Iran Catch-All | US Build-up in region

[ZZLPHeels]

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.

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.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

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.

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.

 

[sringwal]

Careful with your logic and reason here. The people are convinced that World War III is imminent. To suggest otherwise is to run afoul of the groupthink.

Jesus. Man. Post and engage all you want, but this passive aggressive pity party is a bad look.

Is there a liberal bias here just as there was on the zzl? Sure, there is.

Do republican viewpoints often get criticized more? Absolutely.

But bringing it up constantly isn't going to change anything, but it will make it less likely that your actual points are heard.

 

[Duke Mu]

Then we would clear the mines and destroy their ports and their ability to mine the strait again.

There is a lot of doomsaying here. I think the most likely outcome is that a regime that has spent the last 45 years preserving and maintaining its grip on power in spite of all the pressure the west could provide outside a military invasion will walk back from the abyss and self preserve its position of power on Iran by trying to de-escalate. The real question is whether or not the Trump administration will take the win.

I assume that you are in the military and have access to public and classified information that we have the minesweepers at the ready. I also assume that you were awake during some portion of 2001-2021 when a handful of terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria bogged us down for 20 years and drained $5T out of the US budget. Add an additional $6 trillion due to Bush and Trump tax breaks for the rich. With an addition $37T if the current bill is passed.


Once a war is entered, things are aren't always so clear and finite. "Mission accomplished."

Don’t Sweep Minesweepers Under the Rug: America’s Critical Naval Vulnerability - Center for Maritime Strategy

The Trump Administration has prioritized making the American military more lethal, agile, and capable, with a hyper-focus is on making sure the U.S. Navy is ready for the next war. The Navy intends to invest in drones and a "hybrid fleet" of manned and unmanned systems. Unfortunately, while...

centerformaritimestrategy.org

 

[heel79]

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.

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.

Well mosquitoes are the deadliest animal on Earth. Just sayin.

 

[ZZLPHeels]

Jesus. Man. Post and engage all you want, but this passive aggressive pity party is a bad look.

Is there a liberal bias here just as there was on the zzl? Sure, there is.

Do republican viewpoints often get criticized more? Absolutely.

But bringing it up constantly isn't going to change anything, but it will make it less likely that your actual points are heard.

I'm not worried about a liberal/conservative balance. At this point, reality has a liberal bias because the conservatives have gone full-on anti-science. I'm simply annoyed at being personally attacked for expressing a viewpoint that is barely even controversial. It is tiring.

 

[Duke Mu]

And this is also why, if the Iranians are truly serious about it, the three strikes from us won't be the last.

So, escalation and a wrecked economy. Thanks for being honest.

 

[Duke Mu]

"We're talkin' 'bout practice."

 

[05C40]

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.

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.

 

[stankeylegjones]

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.

It's fascinating to look back and the progress made between the early 1900s through 1960s. The rate of contributions was incredible.

 

[MendotoManteo]

So, escalation and a wrecked economy. Thanks for being honest.

If Iran truly does close the strait, then, yes. That's how we will respond. How else could we? It's just matter-of-fact.

This never should have happened. It's all Trump's folly, from his first administration.

I will say, however, I blame Biden partially. He had a chance to end Bibi's game. And he didn't.

The US has basically become an Israeli proxy. That should never be the case.

Assuming this ends well, or even if it doesn't, we need to seriously reevaluate the influence of the Israel lobby in our nation. It has far too much power.

 

[sringwal]

I'm not worried about a liberal/conservative balance. I'm simply annoyed at being personally attacked for expressing a viewpoint that is barely even controversial. It is tiring.

I get it, but if being here isn't an enjoyable experience for you, then find a place that is. And I'm not being a dick here.

There have been a number of fangroups that I have been a part of that stopped being enjoyable to me because voices that had similar viewpoints to mine were constantly silenced. But complaining about it wouldn't have done me any good. When it got to the point that that bothered me enough that it wasn't fun being there anymore, I left and found groups that naturally respected all opinions more, were differently moderated, or, worse case scenario, were made up of people whose viewpoints are more similar to my own.

The last solution isn't ideal, but I find myself being a better person in those groups than I was when I countered the toxicity of others with my own because I'm not fighting everyone to get my voice heard.

Again, do what you feel is best, and I do appreciate the different viewpoints conservative posters bring, but do what makes you happiest. And if being here doesn't bring you peace, there are other places that will.

 

[wmheel1287]

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.

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.

 

[1moretimeagain]

 

[theel4life]

The next POTUS is going to have a lot of damage to undo.

 

[1moretimeagain]

Flashback to a few hours ago:

 

[4thgenheel]

Start getting all your banking and credit card statements printed on paper and mailed to you. Stop buying anything on-line that you don't absolutely need and if you have to, buy from some place in America big enough to be able to afford a vigorous and effective defense against cyber-attacks. When you use your credit/debit card to make a purchase, tap the card and try whenever possible to avoid inserting the card anywhere. When travelling and you stop at some little, run-down looking store/gas station, try to pay with cash if you can. If you have to insert a credit/debit card anywhere, examine it closely to try and discern if it is a fake overlay.

are iranian hackers THAT good? jfc.

 

[superrific]

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.

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.

 

[Bobfripp]

"I don't always drink beer, but when I'm old enough, I will prefer Dos Equis. Stay thirsty, my friends."

 

[superrific]

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.

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.