Israel launches attack on Iran | US bombs Iran nuke sites

superrific said:
Fuck you. I'm autistic. The things that come easily to you don't necessarily come easily to me. You know what comes extremely easy to me? Academic work. I have a bachelor's in physics; a master's in intellectual history; a JD; I worked as a computer programmer in law school making almost a hundred grand for about 15 hours a week of work. In the interim I learned finance and economics. There is no universe in which you could possibly compete with me in academic work, because very few people can.

What is much more difficult for me is hanging out in a crowd. I instinctively feel that people are against me (somewhat borne out by experience) and I don't easily make friends. And sometimes I don't communicate well in micro-details. It's especially a problem when I am addressing one person and other people are reading it.

My life experience is generally that people don't allow me to be proud of what I'm good at, and they also rub my face in what I'm not good at. It's really a shit sandwich.
Click to expand...

You should absolutely be proud of being what you are good at, but you should also know when certain things come across as rude or condescending. I realize that may not have been your intention, but to me it came across that way. Anyways, I'm happy to move on from that particular discussion if you are.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Is this projection? Because I don't think I misread this:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I agree that you seem to be arguing in bad faith.
Click to expand...
Maybe your issue is reading comprehension rather than bad faith. Sorry if I jumped to an unfair conclusion.
 
lawtig02 said:
Maybe your issue is reading comprehension rather than bad faith. Sorry if I jumped to an unfair conclusion.
Click to expand...
Seems like projection, once again. And once again, this seems like a pretty straightforward statement:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I even made the portion in question bigger for you in case you missed it the first 3 times. Hope this helps.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
That's fine if they want to retaliate. Wanting to and being able to are two different things. I want to have a threesome with two supermodels. I would really enjoy that. But at the end of the day I'm probably not going to be able to do that. That's where probabilities come into play. Let's say that if we did nothing there was a 1% chance that Iran would somehow detonate a nuke in Israel by 2035. We have over 700,000 US citizens living in Israel. So, odds are nothing would happen to them, but that 1% chance of a bad outcome would be REALLY bad if it came to fruition. Let's also say that by striking Iran we incur a 30% risk that Iran kills 100 Americans in a terrorist attack over the next two years, but the odds of them detonating a nuclear weapon by 2035 go down to 0.05%. I'd argue that we'd be stupid not to take those odds.
Click to expand...
But there's a much higher risk that Iran now mines the Straits of Hormuz or China finally invades Taiwan. That's what happens when we think in isolationist or "America First" terms.

Superrific - congrats on your success. My daughter's on the Spectrum. I feel ya.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Seems like projection, once again. And once again, this seems like a pretty straightforward statement:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I even made the portion in question bigger for you in case you missed it the first 3 times. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
You’re getting closer to realizing the mistake you’re making every time you enlarge it. Maybe try it another time or two?
 
Outside of Trump regime claims, the results of the attacks are unknown at this time:

At odds with Trump’s claim of “complete obliteration”, two Israeli officials who spoke to the New York Times described serious damage at Fordow but said the site had not been completely destroyed.

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, added: “As for the assessment of the degree of damage underground, on this we cannot pronounce ourselves. It could be important; it could be significant, but no one … neither us nor anybody else could be able to tell you how much it has been damaged.” ...

Ultimately, the question is whether the US-Israeli attacks are seen as sufficient for Iran to capitulate, or whether they instead encourage the regime to accelerate its efforts to produce a viable nuclear weapon.
www.theguardian.com

How effective was the US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites? A visual guide

Trump claims the assault ‘totally obliterated’ the key facilities, but what do we know about its impact?
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
lawtig02 said:
You’re getting closer to realizing the mistake you’re making every time you enlarge it. Maybe try it another time or two?
Click to expand...
My reading comprehension is spot-on, thank you. If you need to enlarge it further, I suggest you copy and paste that text into Microsoft Word and then you can make it as large as you need to in order for it to finally sink in.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

So there is no actual evidence that Iran was close to building a bomb. Trump wanted to bomb Iran because it looked easy after Israel destroyed most of their air defenses and he was played by Netanyahu into getting directly involved in a war they started. At least it was successful in the sense that none of our military personnel were killed or injured in the attack, so that god for that.
 
Duke Mu said:
But there's a much higher risk that Iran now mines the Straits of Hormuz or China finally invades Taiwan. That's what happens when we think in isolationist or "America First" terms.

Superrific - congrats on your success. My daughter's on the Spectrum. I feel ya.
Click to expand...

I don't think the risk of China invading Taiwan is tied to our strike on Iran's nuclear program. I do agree that is a risk of an isolationist foreign policy which is why I am generally not supportive of that philosophy.
 
North Korea suffers from a horrific leader, who is disturbed and egomaniacal. The reason we don't attack North Korea is because they have nuclear weapons.

Iran and its leadership have just learned the meaning of this, in personal and real world terms, and will proceed like never before to gain such security.

It's likely North Korea, China and to what ever extent, Russia, will help them.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
Seems like projection, once again. And once again, this seems like a pretty straightforward statement:

At the Fordow plant, located near the city of Qom, the Iranians have enough centrifuges (including IR-6s, their more advanced type) and uranium hexafluoride gas to produce several nuclear weapons. They could probably produce enough weapon-grade (90 percent) enriched uranium for one nuclear weapon within five to six days.

I even made the portion in question bigger for you in case you missed it the first 3 times. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
The highest enrichment cited in the government link you provided

Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

and dated May 31, 2025 is 60%. This is what our US Intelligence has declared as well. Trump is on videotape in response to a question stating emphatically that "They're wrong... and I'm Bibi's b*tch" (I made up the last part - but he thought it). You might want to READ the documentation when you post a link. Otherwise, posters might consider your posits unreliable and poorly considered. Limbic forward, in other words.
 
Duke Mu said:
The highest enrichment cited in the government link you provided

Verification and monitoring in the Islamic Republic of Iran in light of United Nations Security Council resolution 2231 (2015)

and dated May 31, 2025 is 60%. This is what our US Intelligence has declared as well. Trump is on videotape in response to a question stating emphatically that "They're wrong... and I'm Bibi's b*tch" (I made up the last part - but he thought it). You might want to READ the documentation when you post a link. Otherwise, posters might consider your posits unreliable and poorly considered. Limbic forward, in other words.
Click to expand...
That's not my link, that's an0maly's link. I already stated that I didn't think the "one week away" claim was accurate.
 
OK, let me be clear: there is absolutely nothing that has happened in the last week in regard to Israel, Iran, and the United States that will turn out well for the United States. And by "not well" I mean even worse than what the functionally illiterate, trust-fund baby that we elected to be President, twice!, would have otherwise done. That said, I did find the following quote from Israel funny: "That tactical edge also helped when Iran struck a building that belongs to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. "Iran claims to have attacked a Mossad building with missile strikes," the post read. "Fortunately, no one was there ... everyone is in Iran.""

Link: MSN
 
superrific said:
Out of curiosity, what do you know about nuclear physics to make you confident in this claim? It's actually not tremendously complicated, which is why we were able to develop one in the 1940s, when nuclear physics was in its infancy and we didn't even really understand how it worked.

It just takes a while to enrich the uranium. The process is not particularly complicated.
Click to expand...
I am going to push back on your statement that nuclear physics was in its infancy in the 1940s. By then, we knew a whole lot about nuclear forces, processes etc. Also, I am fairly confident that it wasn't the physics that was the hard part in building the bomb. After the engineering challenges were figured out, I believe the process was fairly streamlined.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
That's not my link, that's an0maly's link. I already stated that I didn't think the "one week away" claim was accurate.
Click to expand...
But you quoted it - you might want to read it. Or alter your
ZZLPHeels said:
I don't think the risk of China invading Taiwan is tied to our strike on Iran's nuclear program. I do agree that is a risk of an isolationist foreign policy which is why I am generally not supportive of that philosophy.
Click to expand...
It strengthens both Putin's unilateral invasion of Ukraine and bolsters the claim that China could also act unilaterally. Of course.
 
stankeylegjones said:
I am going to push back on your statement that nuclear physics was in its infancy in the 1940s. By then, we knew a whole lot about nuclear forces, processes etc. Also, I am fairly confident that it wasn't the physics that was the hard part in building the bomb. After the engineering challenges were figured out, I believe the process was fairly streamlined.
Click to expand...
We had no idea until testing whether the chain reaction could or would be contained. We had an hypothesis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top