Iran working on nuclear weapons

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Dec. 14 2002,23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ Dec. 14 2002,224)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">They're not allowed to have nuclear weapons.<span id='postcolor'>

Says who?   If USA, Russia and a number of other countries have it, then North Korea and Iran can have it too.<span id='postcolor'>

and aren't you the one who lashed at me when i said 'give nukes to S Korea and it'll be equal'

[CosmicCastaway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Dec. 15 2002,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree with any of the middle east having nuclear weapons at the moment.  For the most part they are too un-stable and so religious, some group may get their hands on one and and become "martyrs".  Not good.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree with anyone having them. But who are we to tell countries in the Middle East what they can and can't have?

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (CosmicCastaway @ Dec. 14 2002,02:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Harnu @ Dec. 15 2002,00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I disagree with any of the middle east having nuclear weapons at the moment.  For the most part they are too un-stable and so religious, some group may get their hands on one and and become "martyrs".  Not good.<span id='postcolor'>

I disagree with anyone having them. But who are we to tell countries in the Middle East what they can and can't have?

<span id='postcolor'>

We are the rulers of this planet, duuuuuuuh!

Sheesh, what's wrong with everyone lately, don't you understand that our whole western world is the big boss of everything?!

Europe and America dominate this planet! Everyone has to do what we say, the other parts of our world are useless and as long as they listen to us, we don't give a fuck about them.

Great world, isn't it?

ps: Sorry, grown ups frustrate me...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MrMilli @ Dec. 15 2002,05:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Says who? If USA, Russia and a number of other countries have it, then North Korea and Iran can have it too.<span id='postcolor'>

I think we made an agreement with them. We'd give them food supplies and they wouldn't pursue nuclear weapons. I'm not sure though, I'll try to find a source if you want.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">missed the point mate.

Nuclear reactor does not make nuclear weapons.

The two are totally different in use and design.<span id='postcolor'>

They're saying they're making nuclear reactors for energy, we have pictures to suggest they're making nuclear weapons facilitys.

[second_draw 0]

Iran's government is so crap/pathetic that they blame the "west" to divert attention from their own inadequacies. The country has been oppressing reform since the revolution from the dictatorship the US wanted (I suppose you could guess who they don't like). These guys are B.A.D. , I wouldn't trust them building a pea-shooter factory. Guess what, Iran is governed in absolute power by a muslim religious body! (muslim terrorists anyone?) What ever the outcome or purpose of this whole nuclear thing, Iran sure isn't standing around being pleasant...

</stupid ramble>

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Guess what, Iran is governed in absolute power by a muslim religious body! (muslim terrorists anyone?) <span id='postcolor'>

generalizing and posting a relation between muslim terrorists and a muslime regime is what i call stupid and flamory.

[supersheep 0]

iran is not totally fundamentalist. there's a great deal of unrest there about reform and anti-reform. and america has nothing really to fear from iran or iraq at the moment in terms of being attacked by nuclear missiles. even north korea has no operational systems that could reach ameica, afaik. israel is the country that should be worried, and it has more nukes than iran or iraq will ever have

[Jinef 2]

Hmm, i think if america has to fear someone detonating nuclear weapons near them it's probably going to be them.

Those freaks who think the world is going to end and want to contribute in their own special way. Some people really screw up their own minds with thoughts of world conspiracy.

See if you ask me there is more threat of a new disease striking up than some nutters blowing up a nuke in a city.

You know it's still going to be nature that's going to kill us, either a highly sophisticated agent that is rapid spreading and very deadly or the less subtle way of a huge fuckoff rock smashing into earth, take your pick.

Edit:

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 14 2002,18:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, i think if america has to fear someone detonating nuclear weapons near them it's probably going to be them.

Those freaks who think the world is going to end and want to contribute in their own special way. Some people really screw up their own minds with thoughts of world conspiracy.

See if you ask me there is more threat of a new disease striking up than some nutters blowing up a nuke in a city.

You know it's still going to be nature that's going to kill us, either a highly sophisticated agent that is rapid spreading and very deadly or the less subtle way of a huge fuckoff rock smashing into earth, take your pick.

Edit:  <span id='postcolor'>

I'll take the rock, please...

ps: there are other words that you can use instead of fuck, you know...

[FSPilot 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ Dec. 15 2002,22:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hmm, i think if america has to fear someone detonating nuclear weapons near them it's probably going to be them.<span id='postcolor'>

No, only in retalliation. I really only think we'd do it if we had been struck first. There'd be no reason to otherwise.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">See if you ask me there is more threat of a new disease striking up than some nutters blowing up a nuke in a city.<span id='postcolor'>

Then again you're not an expert on terrorism are you?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then again you're not an expert on terrorism are you? <span id='postcolor'>

You are one ?

[FSPilot 0]

No, but I'm not making statements about what terrorists are going to do next.

[Harnu 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 16 2002,01:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then again you're not an expert on terrorism are you? <span id='postcolor'>

You are one  ?  <span id='postcolor'>

Ya, how you you know that they'd attack on December the 27th. I mean OOPS!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Those freaks... <span id='postcolor'>

Jinef, are you reffering to Americans?

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">No, but I'm not making statements about what terrorists are going to do next.

<span id='postcolor'>

But on the other hand you are so sure that you tend to wipe countries with bombs. Where is your expert opinion on this then ?

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (supersheep @ Dec. 15 2002,17:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">iran is not totally fundamentalist. there's a great deal of unrest there about reform and anti-reform. and america has nothing really to fear from iran or iraq at the moment in terms of being attacked by nuclear missiles. even north korea has no operational systems that could reach ameica, afaik. israel is the country that should be worried, and it has more nukes than iran or iraq will ever have<span id='postcolor'>

It's not about these countries having the ability to deliver a weapon in a system similiar to a ICBM.

Its about countries that are willing and able to give plutonium, uranium, and/or other nuclear cabable devices to terrorists.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">give plutonium, uranium, and/or other nuclear cabable devices to terrorists.

<span id='postcolor'>

true, but what should they do with that materials. Do you think they are able to build a bomb with that material ?

At least not a nuke in conventional definition. A dirty bomb could be developed but again you need a lot more than uranium or plutonium to build such a bomb. It is very unlikely they will be able to build a conventional nuke. Dirty ones maybe possible but under hard restrictions that wouldn´t make them more efficient than regular explosive devices.

You want to mention radiation now ? With a scenario based a dirty bomb you wont get the radiation you got in Hiroshima or a regular nuke test, as the scientific precision and raw materials are not common trade goods and to develope even a small bomb would take visible efforts and testings to make them work in a half proper way.

A thinkable scenario would be to steal or buy a smurf or a complete system. And even with those in the hands of terrorists, the effect of a modified rebuilt smurf or portable device would be very uneffective compared to the regular explosives already available. I think even terrorists have to check their money and will not go to nukes as they are expensive, hard to handle, hard to customize for their needs, hard to test, easy to be detected, even when they are in parts. Why risk all this when you can have the same effects with regular explosives.

And pls don´t say : "Look at Hiroshima !"

We are talking about two very different nukes here.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 16 2002,15:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">give plutonium, uranium, and/or other nuclear cabable devices to terrorists.

<span id='postcolor'>

true, but what should they do with that materials. Do you think they are able to build a bomb with that material ?

At least not a nuke in conventional definition. A dirty bomb could be developed but again you need a lot more than uranium or plutonium to build such a bomb. It is very unlikely they will be able to build a conventional nuke. Dirty ones maybe possible but under hard restrictions that wouldn´t make them more efficient than regular explosive devices.

You want to mention radiation now ? With a scenario based a dirty bomb you wont get the radiation you got in Hiroshima or a regular nuke test, as the scientific precision and raw materials are not common trade goods and to develope even a small bomb would take visible efforts and testings to make them work in a half proper way.

A thinkable scenario would be to steal or buy a smurf or a complete system. And even with those in the hands of terrorists, the effect of a modified rebuilt smurf or portable device would be very uneffective compared to the regular explosives already available. I think even terrorists have to check their money and will not go to nukes as they are expensive, hard to handle, hard to customize for their needs, hard to test, easy to be detected, even when they are in parts. Why risk all this when you can have the same effects with regular explosives.

And pls don´t say : "Look at Hiroshima !"

We are talking about two very different nukes here.<span id='postcolor'>

One could build a dirty bomb with just plutonium, uranium or both and just some regular explosives to blow it into the air. Dirty bombs are ineffective and can only expose say a few blocks to radiation. But the effect it would have would be immense.

You mentioned scientific precision. And that brings us right back to Iran. Terrorists don't need to have the "scientific" precision. They only need a country willing and able to give you the needed device. Iran and North Korea are working on the necessary pieces of a nuclear bomb. I'm sure they'd cry themselves to sleep if some pieces were "accidently on purpose" lost, and ended up radiating or even incinerating part of an American city.

And however unwieldy the device may be...there are a thousand different ways to deliver it. Boat, Plane, Car, Hot Air Balloon...basically anything. Terrorists are resourceful if anything.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorists don't need to have the "scientific" precision. They only need a country willing and able to give you the needed device. Iran and North Korea are working on the necessary pieces of a nuclear bomb. <span id='postcolor'>

They certainly need scientist to even assemble the parts.

Let´s think a bit. Even if Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, France, US, Russia would sell parts (I certainly dont believe they will sell a complete package, do you ? ) of a nuke to an extremist organization, it will be very hard for terrorist to manufacture a nuke out of the parts. You need to have equipment that is able to handle mikromeasures and materials that can´t be found in the warehouse to assemble the parts. I dont mention knowledge and facilities needed for the job. You know even nukes in parts radiate a lot and without proper environment to assemble and modify the parts the terrorist or bought scientists will not stand the radiation without killing themselves in a short time.

Again "dirty bombs" are possible, but I dont see the effect of them, as they will melt down a radius of 200m max at high temperature, a little shock- heatwave, and futile radiation. Compared to Tschernobyl a portable dirty bomb of whatever material would be minor in effect and long term radiation.

I dont think terrorist would waste plutonium or uranium on a dirty bomb, when they have the chance to get even larger effects with conventional explosives that are much much cheaper.

In my opinion they are after a real nuke and that is basically a very complex weapon even when delivered in parts. So even if some countries should sell parts the combination of parts of different origin will

a. not

b. hardly not

work as there is no international standard on manufacturing nukes. They all use the same technical principles but the blueprints differ a lot.

Edit:

One more thing. If terrorist of any origin are after a nuclear attack device they will certainly use the ones already available in every western country. Nuclear power plants are a perfect hit when it comes to maximum nuclear radiation. Again conventional explosives or planes filled with explosives would make a cheaper alternative to homebuilt nukes.

You want to mention the upgraded security guidelines for NPP´s, but there is no 100 percent coverage at all. If someone wants to fly his plane into a NPP, he will be able to do it. You dont need a jet for this, also a Cessna packed with high explosives and high temperature flammables will do the trick.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 16 2002,16:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Terrorists don't need to have the "scientific" precision. They only need a country willing and able to give you the needed device. Iran and North Korea are working on the necessary pieces of a nuclear bomb. <span id='postcolor'>

They certainly need scientist to even assemble the parts.

Let´s think a bit. Even if Iran, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, France, US, Russia would sell parts (I certainly dont believe they will sell a complete package, do you ? ) of a nuke to an extremist organization, it will be very hard for terrorist to manufacture a nuke out of the parts. You need to have equipment that is able to handle mikromeasures and materials that can´t be found in the warehouse to assemble the parts. I dont mention knowledge and facilities needed for the job. You know even nukes in parts radiate a lot and without proper environment to assemble and modify the parts the terrorist or bought scientists will not stand the radiation without killing themselves in a short time.

Again "dirty bombs" are possible, but I dont see the effect of them, as they will melt down a radius of 200m max at high temperature, a little shock- heatwave, and futile radiation. Compared to Tschernobyl a portable dirty bomb of whatever material would be minor in effect and long term radiation.

I dont think terrorist would waste plutonium or uranium on a dirty bomb, when they have the chance to get even larger effects with conventional explosives that are much much cheaper.

In my opinion they are after a real nuke and that is basically a very complex weapon even when delivered in parts. So even if some countries should sell parts the combination of parts of different origin will

a. not

b. hardly not

work as there is no international standard on manufacturing nukes. They all use the same technical principles but the blueprints differ a lot.

Edit:

One more thing. If terrorist of any origin are after a nuclear attack device they will certainly use the ones already available in every western country. Nuclear power plants are a perfect hit when it comes to maximum nuclear radiation. Again conventional explosives or planes filled with explosives would make a cheaper alternative to homebuilt nukes.

You want to mention the upgraded security guidelines for NPP´s, but there is no 100 percent coverage at all. If someone wants to fly his plane into a NPP, he will be able to do it. You dont need a jet for this, also a Cessna packed with high explosives and high temperature flammables will do the trick.<span id='postcolor'>

Any government could give terrorists a CRUDE nuclear device. Even one with less power then Hiroshima would due. But assuming for the sake of arguement that is not the case, terrorists could easily build a crude bomb themselves. Lets face it, terrorists aren't the retards the media likes to portray them as. To assume that there is a terrorists with the technical know how to piece together one is not beyond possibilty. With that all they would have to do is buy the needed instruments and for the "scientific measurements" and the like and viola! Mini-nuke. I'm not talking about a 10Mt bomb here. And really...how hard is it to get rad-suits. Hell the people at the Manhatten project worked mostly without them.

And even an "ineffectual" dirty bomb as you describe WILL have an effect and at the very least an implied message. "We have the capability." Do YOU want terrorists to become a nuclear power with no homeland? Its not the bomb effect but the psycological effect that would be important as well as the announcing of "Hey look at us! We have a nuclear capability!"

Now NPP's are NOT as easy targets as some think. The critical part of the plant is low to the ground and hard to hit in a fast moving plane. Now I'm not saying its impossible, any nut with the will WILL find a way. Just hitting the large towers will do very little anyway. But you get enough hardware you can take out anything.

[Balschoiw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now NPP's are NOT as easy targets as some think. The critical part of the plant is low to the ground and hard to hit in a fast moving plane.<span id='postcolor'>

I already mentioned an alternative to jets:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You dont need a jet for this, also a Cessna packed with high explosives and high temperature flammables will do the trick.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">terrorists could easily build a crude bomb themselves<span id='postcolor'>

I don´t think so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And even an "ineffectual" dirty bomb as you describe WILL have an effect and at the very least an implied message. "We have the capability." Do YOU want terrorists to become a nuclear power with no homeland?<span id='postcolor'>

I agree on the psychological effect, but the waste of nuclear material that is in fact wasted by using a dirty bomb, cause a much more higher effect can be reached by setting up a proper nuke, doesnt fit to money dependant terrorists. You know raw materials for a nuke are not very cheap, so in my opion they want to take best results out of their invested money.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any government could give terrorists a CRUDE nuclear device. <span id='postcolor'>

Is this really likely ? I doubt that.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Balschoiw @ Dec. 16 2002,17:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now NPP's are NOT as easy targets as some think. The critical part of the plant is low to the ground and hard to hit in a fast moving plane.<span id='postcolor'>

I already mentioned an alternative to jets:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You dont need a jet for this, also a Cessna packed with high explosives and high temperature flammables will do the trick.<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">terrorists could easily build a crude bomb themselves<span id='postcolor'>

I don´t think so.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And even an "ineffectual" dirty bomb as you describe WILL have an effect and at the very least an implied message. "We have the capability." Do YOU want terrorists to become a nuclear power with no homeland?<span id='postcolor'>

I agree on the psychological effect, but the waste of nuclear material that is in fact wasted by using a dirty bomb, cause a much more higher effect can be reached by setting up a proper nuke, doesnt fit to money dependant terrorists. You know raw materials for a nuke are not very cheap, so in my opion they want to take best results out of their invested money.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Any government could give terrorists a CRUDE nuclear device. <span id='postcolor'>

Is this really likely ? I doubt that.<span id='postcolor'>

The thought that terrorists would coordinate and hijack 4 planes and start slamming into buildings was considered unlikely as well. Terrorists are resourceful and smart and in their own way brave. I don't go around scared about terrorists, but I don't underestimate their will and tenacity either.

And I agreed with you on the NPPs....like I said before: Any nut with enough will can do it.

One of the most effective weapons of terrorists is to cause fear and spread fear. I still say whether the damage from a dirty bomb or crude device is effective in its damage...the psycological effect would be priceless. Terrorists aren't necessarily going through their books and looking to get the most bang for their buck. And just releasing a bad dirty bomb in say...the middle of Times Square would kill hundreds of people.

[arkadeyevich 0]

The terrorists succseeded not only because of skillfull planning, but also because of the SIMPLICITY of the attack. Remember, the weapons where boxcutters and tons of fuel, not a highly complex device presicion-build by a team of scientists.

A plan involving radioactive materials in sufficient ammounts, nuclear scientists and special tools is more likely to attract unwanted attension.

[Jinef 2]

Agreed - terrorists aren't retards and they have as much capability as any other groups but then again they aren't the super threat tom clancy makes the out to be.

As many people have explained lot's of countries haven't got the means to make NW so it is unlikely that a group of people with lot's of money but not much else could do it.

When i referred to freaks i was talking about some of the anarchist groups found in western society whose one goal is to destroy the goverment by any means neccessary fro the good of the people.

As you can tell by my carefully chosen words i don't really agree with them on that particular ideology.