Slashdot Mirror


Iran's Smart Concrete Can Cope With Earthquakes and Bombs

PolygamousRanchKid writes "Iran is an earthquake zone, so its engineers have developed some of the toughest building materials in the world. Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) could also be used to protect hidden nuclear installations from the artificial equivalent of small earthquakes, namely bunker-busting bombs. UHPC is based—like its quotidian cousins—on sand and cement. In addition, though, it is doped with powdered quartz (the pure stuff, rather than the tainted variety that makes up most sand) and various reinforcing metals and fibers. UHPC can withstand more compression than other forms of concrete. UHPC is also more flexible and durable than conventional concrete. It can therefore be used to make lighter and more slender structures. All of which is fine and dandy for safer dams and better sewers, which threaten no one. But UHPC's potential military applications are more intriguing—and for many, more worrying. Deep bunkers can be tackled in other ways. America's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has looked at what is known in the jargon as functional defeat, in other words bombing their entrances shut or destroying their electrical systems with electromagnetic pulses. They are also working on active penetrators—bombs which can tunnel through hundreds of meters of earth, rock and concrete. Development work is also under way on esoteric devices such as robot snakes, carrying warheads, which can infiltrate via air ducts and cable runs."

75 of 609 comments (clear)

  1. Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...brought to you by "the department of give-us-more-tax-dollars."

    1. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In breaking news, man confronted with baseball bat puts his hands up to fend himself. This is a clear indicator that proves the man was intent on violence.

      Seriously? these old wankers feeding us this bullshit don't understand that the internet never forgets their lies and many of us have clued into wtf is going on?

    2. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by cosm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Israel truly believes that it's existence is threatened then they can do something about it themselves.

      ...themselves being a US ground invasion.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    3. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Vs. a Country which is trying to become a Theocracy which already has hundreds of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them at a distance.. how could that be bad?

    4. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually they never did. What you heard was the MEMRI 'translation' provided to western media. MEMRI is run by an Israeli.

      Iran has invaded exactly 0 neighbours. Israel has done it fairly consistently.

      Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Isreal does.

      Israel is the single state with the most UN Security Council actions against it.

      I understand why you don't know that - the owners of the media you watch, listen or read want you to believe that's the truth.

      Then there's the megaphonies - 'useful idiots' that propagate Israeli government propaganda.

      Hope that'll give you a start in your quest to understand why you're being lied to. Cheers :)

    5. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by X.25 · · Score: 3

      Yeah, a country run by a theocracy that has announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors and is busy getting nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong?

      Yet, they haven't shot at anyone.

      Unlike certain free country which is pillaging and burning things around the world, both militarily and politically.

      Stop that fucking nonsense, ok?

    6. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can't remember the last time someone in the US was executed for converting religions, or arrested for carrying Bibles into the airport. Theocracy? Not sure you know what that word really means - nor have you really experienced it. Go to Saudi Arabia with a few Bibles in your luggage, sometime. Or try to enter Syria with an Israel stamp in your passport - you'll learn soon enough!

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    7. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by jjohnson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Lebanon, 1982?

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    8. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by jjohnson · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And Iraq, 1981, when they destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor, and then did the same in Syria in 2007. You can argue those aren't "invasions", I suppose, since they were targeted attacks rather than ground forces moving in and leading to occupation, but they were unprovoked military attacks that would be considered casus belli by the victims.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    9. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by jjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And then there was the invasion of Lebanon again in 2006.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    10. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Lehk228 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Iran is a theocracy because the US deposed a democratically elected government to support a hated and brutal dictator, then the US sold chemical weapons to saddam for use against iranian forces. Of any country currently lacking nukes, Iran needs/deserves the security of having ICBM nukes

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    11. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The United States is not a theocracy, despite attempts by a minority to make us one. The United States most certainly does not "regularly annihilate" countries.

      I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated. Now care to name some more examples of this "unending warfare" you claim?

      I know its trendy to scream and holler about how the US is some dystopian super-villain, but saying something boldly and loudly does not make it true.

    12. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If it comes down to nukes Amman, Damascus and Cairo (along with any other Arab city a F-16 with drop tanks and one bomb can reach) will be destroyed, no matter who shoots first.

      The chances of those nukes coming out if it means that Israel will also become a glowing ember are much smaller. The only thing that held back nukes during the cold war was mutually assured destruction. At the moment with Israel being surrounded by countries without the bomb it has a big advantage. When it knows that their "big red button" may as well be connected to the opposing sides "big red button" I am sure that there will be even more locks and keys put on it.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    13. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Informative

      The United States is a theocracy that /has/ nuclear weapons, and /regularly/ annihilates foreign countries. Iraq was destroyed on a whim, albeit without nukes.

      See: The last fifty years of the United States engaging in constant, unending international warfare, against continually new enemies, without cause or justification.

      Now who looks more dangerous?

      You, sir, are either engaging in hyperbole or you do not know what a theocracy is.

      The US has engaged in far too many military adventures around the planet for the last 60 years, but for all of its negative qualities, we have also come to the aid of the defenseless more than anyone else too.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    14. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 3, Informative

      They've been occupying more and more of Palestine over the past 50 years while implementing ever more strict apartheid policies towards the Palestinian population but I guess that doesn't count. Neither does the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 or 2006, invasion of Gaza and subsequent blockade of even humanitarian aid, or the current buildup towards an invasion of Iran?

    15. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by ThomasFlip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Typical retarded arguments. First off all many Arab nations and people question the existence of Israel, that doesn't mean they want to nuke the entire country and kill all of its citizens, it just means they don't recognize Israel as a legitimate state. Kind of like the U.S. doesn't really recognize Palestine as a legitimate state. Second of all, even if Iran got the nuke, do you really think they are going to start lobbing nukes into Tel Aviv? Their entire military and leadership would be annihilated in a day and a U.S. puppet government would be installed. North Korea has arguably the most fucked up regime in the entire world and even they're not stupid enough to start nuking Seoul because the Korean war "never ended". Third of all, the only country that's every actually nuked anyone is the United States and they had arguably already won WWII. Fourth of all, Iran's actually signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty while Israel hasn't. You can argue they're violating it but it's clearly pure hypocrisy. I could go on and on with more points.... People need to stop buying into neo-con propaganda at face value and do a little critical thinking. This whole thing reminds me of the Iraq war all over again.

      --
      If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
    16. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lebanon, 1982?

      and 2006? You might argue that it was retaliation, but there aren't too many people who can honestly they don't think it was a massive over-retalliation. Lebanon was doing very well in terms of economy and was quite stable. The last thing that Israel needed was another much larger state in nearby proximity that was starting to have solid relation with the west, a growing economy and starting to weild some clout at the international table. It is much more convenient to have the surrounding states clawing to fix the most basic of infrastructure.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    17. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      1- Israel is not a neighbor of Iran. Get a Geography 101 course

      2- Iran has not announced it wants to annihilate Israel. It wished for Israeli government to lack existence.

      3- Israel has at least 200-300 nukes and can defend itself. No need for crying wolf. Iran will never use nukes against Israel. A single nuke on Tehran will kill 15 million.

    18. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet you get to rot for years for carry a bit of weed.

      Say, we can play you get to go to jail for stupid shit game too!

    19. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you merely need to be a Christian of some variety to be elected to a post of importance. But that doesn't reflect on policy, how could it possibly?

    20. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Ihmhi · · Score: 4, Funny

      Man, they really got somethin' against Lebanon, don't they? Was it Jamie Farr's portrayal of Klinger on M*A*S*H?

    21. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by mevets · · Score: 4, Funny

      wow, did I miss that. I thought he was talking about the united states. My next thought was, shit, we make oil, and we are a US neighbour, maybe we need some nukes to keep them at bay.
      After all, the US only attacks defenceless countries...

    22. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now go to Saudi Arabia with a few Bibles and see what happens... We're not just talking an extra close screening, but arrest, jail - and potentially death. Seriously, if you think the US is a theocracy in the vein of those in the Middle East, then you've never really traveled to those places. In the US, you can walk into a bookstore and buy Qur'an, the Talmud, or even a book of Satanic rituals. Can you buy Bible in Saudi Arabia? Mere possession is grounds for life in prison - selling can earn you a death sentence.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    23. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd like to add that Israel contains the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, two very sacred Islamic sites. How likely do you think a religious fundamentalist government would nuke their own sacred sites? We can argue about nut cases etc. but seriously its very unlikely. I think all people that have seriously looked into the events happening in the middle east realize that many nations, including Iran, want to return the lands occupied by Israel to the Palestinians. . Israel has nukes, tons of UN resolutions it regularly ignores, chemical and possibly biological weapons. When will it be hit with sanctions, inspections, etc.? Israel has used banned weapons on opponents, most recently of which were the phosphorous bombs it dropped on people in Lebanon. Israel even acknowledged it used them. Why no outrage? Where was all the media?

      I definitely agree about the hypocrisy part. Its foolish that people either can't see it or are wrapped in denial.

    24. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Israel does not need absurd casus belli. Unlike many other countries out there, it is perfectly straightforward in how it goes about war. It's not shy about calling it "war", either.

      If and when they will believe that Iran's nuclear capability is approaching the point where it's a threat to Israel, they will just strike - same as what they did about Osirak.

    25. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      doesn't all add up though.

      stuxnet made a big dent in their enrichment activities (ie they had to start again because any material they'd made during the affected time would not be viable).

      they are apparently working on a high-explosive lens system - that's what IAEA were worried about, that they were looking into making the critical trick to an implosion device.

      only problem - enrichment is for uranium, and high-explosive lenses are for plutonium. their one nuke plant is not of the kind that can be used to make pu 239 (which no doubt is why they were allowed to build it).

      maybe they're doing what the yanks did and they're working on 2 bombs at once?

    26. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's actually kinda offensive you put Iran in with the rest of the middle east, as if there's no difference between all those countries, and even regions within (and across the borders of) those countries.

    27. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      here's one. name a few days since 1945 where the USA has not been at war.

      and yes, the war on drugs counts - look at what happened to a big chunk of central america.

    28. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, making earthquake surviving concrete is obviously an offensive move, whereas making weapons designed to destroy such concrete is merely self-defense.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    29. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by cold+fjord · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Go to the US with a few copies of the Qur'an and see what happens.

      The outcome is pretty predictable: Oh, I see you have a Quran. You must be a Muslim? There are millions of them in the US. Have a nice day.

      Wow, that is pretty horrible, but not on a par with nations living under Sharia.

      Saudi jailed for discussing the Bible

      RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) — A court sentenced a teacher to 40 months in prison and 750 lashes for “mocking religion” after he discussed the Bible and praised Jews, a Saudi newspaper reported yesterday.

      In Iran, Covert Christian Converts Live With Secrecy and Fear

      Leaving Islam for another religion, or apostasy, has long invited reprisals from the Iranian government, forcing the likes of Illyas and his family into absolute secrecy, practicing their new beliefs only in the privacy of their home. In Iran, Christians are prohibited from seeking Muslim converts, although there has been tolerance for those who are born into Christian families.

      The government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has introduced legislation before the Iranian Majlis that would mandate the death penalty for apostates from Islam, a sign that it will brook no proselytizing in the country. "Life for so-called apostates in Iran has never been easy, but it could become literally impossible if Iran passes this new draft penal code," says Joseph Grieboski, the president of the Institute on Religion and Public Policy in Washington. "For anyone who dares question the regime's religious ideology, there could soon be no room to argue—only death.''

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    30. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we have also come to the aid of the defenseless more than anyone else too.

      How's that kool-aid? Tasty? An empire does not wage war to "aid the defenseless", but to give itself more power (of course in the specific case of the USA there's also the military-industrial complex problem). Why doesn't the USA aid the "defenseless" in friendly regimes like Saudi Arabia, which although a rich country (and by no means the worst one out there) still considers women as second-class citizens? How come the USA is always first in line to criticize Cuba for not being democratic, while the same USA brings down democratically elected governments all around the world? I'll tell you why: the guys who make the rules don't give a shit about helping others, they don't care about freedom or democracy, they just do whatever is necessary to further their goals. They do, however, lie about everything and you, my friend, believe every word of it.

    31. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by brit74 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Er, what? I wasn't going to jump into the conversation, but saying that the US has never come to anyone's aid seems kinda bizarre.

      Off the top of my head:
      World War I
      World War II
      Korean War (North Korea invaded South Korea)
      Iraq, 1992 (when Saddam invaded Kuwait)
      Somalia, 1993
      Bosnia, 1995

    32. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's really kind of offensive when you refuse to acknowledge they're just as extremist as the rest of the middle East, like when they hang a pastor for not converting from Christianity. Turn to Islam or die, eh? Yeah - just like the US! /sarc

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    33. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually it kind of makes sense. They can probably build, supply and operate the nuclear facilities for much less money than what they will make by selling the oil that would normally be needed for the energy supply. By burn an expensive natural resource when you can sell it and use part of the money to make the energy instead?

    34. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by yuje · · Score: 5, Informative

      Take a look at this to see what Israel's leaders really think. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/07/netanyahu_america_is_a_thing_y.html

      Netenyahu, when he thinks he's in private, says that America "is easily moved" and that he can get America to do what he wants easily. Then he proceeds to brag about how he successfully sabotaged the peace process.

    35. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by AxeTheMax · · Score: 3, Informative

      This myth of peace loving Israel that only acts in self defence is deeply engrained in its apologists (which includes much of the west). In addition to the other actions quoted above, lets provide some obvious ones.

      Egypt, 1956.in response to the nationalisation of the Suez canal. Yes, this set the Israeli standard for what is considered offensive action by its neighbours,
      Egypt, Syria and Jordan 1967. Although it is widely alleged that this was in response to a joint plan by these countries to attack Israel, the military offense was all Israeli and without warning or any actual attack.
      Egypt and Syria, 1973. Note that while Egypt and Syria had attacked Israeli positions, these were to reoccupy land occupied by Israel in 1966 and Israel's borders were never threatened; the Syrians even stopped on the Golan when they could have carried on.

    36. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by wmac1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Iran has a Reactor in Tehran University (incidentally US made) which uses 20% enriched Uranium to work and it is being used to produce medical radiation sources.

      Iran offered to receive 20% enriched fuel for that reactor in exchange to 5% fuel (it had produced). IAEA and western countries did not wanted to cooperate and Iran started building the fuel itself.

      Where of that story is ambiguous for you?

    37. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is why Iran needs cruise missiles that can hit Israel, and why Israel will have to think twice about hitting Iranian reactors. Previously they could try strike missions against other countries with impunity, but faced with the possibility of retaliatory missiles that are very difficult to defend against they might just be put off.

      People keep blaming Iran for escalating the situation in that part of the world, but actually Israel and the US already did and everyone else is just playing catch-up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated.

      Okay, he exaggerated, but let's look at Iraq. Went in on a lie and against the wishes of our own citizens (at least in the UK) and a significant proportion of Iraqis. 200,000+ civilians dead, far worse carnage than Saddam caused for the majority of people. Appalling behaviour by our troops, many of whom can't even pronounce "Iraq".

      Iran is right next door, the US and Israel are talking openly about an invasion and regime change and waging a cold war of assassinations and overt spying against them.

      On top of all that the US's democracy leaves a lot to be desired, being apparently based on money and corporations with only the rich allowed to have any power. Yet the US is convinced that this is the only acceptable system of government and will force it on other countries, even if the result is an absolute joke like it is in Afghanistan.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    39. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, much of the American military technology has been developed in Israel.

      SOME has, but let's not go overboard. No matter how advanced you may think they are, we're talking about a very small population here. They CAN'T possibly have a very big impact.

      Moreover, the 'gifts' to which you refer had to be spent on American companies. So the Israelis can't go and buy better equipment elsewhere much as they might like.

      The total is actually estimated at 75%. And it's not as if that makes it cease to exist. These are still very real gifts to support Israel.

      Try this one:

      "There has been [US] economic aid to Israel every year since 1949"

      For the past several years, these grants have totaled about 2.5 billion. That's not an insignificant percentage of their GDP. They can't just up and do without it. They've got significant debt and trade deficits already. And that's just the obvious, most overt aid the US provides.

      The state of Israel is perfectly viable given its massive contribution to global technology, agriculture and health.

      Your statement means absolutely nothing. It doesn't change the fact that they'd be bankrupt without US aid. And it's not as if this is MY personal opinion... This fact has been stated by a large number of analysts and officials.

      I very much doubt I'll change your obviously closed mind on the subject

      The fact that you don't like the facts I've listed, doesn't make me closed-minded. In fact all indications are that I am vastly better informed about the subject than you are.

      It certainly isn't any Israelis shouting "Death to America"...

      First of all, our support of Israel is the #1 reason there are so many Arabs that hate the US, so your claim is incredibly empty.

      Additionally, Palestine is in Israel. I'm sure there's plenty of people there who hate the US. Worst of all, I can't say they're reasons are invalid, unlike most.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    40. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except it's just a simple translation which you are welcome to verify

      The literal translation was to wipe the nation of Israel off the map. You can interpret that in several ways. One is to believe that it means killing everyone there. This is the spin that you are reporting. The other is to realise that Iran has never accepted the legitimacy of Israel as a state and wishes to see the state of Israel eliminated as a legal entity. This is the interpretation promoted by Iran.

      It's also important to consider the context of the speech. Iran is a Persian country surrounded by Arabic countries. There is a couple of thousand years of history of conflict between the two groups (and not just distant history - remember Iraq invading Iran?). The only way Iran survives in the region is by reminding everyone else that Israel is a more important enemy than them, and that they're on everyone else's side. Picture the scrawny kid that hangs around with the bullies and shouts insults at other people to show how much they are a part of the group. That's Iran's international political status, but what about internally? They have a complex political structure, where the fundamentalist muslims are not a majority, but are influential. The leadership has to, at least publicly, appear to be acceptable to this group or lose power, in much the same way that the US President has to pander to the Christian right in America.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    41. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course that sort of glosses over the assistance the US provided the UK prior to entering the war as well.

      It has to be said, assistance that we actually only stopped repaying the US for a couple of years ago - that assistance was most certainly not free, it was infact very costly.

    42. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A theocracy is one that has a state religion with laws to back it up. Last I checked, the U.S. had laws to allow you to have any religion you like or none at all.

      Learn the difference, it might make your arguments more persuasive.

    43. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by Psyborgue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Israel is the only "theocracy" in the middle east I can visit with my partner and not get killed. It's also the only theocracy I could serve in the military. Seems that if Israel is a theocracy, it's a pretty liberal one in comparison to the rest of the middle east. They don't even have the death penalty. Non-jews, including Arab muslims have the exact same rights as Jews in Israel and can even be elected to public office. Where is this theocracy you speak of?

    44. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by stdarg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are dishonestly minimizing the action of the Suez Canal nationalization. It wasn't "just" nationalization, as in nothing changed but the revenue recipient. From wikipedia:

      Nasser's response was the nationalization of the Suez Canal. On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser gave a riposte to Dulles. During his speech he deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal and implement its nationalization.[53] He announced that the Nationalization Law had been published, that all assets of the Suez Canal Company had been frozen, and that stockholders would be paid the price of their shares according to the day's closing price on the Paris Stock Exchange.[54] That same day, Egypt closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[55] Egypt also closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[56][57]

      Yeah, breaking treaties and cutting off waterways to another country IS an act of war. Israel wasn't just mad that revenue was going to a new government, or transit rates were increasing.. they were being directly attacked by Egypt.

    45. Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As someone dealt with 1956 already I'll handle 1973:

      Syria and Egypt had begun massing forces on the border with Israel, Egypt had already implemented a Naval Blockade of their port (an internationally recognized act of war) and at the time everyone and their dog knew that these nations intended to strike Israel. Rather than waiting for the hammer to fall they expertly initiated the fighting before perpetrations were finalized thus taking the surprise attack away from their enemies. It should also be noted that in the '73 conflict the Egyptian tank forces were widely considered the victors by inflicting severe Israeli casualties (10,000+) and that the US intervention in the form of the camp David accords was to prevent the Israeli's from nuking Cairo as US intelligence had reported that the Israeli's were preparing Nuclear weapons for delivery because had the Egyptians continued they likely could have seized much of Israel proper. This is also why the camp David accords contain a provision that Egypt isn't allowed to station troops in the Sinai (to prevent just this scenario, it's also why Israel refused to hand the Golan back to Syria (it was used as a staging ground).

  2. Evidence the Iranians are developing structures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    capable of withstanding repeated ballistic impacts: Many engineers are seen with iPads doing structural-ballistic simulations involving various geometries made of wood, ice and stone, and green "test animals", whose survival indicates the durability of said structures.

  3. Dear americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, you war-mongering assholes, fuck off and stop trying to justify your next mass-murder. If you start this war, the blood is all on your hands, just like the last one was.

    1. Re:Dear americans by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a red-blooded American who served in the military and comes from a family who also did(mother served in army, father served in Marines and saw action in Vietnam, Grandfather who was bomber aircrew during WWII, uncle served in USAF), I endorse your comment wholeheartedly.

      I know the Slashdot leadership and a good majority of their chickenhawk wannabe-military fanboy readership subscribe to Judeo-Christian beliefs about being in the moral right as nation-builders, but if you're gonna tacitly encourage war with Iran, then enlist, pick up a fuckin' gun, and go shoot yerselves some strangers. See your buddies turned into hamburger and shuttled back into the states to live their lives as disfigured vegetable abominations, and you can become a nonfunctional drug-addicted alcoholic having to cope with those horrors for life. There are laws to reward employers for hiring veterans, but all it takes is one flashback flipout to make even the most patriotic employer reexamine their hiring decisions. Kids can't even afford school because that money went to some glorified security guard being paid $300,000 a year.

      If you're gonna go big, then at least do it right - indiscriminately carpet-bomb the entire Middle East, including Israel.

    2. Re:Dear americans by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, you put me on the defensive. I joined the Air Force, which meant that I would get a bitchin' tech job(and I did) and likely never face danger. Yeah, call me a pussy, I don't give a fuck. It was during a time of (relative) peace and sanity, so I knew I wouldn't have to deal with wartime bullshit. I joined because I was unmotivated in high school, because I had a life, and so I needed job training and a college fund. My family were disciplined, but they sure as hell weren't rich - and I did need some discipline at the time. Why the hell not? Am I a pussy for admitting that?

      I got out right after 9/11, but before the wars kicked in. I knew that the rationale for the wars was bullshit(WMD? we sold Saddam that WMD!), but by that time I was happy enough being the fuck out of the military. And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.

      So the short answer is, no, I'm not a hypocrite.

    3. Re:Dear americans by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.

      I would be more content if the people who wanted to force others to believe what they believe at the end of a rifle or sword were singled out. Peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the problem.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  4. Bias by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, just because this "high performance" concrete was developed in Iran, it has dangerous military applications? Dangerous as in able to withstand US bombs? Should we start banning defensive technologies in order to make it easier for the US to invade?
    If this was developed in any other nation, "military applications" would never have been mentioned.

    Please don't fall for the fearmongering, Iran is not going to attack anyone, they know very well they would be instantly overrun. This is Iraq all over again.

    As an aside, while I very much object to anyone including the US having nuclear weapons, I can't really see why Iran having them - if they indeed do - is a problem while Israel having them is not, a country that has constantly refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty and employs an Apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians.

  5. McCarthy would be proud of you guys. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Iran is a very religious country, so is the US. Muslims want to kill Christians, Christians want to kill Muslims. Iran has corrupt leaders, that allow their people to suffer hunger, poor health care and bad education in order to spend millions in armament, this is also true about the US. It's also true that Iran is a fairly small country with few resources, while the US is a huge country and the most resourceful on the planet, and while Iran has failed in most military operations it has attempted, the US has succeeded. Iran is trying to get some nuclear weapons, the US is the only country to have ever used them on a civilian population. Currently Iran has no nuclear weapons, while the US has thousands. Iran is not currently at war, while the US has been consistently starting wars every year for 200 years.

    And yet, when the US develops a new weapon, a new fighter, a new bomb, a new droid, or any other military advancement and clearly plans to use it soon at war, it's praised for its technological achievement. But when Iran develops a new construction technology, that has tens of applications, one of them, defense, then it's something we should be worried about and it makes Iran evil, and we should ask the glorious united states of america to destroy them real soon.

    Fuck that bullshit, your western christian theocracy is no better than the eastern muslim theocracies, and just as crazy, delusional and violent.

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    1. Re:McCarthy would be proud of you guys. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I sincerely don't think it's about the oil anymore. I think the war industry is even bigger than the oil industry, and the owners of the US have as much interests in Lockheed as they do in Exxon.

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
    2. Re:McCarthy would be proud of you guys. by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know what's the best about the uneducated people from the US that thinks the entire world looks like Afghanistan?

      a) Their faces when they finally travel a little bit and get to see, for example, the city where I live:
      http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QRpO2B1C6Xg/TT1yt1_PggI/AAAAAAAAACA/qal-vpr50pI/s1600/buenos-aires.jpg
      http://buenosairestourism.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Buenos-Aires-Tourism2.jpg
      http://www.ladygardens.net/storage/buenos_aires03.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1243881190062

      And realize their vision of the world was completely misleading.
      b) How many other citizens of the US are so embarrassed of people like you, when they vacation at some of our best touristic destinations, they say they are Canadian (I can always tell by the accent and lack of sophistication)

      --
      WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  6. Smart? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Putting aside the obvious political flamebait, are we really now at a point where anything that's been at all updated since the 1950s is considered "smart"? The term makes sense for things that have a microcontroller added to them, but that's not the case here. This concrete isn't any smarter than my toothbrush.

  7. Re:Defense? by Myrmidon10 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You mean they wouldn't be able to put a nuke in a shipping container? Or perhaps hand a few over to Hezbolla and or Hamas? There is more than one way to "touch" America and missiles would probably be the last method used.

  8. Re:Defense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing. You don't need ICBMs to attack another country.

    Stop, please stop with the rhetoric. What happened on 9/11 were terrorists acts. It was not a declaration of war, it was not an invasion. It was not an attack in any meaningful way.
    Otherwise any criminal enterprise is an attack that warrants some kind of military response.

    And by the way, using airplanes to carry out a series of terrorist acts in the US is nothing out of the ordinary. They just used the most common means of transportation. Using the airplane in the US is like using a train in most smaller countries. The reason being obviously a difference in scale.

    This is what is wrong with the US way of thinking. Everything has to be reduced to an "attack on something" so we can justify using our shiny new toys (aircraft carriers, tanks, F-22, drones, bunker busters, you name it) on the stupid poor guy standing on the other side of the street.

    Seriously if Iran is any kind of menace (and it isn't) the world should be going apeshit on India, Pakistan, Cina, North Korea and Israel. You want to know the real menace ? The US and its tradition of starting wars for fucked up reasons (and half the western countries going along for the ride because of corrupt politicians say hello to Tony Blair!! ).

  9. Stick to the subject of the article. by InterGuru · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could we stop the comments on abstract issues and just stick to the concrete one.

  10. Back in 2003 ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in 2003, an Iranian student, with the help of a professor from Iran, won the first prize in a competition organized by the American Concrete Institute

    For more info, look into this page ---> http://www.concrete.org/STUDENTS/st_concreteprojects03_winners.htm

    About the prize winning concrete ?

    It has been used for building Iran's underground bunkers, which house Iran's nuclear facilities

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Back in 2003 ... by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...allegedly.

    2. Re:Back in 2003 ... by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Funny

      just like Isreali installations were shown to be clean of weapons making.

      must be a regional thing to be so peacuful.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Back in 2003 ... by Xest · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know why people keep parroting this, it's simply not true. It had some validity to it a few years back, but even then the IAEA has always had some concerns.

      In recent years though the IAEA's stance if that they've found some evidence that Iran did continue a nuclear weapons programme, and has made it quite clear that Iran is not giving it the access and information it needs to confirm that it is in compliance. Whilst this doesn't mean Iran is not in compliance, it is certainly not the case that it is in compliance - Iran wont let the IAEA confirm that it's compliant, make of that what you will, but I suspect if a country was in compliance there'd be absolutely no reason to not let the IAEA confirm that to be the case. The fact they wont let the IAEA confirm whether they are or are not compliant is a cause for concern in itself and is in itself a breach of the NPT.

      A bit of America/Israel bashing is all well and good, god only knows they've done enough to deserve it, but this attitude of defending Iran as an extreme anti-Israeli/US stance is even more absurd. A lot of people here go on about how Iran is an innocent peaceful nation that's never attacked anyone and so forth, but that's also complete rubbish, sure they may not directly declare war but they absolutely do carry out war by proxy (where the proxy is usually groups like Hamas, Hezbollah) and they do carry out clandestine ops. When you point this out people jump in and say "but the US does that too!", sure they do, but that doesn't somehow make it right. Keep in mind that even the staunchly anti-US Russia has in recent years refused to make itself some money selling Iran new military hardware - this is because Russia is concerned that Iran has links to groups in Chechnya and so forth too. The fact is, even if Iran doesn't declare war directly, everyone knows what it gets up to.

      So hate Israel/America all you want, god only knows I've had enough of their actions, but to then jump to the extreme of defending Iran is just fucking idiotic. Iran is as much of a problem as Israel is that's for sure, and I'd argue with Iran's destabilisation of Lebanon so they can have their own proxy army on Israel's doorstep, they're worse. The only flip side to it all is that Iran is largely incompetent at this sort of thing, so when their bombers succeed in little more than blowing their own legs off in Asia, it's almost comical, Mossad in contrast gets the job done which, depending on your viewpoint on things either makes them better, worse, or just as bad.

      Really, the fundamental reality of the situation is that Iran, Israel, the US and so forth are all as bad as each other. My personal view is that if Israel/US attack Iran then I have little sympathy for Iran, it's a game they chose to play, and when you choose to play a game, you can't really cry when you lose. They still have every opportunity to bow out gracefully.

    4. Re:Back in 2003 ... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 5, Funny

      Israel has always been considered a "friendly" nation; Iran, not so much. No-one's looking the other way when they inspect Iran's facilities!

      Iran: we want to generate nuclear power

      World: use oil instead.

      Iran: no no no, you don't understand: you pay us lots of money for oil, so we want to keep selling it to you, and using cheap nuclear domestically.

      World: but you're making weapons!

      Iran: no we're not.

      IAEA: they're telling the truth.

      US, UK, Isreal: are you telling me you atomic energy experts know more about atomic energy than our paranoid military intelligence people? They're obviously making bombs.

      World:...

      Iran: have you seen our nice concrete? It stops our nuclear facilities from collapsing in the event of a geological disaster.

      US: earthquake-proof nuclear facilities, in an earthquake zone? Hah! A likely story! They're bomb-proof weapons plants. Even Japan doesn't make its nuclear facilities proof against geological events....

      --
      Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
    5. Re:Back in 2003 ... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "IAEA don't have the right to go anywhere they want anytime they want"

      Of course they don't, but similarly if they aren't given access to what they need access to to determine compliance then they can't determine compliance.

      The effects of that can be quite wide ranging, and that's the choice Iran has to deal with - whether any supposed fears of spying are outweighed by the benefits of being deemed not compliant.

      It's unlikely spying is a real rational concern for Iran, their nuclear programme has been fed by the Russians and long before that, the Germans anyway, so none of their technology is really top secret home grown stuff - it's stuff the rest of the world already long figured out.

    6. Re:Back in 2003 ... by Xest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah to an extent it is, there are differences though but even if there weren't it's false logic to assume that they were wrong last time, so they must be wrong this time.

      In terms of the differences the inspectors on the ground for the most part were given a lot more access than is granted in Iran, and many, as well as people like Hans Blix were saying "There just aren't any WMDs here". It was somewhat hard for their voices to be heard because WMDs can be quite wide ranging in features, things like chlorine factories can be pretty dual purpose for example.

      In the case of Iran inspectors have much less freedom, but they're fairly unanimous in the view that they don't have access to confirm that there isn't a nuclear weapons programme. Because the focus is much smaller than the broad nature of WMDs in general there's also far less ambiguity as to what they are looking for - features of a nuclear weapons programme stand out from the rest of a civilian programme and when elements of such a programme have been spotted by the IAEA or Iran can't or wont give a reason for their existence then the IAEAs claim that they can't determine that such elements are not for a weapons programme is quite valid, and obviously not in dispute.

      Again, this doesn't mean Iran does have a nuclear weapons programme, but whilst there are parallels with Iraq it's still quite different. An underground fortified militiarised nuclear site that was kept secret until exposed by foreign nations and which has a number of pieces of evidence suggesting at least some kind of weapons research at some point has gone on is a lot more suspicious than an unguarded chlorine factory that has a comprehensive paper trail demonstrating legitimate customers with legitimate uses. Whether that suspicion alone is enough for varying types of action is a fair question, and precisely what the international community is at odds over. Much of the world felt Iraq didn't have WMDs based on the evidence but America and Britain went ahead as if it did anyway, in contrast the number of nations who believe Iran probably has a nuclear weapons programme is much larger and sanctions over the issue have been agreed by such classically Western opponents as Russia and China to boot - countries that wont even agree to a response over Syria despite it's blatant murder of civilians right now.

    7. Re:Back in 2003 ... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's not a case of being right or wrong, it a case of being flat out lied to by people who want to go to war.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    8. Re:Back in 2003 ... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Iran wont let the IAEA confirm that it's compliant, make of that what you will, but I suspect if a country was in compliance there'd be absolutely no reason to not let the IAEA confirm that to be the case.

      Not defending Iran... but...

      If you're doing nothing wrong- you wouldn't mind the police routinely searching your home without a warrant. Or you Sig Other going through your cell phone call list/web history routinely.

      Iran may or may not be doing anything wrong- but not letting inspectors have full access is not a sign of guilt. I wouldn't want the police randomly searching my house- I'm not breaking any laws (that I know of) but it's the kind of violation that you don't want occurring without necessity.

      Again, I'm not defending Iran- they're clearly not "squeaky clean"- but the fact that they do have so many enemies may make them less wanting to endure being investigated and spied on. You say you're going to make sure we're not making nukes- they say, you're coming to spy on our infrastructure to build an attack plan on how to disable us.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    9. Re:Back in 2003 ... by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Iran's nuclear facilities are not earthquake-proof. They are bomb-proof. The Natanz uranium enrichment site was built 20 feet underground, and then the top was reinforced with concrete and sixty feet of earth. Iran also started a second, secret uranium enrichment site at Fordow. Fordow is under 200-300 feet of mountain, and is reported to include blast-proof doors, hardened ceilings, thick walls, and double ceilings with earth between the concrete. Fordow has been built so deep and is so reinforced that it may be invulnerable to anything short of a nuclear strike. The largest bunker-buster bomb in the U.S. arsenal, the MOB (Massive Ordinance Penetrator) is a 30,000 lb bomb that is designed to penetrate 200 feet. Fordow is near the limit of what the MOB can do.

      Anyway, those are the facts. The U.S. didn't put NORAD under Cheyenne Mountain, inside 2,000 feet of granite, because they were worried about earthquakes. They did that because they were worried about getting hit by a nuclear bomb. Similarly the design of the Fordow site indicates that the Iranians are worried about airstrikes. In particular, the design of the Fordow site seems specifically aimed at hardening the target against a U.S. airstrike using advanced bunker-busters.

      So the question is, why would Iran do this for a peaceful nuclear program? If Iran's real aim is nuclear power, it would be a lot easier to just do everything out in the open, and let the U.N. weapons inspectors have free reign and allay everybody's fears. On the other hand, if you want the capability to build a nuclear bomb, and don't want the Israelis or the U.S. to stop you, then you do precisely what the Iranians are currently doing: build multiple enrichment facilities (so they can't be taken out by a single airstrike), build them deep underground, and harden them with advanced concrete and blast doors. Watching Ahmadinejad you could be forgiven for thinking that the Iranian government is run by irrational idiots, but this is really a very clever, well-thought-out approach to developing a nuclear bomb.

      And the thing is, developing a nuclear bomb is not an irrational move here. Saddam Hussein's mistake wasn't pursuing WMD, it was that he didn't go far enough. If he'd had the ability to inflict mass civilian casualties with WMD, nobody would have bothered him. North Korea has two deterrent weapons- a nuclear bomb, and heavy artillery and missiles that can hit Seoul, causing large scale civilian casualties. There's a reason that Bush never screwed with Kim Jong Il. This isn't lost on the mullahs who run Iran. They realize that without any allies, they are vulnerable to regime change. But with a nuclear bomb, they will have a deterrent weapon.

  11. Shipping Container? by mevets · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hell, they could put a nuke in a train, and drive the train right into the middle of the white house; then detonate it.
    Maybe they could get Bruce Lee to drive the train, jump out right before it hit, and rip the pres' heart right out of his chest and show it to him before he dies.

    Once you take that little step into insane, there is no point in coming up short.

  12. Disturbing by SalsaDoom · · Score: 3

    Now cement is dangerous? "experts" are worried!

    OK, Iran is an evil sexist country with a lot of political problems being handled poorly. Not a country I'd ever live in.

    But guys? Can you really afford another war? You hardly finished in Iraq - you'll be doing it again in twenty years. You're doing worse in Afghanistan!

    Let them have the damn cement, it sounds like they could really use it anyway. So could we, actually.

    Just let this one go, try to devise a long term plan to improve relations over time - its has to be cheaper and frankly couldn't be worst then ranting about ways you'll kill them even if they do hide in these possible bunkers.

    Its a bit insane sounding. Imagine being from Iran reading these paranoid threats?

    Canadian for the record, but we are generally loyal to even our loud, obnoxious, untrustworthy friends to the south.

    --
    "Computers will never truly be free until the last windows user is strangled with the entrails of the last mac user."
  13. Iran is NOT an Arab nation by argee · · Score: 4, Informative

    Iran is not an Arab nation. Its population is Caucasian, and is non Arab,
    although it is a Moslem country.

    It is the cradle of civilization, a beautiful country despite the US Propaganda that
    makes it look like a pile of rubble, stones and mud huts. It has a high degree of
    education, many fine universities and research institutes and takes foreingn aid
    from no one.

    Iran has never invaded any other country, and as far as I know they have never
    lifted a finger at the USA. Other than shooting down our million-dollar drones
    that violate their airspace.

  14. MEMRI again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're not familiar with MEMRI, this article puts it in context:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker

    They've an Israeli run translation 'Research Institute' that translates selective news stories from Israels enemies, designed to emphasize the worst aspects of those countries in western media.

    So a typical example will translate some extremist religious nuts comments, but not the people calling him a fringe crazy. Thus you get the impression of Israels enemies as all extremist nuts and thus are more likely to continue the $3 billion a year in donations you make to Israel.

  15. Iran vs. US by iONiUM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As some comments above have pointed out, the media as of late (well, probably always) has taken a really bias view of this Iran vs. US thing, to the point that.. I don't really know what to think.

    In my quest to find less bias opinions, I turned to al-jazeera and other arab news sources to view comments from those who refer to Isreal as the "evil zionist regime." While many comments were ludicrous (but perhaps no more ludicrous than pro-US comments on CNN or something), there were many who pointed out that the US and Isreal have been known to carry out assassinations in Iran and other countries with basic impunity.

    The question posed was, if Iran assassinated a scientist or politician in the United States, what kind of blow-back would there be? Why is the US/Isreal allowed to carry these out events without any world condemnation?

    It's a difficult topic, because as much as I believe the US is going about things in the wrong way, if there's going to be someone who is the "world police" and the global power, I would prefer the US to any other country. Yet, it is clearly shielding the public from the double-standards it holds. Why does nobody else (general public) notice this? It's weird.

  16. Saudi Arabia is not Iran by yuje · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ....And what does Saudi Arabia have to do with Iran? They're close allies with the US and enemies with Iran, which happens to have a fair number of native Christians (mostly Armenians and Georgians) as well as Jews and Zoroastrians who actually are allowed to own Bibles and Torahs are allowed exemptions from certain Islamic laws such as the ones on alcohol consumption. Said Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians also have their own guaranteed members of parliament, as set by the Iranian constitution.

    I certainly won't sugarcoat the condition of minorities in Iran as paradise, and as an atheist I wouldn't want to live in either country, but Iran is certainly leaps and bounds better than the Saudis in terms of minorities. The Saudis don't even tolerate other sects of Islam, and in fact they destroyed the tomb of Mohammed, as well as other prominent Muslim figures, in the fear that they might turn into objects of worship by Islamic sects that have traditionally venerated at those sites. Bringing up Saudi Arabia as a reason to stop Iran really is a red herring.