on this theory.

2. As suggested previously, the 5 to 6 day claim beggars belief. If it's true, it means that they weren't enriching this whole time. If not, then well it's wrong. It doesn't help your case either way.

Generally speaking, your posts on this thread have cut against your argument as much as supporting it. You should stop to think a little bit. You're veering wildly, in my view.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you are a lawyer, Super. Given that you claim to be an expert in this area, perhaps you can clear something up for the rest of us. If someone makes an allegation against someone else, and the person that the allegation is made against denies the allegation, does this denial in fact mean that the person issuing the denial is guilty? For example, if I say "my best friend John slept with my wife", and John says, "What? That's ridiculous, of course I didn't do that!", does that mean that John screwed my wife? Because that's what the "hit dog hollers" argument implies, and I have always found that this argument was incredibly stupid.

With regards to the actual topic being discussed in this thread:

Several posters claimed that Iran wasn't anywhere close to being able to produce a nuke. Others claimed that Iran wasn't even interested in developing nuclear weapons. According to these arguments, the airstrikes were not necessary because Iran wasn't actually close to being able to weaponize a nuclear device.

I initially did not take a position on this particular part of the argument, but stated that the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities likely substantially hindered or delayed Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon. Another poster disagreed, but they did not elaborate on this disagreement. Instead, they posted the article that has now been linked to several times now. This article stated that Iran was less than a week away from being able to make a nuclear bomb, and that any military strategy aimed at destroying or diminishing this capacity would have to account for and destroy the facility that the US bombed last night. This article, if you believe it, directly supported the case for military intervention against Iran, as Iran being "a week away from a bomb" was a red line that Israel and the US would not accept. I stated that I did not believe this was the case, but if that other poster wanted us to accept the article he/she linked to without comment, then we'd have to accept all of it, including the "one week away" claim. I have stated several times that I didn't think Iran was a week away from a nuke, but that I was willing to go along with this argument to humor the poster who supplied the link that made that claim. My argument has always been that you take the opportunities that are in front of you, and this was the best chance we've had and likely will ever have to take out these nuclear facilities while Iran is in its hyperweakened state.
 
superrific said:
Did anyone else endorse the tens of thousands of American soldiers view? I didn't see any of it. It's not a question about "minding" so much as whether the point continued to be argued for many pages.
Click to expand...
No one endorsed it, and no one jumped all over that poster the way I was jumped on for stating that we're not all going to die tomorrow in World War III.
 
dukeman92 said:
I changed the channel as soon as he answered a reporter’s question with “the previous administration”

They can’t get Biden out of their mouth.
Click to expand...

ZZLPHeels said:
How is the thread derailed? We are literally talking about the strike on Iran's nuclear program.

Iran has proven that they are a paper tiger. They are less than that, actually. They are a paper mosquito at this point.
Click to expand...
Well mosquitoes are the deadliest animal on Earth. Just sayin.
 
superrific said:
That's interesting and all, but modern nuclear weapons are not made from uranium. I very much doubt Iran is trying to recreate the Hiroshima bomb, which was the only nuke I'm aware of that was made from enriched uranium. Fat Man was plutonium, as are pretty much every nuclear weapon produced these days. I think Pakistan has only assembled a uranium bomb but they have plutonium in reserve in case they are planning to actually use them.

North Korea uses plutonium, as do all Western countries and China.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with anything you say. But the first time the US tested a uranium "bullet" type bomb was at Hiroshima. That is how certain the US was that its uranium bomb would work. The first time plutonium "implosion" bomb was tested was at the Trinity site. Since those first two "tests" the US has exploded exactly one uranium "bullet" type bomb, testing of a nuclear artillery round.
Link: Upshot–Knothole Grable - Wikipedia

While those are the only two times the US has used/tested "Gun" type uranium bombs, it does somewhat speak to the relative ease/confidence with which they can be constructed. And that relative ease/confidence might be alluring to a place like Iran.
 
superrific said:
It was predicted by Rutherford but I'm not sure that model was very well accepted. It doesn't matter. We both agree that physics has come a long way since then. We didn't even know about quarks until the 60s.
Click to expand...
It's fascinating to look back and the progress made between the early 1900s through 1960s. The rate of contributions was incredible.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I just find it interesting, once again, that these ground rules only apply to certain posters. For instance, no one seemed to mind another poster claiming that tens of thousands of American soldiers are going to die now. We're OK with alarmism but not the opposite.

Of course no one knows what is going to happen in the future. I posted my opinion, just like others did. But only some opinions are tolerated, it seems.
Click to expand...
Lol, its not that anyone "minds" or doesn't mind what I post. They know im posting genuinely and not from some contrarian trolling bullshit perspective. You've done the latter so many times that indeed you're almost.always going to catch hell even if people agree with you.
 
05C40 said:
While those are the only two times the US has used/tested "Gun" type uranium bombs, it does somewhat speak to the relative ease/confidence with which they can be constructed. And that relative ease/confidence might be alluring to a place like Iran.
Click to expand...
Sure. They just aren't that powerful. Remember: nukes are supposed to be detonated above ground, like 1000 feet or more. It gives the shockwave more time to expand and destroy. Iran would not likely be detonating at that altitude, so the actual force of the bomb would be considerably less. I don't think they are going to all this trouble to develop a half Little Boy bomb.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I'm glad you are a lawyer, Super. Given that you claim to be an expert in this area, perhaps you can clear something up for the rest of us. If someone makes an allegation against someone else, and the person that the allegation is made against denies the allegation, does this denial in fact mean that the person issuing the denial is guilty? For example, if I say "my best friend John slept with my wife", and John says, "What? That's ridiculous, of course I didn't do that!", does that mean that John screwed my wife? Because that's what the "hit dog hollers" argument implies, and I have always found that this argument was incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...
A hit dog hollers is the redneck version of the "lady doth protest too much, methinks." Its validity depends on context. A single denial as in your example here, I would not say hit dog hollers. But we all understand the circumstances in which the expression is descriptive. I have no opinion on your dispute because I didn't even really follow the discussion.
 
superrific said:
Sure. They just aren't that powerful. Remember: nukes are supposed to be detonated above ground, like 1000 feet or more. It gives the shockwave more time to expand and destroy. Iran would not likely be detonating at that altitude, so the actual force of the bomb would be considerably less. I don't think they are going to all this trouble to develop a half Little Boy bomb.
Click to expand...
Can a little boy type bomb not be used as the first stage of a thermonuclear bomb?
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Can a little boy type bomb not be used as the first stage of a thermonuclear bomb?
Click to expand...
Yes, but then you have to make the second stage. Actually, I don't know how powerful the fission reaction has to be to set off the fusion reaction -- I'm pretty sure, though not 100%, that Teller's H-Bomb used a plutonium fuel, not uranium. Not sure if that's required.

The problem is that the second stage is even harder. Li has to be enriched to like 50% Li-6 and that's difficult to do, for reasons I don't entirely understand because I've never cared to look them up. Stankey might know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top