Mysterious Explosion and Fire Damage Iranian Nuclear Enrichment Facility (nytimes.com) 158
A fire ripped through a building at Iran's main nuclear-fuel production site early Thursday, causing extensive damage to what appeared to be a factory where the country has boasted of producing a new generation of centrifuges. The United States has repeatedly warned that such machinery could speed Tehran's path to building nuclear weapons. schwit1 shares a report: The Atomic Energy Agency of Iran acknowledged an "incident" at the desert site, but did not term it sabotage. It released a photograph showing what seemed to be destruction from a major explosion that ripped doors from their hinges and caused the roof to collapse. Parts of the building, which was recently inaugurated, were blackened by fire. But it was not clear how much damage was done underground, where video released by the Iranian government last year suggested most of the assembly work is conducted on next-generation centrifuges -- the machines that purify uranium. A Middle Eastern intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held information, said the blast was caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility. The explosion, he said, destroyed much of the aboveground parts of the facility where new centrifuges -- delicate devices that spin at supersonic speeds -- are balanced before they are put into operation.
Khameni (Score:4, Informative)
Get rid of the stupid clergy how hard can it be? Then people of iran are fed up with the clergy, the moment they are destabilized they will get rid of religious rule permanently. Persian culture is not naturally psycho-religious.
Re:Khameni (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Khameni (Score:4, Interesting)
The rural population of Iran is only about 30%. Also, they too have been subject to a lot of oppression even in the rural areas people have relatives and friends who have been unfairly abused by the regime. I point to the 2013 and 2017 elections. Also, the fact that Rouhani, who campaigned as a reformer, won many rural areas shows that there is considerable support for reform. Come on in 2013 when 85% of people showed up to vote, conservative hardliners couldn't must 20% of the vote. In 2017, when turnout was lower, the only reason more people voted against Rouhani because there was no progress and Raisi promised cash handouts. Also, many voted for Raisi out of fear and also because they felt Rouhani was doing the same things as Raisi but stealthily. Also, you have to account for cheating on Raisi's part. Basically with the right controlled push, the end the theocracy can fall. There may be a short war but in the end the reformists will win if they get sufficient backing.
Re: (Score:2)
There may be a short war but in the end the reformists will win if they get sufficient backing.
Y
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:Khameni (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
No no, it was right after the Cyrus the Great's son Cambyses II conquered Egypt in 525 BC at the Battle of Pelysium. It was all downhill from there.
Re: Khameni (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright. You get rid of yours too. :D
Yes, that includes the Church of Trump and Wall Street & co.
In case you're unsure: I totally agree. Religion is a scourge. I just don't limit it to one strain of nutjobbery or one country.
But remember whose vassal dictator turned Iranis towards being so desperatr that they democratically voted for Khomeini in the first place. So the obvious choice is to remove the nutjobbery at that source too.
Re:Khameni (Score:5, Interesting)
Persian? You might as well talk about the Ptolmeic setup in Egypt, or the Byzantine setup in Anatolia. There has been no Persian anything since Islam devoured Iran, replaced Zoroastriansism w/ Islam and the ancient Persian script w/ Arabic.
Anyway, there are very strong reasons why the Iranian people should not just throw off the clergy, but Islam as a whole. First of all, Islam is not an Iranian religion: even the Twelver Sect which is filled w/ Iranian imams from I think #3 originated w/ Ali, an Arab. Second, shi'a Muslims outside Iran, particularly the Arab ones, no longer look up to Iran, and in fact resent Iranian influence, despite Iranian support to their cause against their sunni overlords. In Iraq, the government is no longer pro-Iran once US troops left, and in Lebanon, even the shi'a have turned on Hizbullah, Iran's stooges in that country.
So if one was an Iranian shi'a and saw all that ingratitude from Arab shi'a, the natural questions to ask would be: why are we backing them, and why are we ourselves still Islamic (shi'a or whatever)? They should shift to anything else - preferably Zoroastrian, since that's their original religion, but failing that, even Christianity or Buddhism would be just fine
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lot of things you can say about Khamenei, but "stupid", unfortunately, is not among them. If you follow Khamenei's career, he's obviously a very capable and Machiavellian politician.
Sometimes smart people just have alien values that can't be reconciled with ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes smart people just have alien values that can't be reconciled with ours.
Sounds like you're describing the major tech companies of today.
Re:Khameni (Score:5, Interesting)
Get rid of the stupid clergy how hard can it be? Then people of iran are fed up with the clergy, the moment they are destabilized they will get rid of religious rule permanently. Persian culture is not naturally psycho-religious.
Big revolutions rarely turn out the way you want.
European constitutional monarchies evolved from a system built around an autocratic king, to a monarch who was constrained by the nobles, to constitutional monarchies where the monarch and nobles are just figureheads.
The general structure of the Iranian government isn't that different from that of a constitutional monarchy. Iran's easiest path to Democracy isn't destabilization, it's incremental revolutions that change the status quo.
The Green Movement [wikipedia.org] failed to oust Ahmadinejad, but it paved the way for a much more moderate, reformist, and western friendly Rouhani to run and win a much fairer election 4 years later. The constitution hasn't changed, but real power has shifted from the Supreme Leader and towards the people.
If the US were to try re-engaging with Iran on positive terms you could get something fairly closely representing an actual Democracy within 20 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Get rid of the stupid clergy how hard can it be?
You're joking right? Have you see the bible thumpers running the USA, or Australia, or the religious power wielded in Asian countries, or in much of Europe.
Q: How hard can it be?
A: The single most complicated takedown of a power structure reinforced by fanatics that has ever existed in history.
Huh? (Score:2)
The Atomic Energy Agency of Iran acknowledged an "incident" at the desert site, but did not term it sabotage.
then this...
A Middle Eastern intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held information, said the blast was caused by an explosive device planted inside the facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Two different people, with different sources of information. Only one is willing to be specific on a particular detail. This is hardly surprising.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be the norm in all news reporting these days. It's as if it's pointless to read anything anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
That's when you look at the identification of sources. The one who said it was an explosive device was "A Middle Eastern intelligence official," so it's possible that he's trying to push a Western-orchestrated sabotage story. Or that he's closer to incident and has more data.
"It's as if it's pointless to read anything anymore."
Yes, the data is sparse and has to be interpreted. Welcome to reality.
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
A single anonymous source was willing to offer a less general and confident assessment than the official spokesperson for an established government agency? Next you're going to tell me that random bloggers are more willing to speculate and spread rumors than an international news paper with reporting standards and fact checkers.
Re: (Score:2)
Next you're going to tell me that random bloggers are more willing to speculate and spread rumors than an international news paper with reporting standards and fact checkers.
I literally copy/pasted two sentences from TFA.
Re: (Score:2)
> international news paper with reporting standards and fact checkers.
Such a thing exists?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. They need to check whether the facts match the narrative before including them in a story, as the reporting standards demand that the story stays true to the message they want to provide.
Re: (Score:2)
A bomb you could sneak in is not likely to affect the capacity of facility much; there are something like 7000 centrifuges running at Nanantz. But if they were *carefully placed*, a few modest bombs could set back the program by months or even years.
The trick is to take out the centrifuges that have nearly finished product. Just one centrifuge on the tail end of the enrichment process contains the output of hundreds of upstream centrifuges and years of work.
Re: (Score:2)
> A bomb you could sneak in is not likely to affect the capacity of facility much
If said bomb snuck in at 50,000 feet aboard a B2 ...
Actually, I understand most of the facility is underground. With an explosion in an underground facility, the pressure wave wouldn't disperse in the atmosphere. Basically, the entire underground facility would likely become a bomb as the pressure built up until it bursts out of the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
If said bomb snuck in at 50,000 feet aboard a B2 ...
I guess then we get to see whether or not the S300 can defeat the B2. The best guess is "probably not", but I suspect the USAF won't want that question answered just in case they're wrong, and a small regional power which doesn't offer any threat to the US is not a worthwhile place to test it.
Good (Score:4)
It's for the best interests of everyone in the world to see that the Islamic Republic of Iran [battleswarmblog.com] doesn't get nuclear weapons.
Letting the Islamic Republic of Iran get them would either result in nuclear conflict, or of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey quickly obtaining them.
Now for a word from your "but-but-Israel" false-equivalence jihad apologists in reply...
Re: Good (Score:2)
And look what appeasement has ever got anyone? Mostly attacked
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I know this one!
India.
Hate Based Autocracic Rulers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
All other nuke weilding countries have hierarchical power structures interested in expansion of their power base and also their own self preservation.
Pakistan isn't exactly a bag of laughs either.
Re: (Score:2)
If a bomb was dropped, you can bet it was one of those bunker busters and it probably destroyed the lab and killed everybody inside.
But, unless there is a leak, we will never know.
Re:CIA? Mosad? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
..which would be CIA+Mossad.
Re:CIA? Mosad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so. Witness India and Pakistan. Both obtained nuclear weapons at about the same time (~1998 for the announcement) but there has been no major conflict between the two since that time. There was the Siachen conflict, but it was already underway before this time.
You could also use the U.S. and Russia. Once both had bombs, no direct conflicts (support for third parties is another story).
The same with this. Once Iran gets its nuclear weapon(s) Israel will have to make hard choices about how to be the bully in the region or risk stakes it's probably not prepared to see out. Sure, they have the Samson option (and almost used it in 1973), but that's a last resort.
Don't forget, Iran's recent attack on U.S. bases and oil installations in Saudi Arabia shows they now have much more accurate missiles and while Israel has Iron Dome, use of overwhelming numbers of missiles, accurate or not, can easily overwhelm such a system.
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you think Iran, who has said very loudly countless times their biggest goal is the utter destruction of Israel and proceed to behave in a rational manner and not nuke Israel out of existence?
The best way to know what a country will do is listen to what they say.
Bullies? The Middle East isn't a grade school play ground. 1947, 1967, 1973, countless rockets coming in from Iranian proxies, and so on. Are you one of those people who blames rape victim for what they wear, too? So ridiculous. But I'm sure you have a Jewish friend and he tells you he's anti-Zionist so your anti-semitism is ok.
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Lol. What world do you live in?
Iran isn't going to nuke Israel, because it would result in the end of the world for their leaders. Iran wants nukes for the same reason North Korea does. Iran with nukes is immune to invasion beause they *could* nuke Israel. It could potentially make transfer of power more dicey though, as in NK, if the outgoing leader decides to go with a bang. It's probably less of an issue in Iran though, because power isn't as concentrated.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran wants nukes for the same reason North Korea does. Iran with nukes is immune to invasion because they *could* nuke Israel.
I'm pretty sure *no one* actually wants to invade either Iran or North Korea. Just sayin'.
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:5, Informative)
The US has talked seriously about doing both, and probably would have done so if it wasn't ridiculously expensive.
Iran has a lot of legitimate reason to fear US aggression. The current theocracy came to power because the US and UK toppled the previous relatively liberal democracy when it started getting uppity about oil. Then the US supplied Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. And of course, the US eventually invaded Iraq on a made up excuse and executed the leader.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, invading Iran is the kind of thing that makes John Bolton's mustache twitch, but what would actually be the point for the U.S. to invade/attack (aka: fighting) either country? Sure, Israel would love to manipulate the U.S. into fighting Iran for them, but not sure how it would really benefit the U.S *and* Russia would probably back Iran. Fighting N. Korea would be more pointless *and* it's literally China adjacent, so fighting would really problematic. It's good bluster by the U.S. to rant about raining hell down on these countries and them about the U.S., but it would be stupid to actually do it. All three countries know this, but continuing the rhetoric makes everyone feel important.
Benjamin Netanyahu and Mohammad Bin Salman Al Saud are united by their willingness to invade Iran and fight a war there with dogged determination to there to the very last American.
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the same thing about most of the countries the US has invaded in the last seventy years. Iran is a big and growing power in part of the world where the US has rather a lot of interest. NK is a threat to a bunch of allies and potentially to the US itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The US has talked seriously about doing both
When in recent memory did the US talk about invading NK? Bomb off the map if they get aggressive... maybe. But invade?
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:2)
3-4 generations ago isn't recent memory. And there was no such thing yet as "North Korea" there was just Korea vs Korea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
GP:
Me: posts article talking about the top US military commander advocating an invasion.
LynnwoodRooster:
Eyeroll.
Or did you mean the first part, about the US invading Korea? If so, may I direct your attention to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:2)
Bullshit. There were more than two factions in Iran and the mullahs would have steamrolled Mossadegh as well. The only way it wouldn't have happened is if the Soviets decided to step in, in which case democracy would have had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:4, Insightful)
So we should arrogantly assume their leaders have been lying since around 1979 about wanting to destroy Israel and we know better than them what they'd really do?
And once they get nukes and thus the ability to nuke Israel, they will suddenly announce to the world, "ha ha ha, just kidding guys! It was a joke! Us fundamentalist Islamic psychos are funny! Have a sense of humor!"
And they're working really hard digging deep caves to gather materials to build nukes at great expense because uh.. things glowing green is pretty?
And you think the only reason they want nukes is to prevent a US invasion? The one Carter didn't launch when they took our embassy, an act of war? The one Cowboy Warmonger Reagan didn't launch? The one CIA POTUS Bush I didn't launch? The one his son neo-con real warmonger Bush 2 didn't launch when he had a huge fucking US army right next store and just had to keep going East after Baghdad fell? The one wag-the-dog Clinton didn't launch? The one don't cross this red line, no I mean this other red line Obama didn't launch? The one racist Warmonger Trump didn't launch?
Fucking no one is invading Iran. Just like invading North Korea, it would be insanely expensive in blood and cash with absolutely no benefit and EVERYONE knows it.
Occam's Razor tells us why Iran is trying so hard to get nukes. To do what they've been bleating about for decades: Nuke Israel.
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:2)
So we should arrogantly assume their leaders have been lying since around 1979 about wanting to destroy Israel and we know better than them what they'd really do?
You're really going to have to get another username if you insist on being so simple.
Don't be so sure of that (Score:2)
Oh Iran might not launch a nuclear missile against Israel but what is there to stop one of their nukes from "falling into" the hands of some one like Hamas. I would imagine it is well within Hamas' abilities to smuggle something the size of a nuclear warhead across the border to Israel.
Would we nuke Iran under such conditions where there is no definitive proof of their involvement and kill all of those innocent civilians? Probably not. Meanwhile a conventional military response by the US runs the risk of be
Re: (Score:2)
Something like that is much more likely. Still, the technology to fingerprint and trace nukes is pretty good, and if something like that was traced back to Iran that would be the end of them. If Iran, or any country, demonstrated a willingness to use nukes offensively, indirectly or not, the cost of removing that capability would suddenly be outweighed by the danger of not doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
How does one fingerprint a nuke? Doesn't it, by its very nature, destroy all of the evidence?
I'll admit to not being an expert in this area at all but the idea that a nuclear blast could be walked back to an individual country based off of forensic evidence seems awfully far fetched to me. Please justify your claim.
After that, I think you're not appreciating what a nuke could do to a carrier fleet. Bye-bye several thousand Americans and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't it, by its very nature, destroy all of the evidence?
Uh, wow. Just wow.
Now look up radioactive fallout.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I won't. I asked the parent to pack up their claim and I at the very least expect a link. It's literally the minimum effort I make for my own claims and I don't think I'm out of line asking for it from others.
You make a claim you back it up. It's really quite fucking simple.
Re: (Score:3)
How does one fingerprint a nuke? Doesn't it, by its very nature, destroy all of the evidence?
No, you can check the relative amounts of various isotopes and isolate down to the the specific reactor and year that the material came from. Even for Iranian made material. If such a thing happened, Iran would be vaporized in a couple of weeks (just long enough to id the material and announce to the world and what we would be doing). We would probably also give the Iranian people a couple of days to put all the Mulah's heads on spikes if they wanted to avoid destruction. Also, if Iran developed such a
Try proper citation asshole. (Score:2)
I could care less for you bullshit jingoism. I asked for proper citation and all you give me is your word of mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
I could care less for you bullshit jingoism. I asked for proper citation and all you give me is your word of mouth.
I'm sorry if realistic analysis disturbs your delicate ideology snowflake. Here is your citation [phys.org]. But please keep posting, we all want to be notified as to your exact level ignorance on this topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, so they found a way to identify the source of non detonated
plutonium? Get back to me when you can make a point like a civilized human being that is actually pertinent to the fucking conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]
It's a bit like tracing minerals in geology, or soil or sand in forensics. The material you use to make a bomb has a distinctive composition, that signature also makes an impression on the stuff that's created when you detonate the thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you'd try and attack a carrier. That's about the most difficult target possible. The OP was talking about sneaking one into Israel, presumably a big city. That wouldn't be particularly easy either. An American port city would probably be easier.
Re: (Score:2)
Put a nuc at the bottom of the ocean and wait for a carrier fleet to pass over it. Seems easy enough to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally! I wonder why nobody ever thought of that before!
Re: (Score:2)
Shhhh he likes to pretend that Mahdists don't exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran can say whatever they want. And eventually they will have a nuclear arsenal. And they might intend to do exactly what you say.
But a nuclear war annihilates both sides, or heavily damages one while the other is annihilated. Israel, if published numbers are right, has enough nukes to core out every urban center in Iran. Not kill everyone, but a devasting percentage.
They will have those nukes still even if Iran also has them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Iran" is not a person. It's an organisation with changing leadership and politics. People within it say all sorts of shit, same as US politicians do, same as Israeli politicians do.
Iran? (Score:2)
Changing leadership? They're on their second Ayatollah since 1979, and that too only b'cos the first one died in 1989. He's the one where the power resides: it's never been Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejad or Rouhani
They always tell you what they want (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran has made clear exactly what it intends to do if able: destroy Israel and the "Great Satan" USA.
He may not actually be an anti-Semite; many people have been beguiled by propaganda from the BDS movement and others. However, your point is an excellent one. If Iran gets the bomb, they are much more likely to use it.
The only thing that holds this in check is Mutually Assured Destruction, as usual. If Iran nukes Israel, Israel will most likely follow NATO policy and nerve gas Iran. At that point, the remaining 50,000 Iranians will have to put on their NBC suits and sign some kind of peace arrangement.
Since very few of us want this kind of outcome, it makes sense to limit the nuclear capacity of fully out-of-control nations like Iran and North Korea wherever possible. Even more importantly, economically isolating them tends to reduce their capacity for the big-pockets spending required for nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.
I suggest that everyone consider the situation of Israel: a small nation surrounded by enemies. We need a place where Jews are safe from pogroms, Holocausts, and discrimination. Israel is that place. Whether you love Jews, hate Jews, or are somewhere in the middle, it makes sense to support a free and independent Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:2, Interesting)
It's hard to take seriously anyone who claims to know history yet refers to a non-entity such as "Palestine" as if it was a real place with a real government. I assume you're aware of all the pro-Democracy people in the west bank and Gaza Strip who literally got slaughtered in the streets when Israel pulled out. You want to talk about ethnic cleansing? Start with that slaughter. Hint: it wasn't Israel who gunned them down whole sale. Actually, never mind, I know you have no clue about the mass executio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your knowledge is generally lacking. Is this you making things up in your deranged mind again or do you have trustworthy data to back things up for once?
Re: (Score:2)
Once Iran gets its nuclear weapon(s) Israel will have to make hard choices
You miss the point. Israel and the USA are doing their level best to ensure Iran doesn't get the bomb. Granted, once Iran gets the bomb and a way to send it somewhere useful then things will change. But as long as everyone can keep Iran from getting the bomb then, well, hope your nuclear scientists travel is cars with bullet proof glass.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except Israel has never attacked anyone first
What? Does 1967 not ring a bell with you? Israel attacked Egypt. How about 1956? Invaded Egypt. This doesn't get into the weekly attacks on Syria or the attacks on Iraq or Iran it keeps carrying out. Stop the bullshit. Israel attacks first on a multitude of situations, all the while claiming they're pre-empting an attack on them (nice excuse, isn't it?).
Once Iran has theirs, Israel's deterrent will be no more and the assholes surrounding it will start "conv
Re:CIA? Mosad? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you smoking. 1967 and 1956 was in response to the Egyptians blocking the Straits of Tiran which Egypt had both times guaranteed access. Blocking major trade routes and mobilizing your army is an act of war. After the first time, the UN even guaranteed, but then when Egypt pushed again, they threw their hands up. In both cases, Egypt blocked the straits and mobilized its army, Israel defended. This would basically be the same as Canada or Russia suddenly cutting off US access to Alaska.
Iran has much more conventional weapons and troops than Israel does, Israel cannot win a conventional war against Iran. Iran is one of the largest armies in the world, and is positioned right behind the US, the US could not feasibly win a war against Iran upon itself.
Re: (Score:2)
the US could not feasibly win a war against Iran upon itself.
Remember when people said shit like this about Iraq? Fourth largest army in the world, and all that?
Yeah, how did that work out?
Also, why talk about Iran's army in a direct confrontation with Israel when there are two countries in between them, one of which still has a shitload of US troops in it. I'm pretty sure that Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia aren't just going to let Iran roll it's columns of armor and troops right through without picking up the phone. Or are you suggesting that Iran is some
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth largest army in the world, and all that? Yeah, how did that work out?
No differently than what the parent said. The Iraq government was overthrown through the support of no less than 8 countries in addition to significant local rebellion forces in an incredibly long protracted war that didn't even remotely include all of Iraq's army.
Don't confuse what was going on over there with an actual all out war between two countries dedicated to the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Six-Day war [wikipedia.org]? Israel was attacked.
That was a continuation of the 1948 war — though open hostilities (almost) ended then, Egypt kept blocking Suez Canal to Israeli shipping since 1950. A hostile act and a legitimate casus belli.
Attacks on Iranian military and proxies in Syria and Iraq. Fixed that for you. Israel remains at war with Iran — which does n [wikipedia.org]
Re:CIA? Mosad? (Score:4, Informative)
False.
They didn't.
Another lie.
Irrelevant.
While about 1/3rd of Israelis are Arabs, there are no Jews remaining in Gaza. Or West Bank. Or Syria. Who's doing "ethnic cleansing" again?
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:2)
There are no Jews in the west bank?
Sure if you ignore the 180,000 living in west bank settlements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
... like seriously.
Let's just start with U.S.S. Liberty and go from there...
Re: CIA? Mosad? (Score:2)
Heh. Pirate nation. The idea of a jewish Tortuga amuses me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is called 'The State of Palestine' and is recognised by the United Nations, and has been illegally occupied by Israel since 1948.
That little fact should make you think that perhaps, just perhaps, you know nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Since 1948? Let's take a look at your misinformation.
First, Egypt and Jordan occupied what you'd consider to be "The State of Palestine" from 1948 until they lost the territory to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day war. So you're missing almost a couple of decades of context right off the bat.
Second, "The State of Palestine" has never had actual control of any territory, so yes, the original poster is correct that it's never existed as a country. There are some anti-Israel countries and organizations which recogniz
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Analysts are not worried about Iran using nuclear weapons, they are worried that other nations will look at Iran defying the US and nothing happening to them, thus others will also ignore the will of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Nanantz is not Iran's only centrifuge site. There's believed to be at least 3000 advanced centrifuges in an underground facility at Fordow. Of course if those caught fire we'd probably not know.
Even if both sites remain operational, reductions in Iranian HEU stocks under JCPA means a credible nuclear weapons program is still some time in the future. Iran was left with just 300 kg of 20% enriched fuel, which if enriched to 90% is enough for just one bomb, and they'd need that for testing.
Iran's best optio
Re: (Score:2)
You build a graphite moderated reactor that runs on natural (unenriched) uranium. The reactor (or reactors) can be quite small, small enough to fit in a typical warehouse.
And as long as you don't use flammable metallic uranium and air cooling, they can be quite reliable.
Re:"Really ugly". (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, more ugly that Trump at the launch button. Despite all his flaws, he seems reluctant to kill anyone in military conflicts, at least compared to any President in the post-Reagan era. Iranians, on the other hands, are interested in the return of the Mahdi.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Despite all his flaws, he [Trump] seems reluctant to kill anyone in military conflicts, ...
But he's more than happy to admire, praise and buddy up to other leaders that do kill people.
Re: "Really ugly". (Score:3)
FYI, the Iranian leadership has killed screeds of people. Either as examples, or because they believe they should be eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't make him a nuclear threat. Even India and Pakistan seem like stable nuclear powers compared to the Iranians though. Which is saying something.
Re: (Score:2)
"Letting"? You seem to be operating under the delusion that the virus requires permission. You're also dissembling and trying to turn this into some broader conversation about who Trump will or won't kill. It's about the Iranians and the threat of them obtaining nuclear weapons.
Covid-19 will be a walk in the park compared to a nuclear Iran.
Funny, how "Troll" is the moderation for ... (Score:2)
... my master disagrees with the facts, so I serve him well, by censoring reality so I can stay in a Stockholm syndrome delusion.
Can't make a donkey drink ...
Re: (Score:2)
Why the hell do "we" (the non-crackpot part of the world) even tolerate
Which part is the non-crackpot part? Name a country and I'll tell you how they're batshit crazy, outright evil, or both.
Theocratic Rule (Score:2)
The parts of the world that don't have an unelected theologian who can, essentially, overrule any other part of the government, based on what he thinks god tells him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's funny when the western news services talk about what the president of Iran is doing or saying, as if he has any power.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, so an elected prophet is much better, like Trump or Bush saying God said do this or that? You're funny. U.S. is unhinged, worse than even Iran for terrorism, murder and mayhem across the globe too.
Re: You mean Mossaterious! :D (Score:2)
Yes. Do you think you are smart by parroting a fact like it's sarcastic?
Sorry, this is not your church.