Slashdot Mirror
Trade Show Video Features Iranian Tech, Talk of Stuxnet Retaliation
dcblogs writes "Iran recently held a security trade show and conference, attended by high-ranking police and military officials. A video by an Iranian news outlet shows some of the products, from crossbows to unidentified systems, and includes an interview with Iran's police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmail Ahmadi-Moqadam: 'It's true that the U.S. made Stuxnet virus did some damage to our facilities but we were able to get them all up and running in no time. However, those who attack should expect retaliation and we haven't gone there just yet.'"
Iran would be a great place to showcase Fluoride Lithium Beryllium reactors, which produce crap-tons of power from unenriched fuel, even Thorium, while producing Uranium-232, which is almost impossible to use in nuclear weapons.
I don't have anything against Iran, but different cultures are different and each needs its own space. Our values clash because we're different, and no amount of hippie kumbayaing is going to wish that away.
However, I don't think the time is right for Iran to have nuclear power. In particular, it is an unstable country with frequent political turnover, missiles and a possible intention to smite its neighbor Israel.
When Iran shows it's stable and mature, maybe it can have nukes. Until that time, I think it's insane to hand this dangerous technology to unstable people.
Futurist Traditionalism
Sure, mod me down as a flame bait if you can't bother to look at the arguments. This is nothing more than propaganda and not news.
Without serious information on what they would in fact do as a retaliation, I think we should regard this as cultural bluff and not an actual threat to western society. The only one that benefits from hyping things like this, are press agencies and people that work in the black ops part of government and defence contractors.
Terrorism has killed less people than traffic accidents, common flu and if you take a long time average over the last 100 years, I think even lightning strikes may come close to causing the same amount of deaths. However, the amount of draconian measurements taken and money spent on "fighting terrorism" is way bigger than for any of these. Given the fact that no objective measurable proof exists or is published, the best way to deal with terrorists is to not give in to them and keep on living your life the way you want to. That means not paying attention to them, or changing your habits. If you do that, they get what they want and they will have won.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Israel has openly and notoriously demanded the US attack Iran for over 20 years, of course Iran should have nukes.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
You see the world like that because your head is stuck up your ass.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Israel has openly and notoriously demanded the US attack Iran for over 20 years, of course Iran should have nukes.
only if you subscribe to this moral equivalence bullshit that says: an islamic theocracy run by a dictator of questionable sanity is fully equal and worthy of teh same respect as a secular democratic government that hasn't threatened to wipe anybody off the map.
maybe you do believe that. me, i can't get my head that far up my ass.
tell you what. if you thnk iran is as good as a modern western representative democracy, the ultimate way to prove it is to go live there. i am sure they will be happy to have you. if you might hesitate to do that for any reason, maybe you admit it is not equivalent at all. some places in teh world are just dictatorial shitholes and it is too bad. let's not go around arming them with nukes.
However, I don't think the time is right for Iran to have nuclear power. In particular, it is an unstable country with frequent political turnover, missiles and a possible intention to smite its neighbor Israel.
Iran has no intention of 'smiting' Israel. Power hungry people aren't suicidal, they want to hold on to power as long as possible. Israel and the US, on the other hand, have openly stated their intention to smite Iran. If I was Iran, I'd be making damn sure I could protect myself. Thanks America.
And what 'frequent turnover'? They've had two leaders since the 1979 ousting of the US puppet.
Dood, as of today, i'm much more worried with the japanese having nukular powerplants managed by incompetence and corruption rather than the Iranian trying to develop some out of nationnal pride...
Also...
North Korea... /nuff' said...
You are off your rocker if you think ANYONE should have nukes, let alone a nation led by batshit crazy leader. And yes, Israel doesn't like Iran, but they didn't pick Iran out of the blue. Iran has been spouting off that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth for just as long.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
teh same respect as a secular democratic government that hasn't threatened to wipe anybody off the map.
What 'secular democratic government' are you referring to? There's none I can think of relevant to this conversation, and you'd need to find a hell of a lot more fingers and toes to be able to count the times Israel or the US has threatened a nation or it's government. Hell, they've attacked more in the past 50 years than Iran has done in its entire history.
Iran didn't threaten anyone. It was a fairly mundane statement which amounted to the words 'regime change', and didn't even infer that Iran was going to do it.But folks like you lap up the propaganda... ah well.
I don't have anything against Iran, but different cultures are different and each needs its own space. Our values clash because we're different, and no amount of hippie kumbayaing is going to wish that away.
However, I don't think the time is right for Iran to have nuclear power. In particular, it is an unstable country with frequent political turnover, missiles and a possible intention to smite its neighbor Israel.
When Iran shows it's stable and mature, maybe it can have nukes. Until that time, I think it's insane to hand this dangerous technology to unstable people.
I find it hilarious that you equate nuclear weapons to be a technology only for the sane and logical, when it would clearly take an act of insanity for anyone in any country at any time to actually use one.
Fucking. Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
No, they said the regime occupying Jerusalem should be wiped from the pages of history. To paraphrase for a westerner: regime change. And they didn't state they would do it.
Regime change. How many times has that threat been made, and acted on, by Israel and it's ally?
Israel has openly and notoriously demanded the US attack Iran for over 20 years, of course Iran should have nukes.
only if you subscribe to this moral equivalence bullshit that says: [...].
No, what is trying to tell you is that for 20 years we are told that Iran almost has nukes. One would think that if they really wanted them, they would already have them by now.
The problem is that the ones with nuclear power get to decide who's stable and mature. And that is nobody but them. And if they are becoming stable and mature, they just stirr things up a little to keep them on a leash. That's modern latin american history.
I live in Argentina. We had nuclear development, weapons factories, aircraft design... all of that was decimated by the US starting in the 60s under the excuse of "communism". One of our generals had to go and explain himself to the US congress (remember that the US doesn't recognize foreign sovereignity), about why Argentina was developing a long range missile.
Today Argentina is a mess, economically and socially. But it wasn't like that before US interventionism in latin america.
The above is exactly the rational response we need to "threats" such as these.
Because as it is now, Iran is like the jackass in the school yard who pretends to throw punches at the other kids - never intending to hit them - for the purpose of making them flinch.
And boy have we flinched.
pathetic.
However, I don't think the time is right for Iran to have nuclear power. In particular, it is an unstable country with frequent political turnover, missiles and a possible intention to smite its neighbor Israel.
Iran has no intention of 'smiting' Israel. Power hungry people aren't suicidal, they want to hold on to power as long as possible. Israel and the US, on the other hand, have openly stated their intention to smite Iran. If I was Iran, I'd be making damn sure I could protect myself. Thanks America.
Uh, "protect"? Yes, because the best "defensive" weapon out there is of course the one weapon that everyone is afraid of actually fucking using...yeah, that makes a hell of a lot of sense.
Until that time, I think it's insane to hand this dangerous technology to unstable people.
You miss the real problem, which is the fact that the technology doesn't need to be handed to anyone. The higher the scientific and technological capabilities of a country gets, the easier it becomes for them to build nuclear weapons. It's true that right now much of the tech for enrichment of nuclear material and the building of nuclear warheads needs to come from outside, but in the long run these proliferation issue will become more and more insignificant.
People still think about nuclear bombs in the context of the Manhattan project, a time when every single calculation had to be done by hand and the knowledge nuclear physics was relatively new. Things have changed, with computers and nowadays standards in physics it is much easier to build a bomb from scratch. At some point in the future, every technologically advanced nation with access to enough raw materials (which are not so rare after all) will be able to build atomic bombs.
That's why force will aggravate the problem in the long run, because bombing back troublesome nations into stoneage or killing their physicists will not work forever. In the long run, only treaties and 'embracing your enemy' will work.
For a supposedly unstable culture, Iran hasn't declared war on anyone for several hundred years. Iraq, with our encouragement, declared war on them. Israel, on the other hand has been threatening war against Iran continuously and since Israel does have nuclear weapons, they seem to be a lot more of a threat to world peace than Iran.
For all of that, leaving Iran alone might be a "solution", but we have been taking actions like Stuxnet and economic sanctions which amount to a declaration of war by the United States and it's stooges.
They are a different culture and I dislike much of that culture, but I kind of wish my country would stop acting like a third-rate empire and begin living up to our professed ideals.
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
Fortunately it is not up to you nor should it be to anyone else. They took so much "help" from the West in the last 100 years, so I completely understand why would they want a nuke.
That way the US WILL keep out of the land. With one nuke, they won't be able to do much in terms of offence, but the deterrent to the US is immense, that is why they are afraid: not to be able to march in at will.
Unfortunately, you can't believe the translations of Ahmadinejad's remarks. He says one thing and the published translation is very often a complete lie. On a number of occasions, he said that the Zionist government of Israel should be abolished (regime change) and this was immediately translated as "Israel should be destroyed".
By the way, Ahmadinejad' is kind of a nut case, but he is hardly the supreme dictator of Iran. He has very little real power. They keep electing him because his major talent is pissing off the US and Israel.
When you are dancing with wolves, never limp
You do know how M.A.D. works, right?
your calendar is off; today is NOT backwards-day!
israel threatens iran. yeah, that's a pretty level-headed assessment of the world situation.
maybe I was just trolled. no one can be this stupid.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
again, mr moron, iran is on record (as are most of the arab neighbors) saying that they would LOVE to have israel brutally taken off the map.
this is NOT a 'translation error' you sick fuck, you!
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Well, it's easy to refute: to him the problem are the browns, but for a lot of people (which the OP mentions) whites are the problem.
Maybe the OP does not care about the problems -- doesn't seem too worried about mankind as a whole -- but nonetheless it's important, or at least useful, to recognize when you're a thorn on someone's side.
The "head stuck" figurative speaking was supposed to be a joke (bad taste, but even so...) which kind of... whoosh...
Now, speaking of retaliation, and looking at the full set of clumsy initiatives the US took in retaliation to the attack it suffered, and specially at the high bill that only adds to the already shaken image of the US reputation worldwide (once champions of justice, now on the same class with Russia and China, if not worse)... well, retaliation doesn't seem as fun as it used to be, isn't it? More like let's shoot at my foot and see if it hurts...
As I once advised the US to be careful and not wage war, I recommend Iran wake up and learn to work with other nations to clear misunderstandings and put away fears -- for starters with total transparency. in a fight, having a weapon when you're sure to lose is worse than having no weapon.
Don't think I'm arrogant or whatever. Nobody ever listens to me, anyway...
Why does the US support Israel, at all? Israel has violated numerous UN rules since it was created, by the UN...
Why does the US keep supporting Israels bad behavior?
The Iranians hasn't attacked any other nation for centuries like Israel repeatedly has for the last four decades.
The current regime of Iran is a piece of fermented dogshit, but still, so is the Israeli.
Two religious evils don't make one good.
Let's just say you are repeatedly threatened by a neighbor down the block. Then, a week later you see her target practicing with a bb-gun. The next week you see her at a local sporting goods store buying an AR-16 and a few hundred rounds of ammo. What would you do - maybe call the police? Oops, I forgot to mention, there are no police. Now what do you do?
As far as I know Iran hasn't started any wars in recent history, unlike certain other nation that's currently surrounding Iran from all sides and constantly threatening them with violence.
Apparently you can be stupider.
Israel has threatened Iran on numerous occasions, and continues to do so. And not a threat of retaliation if Iran does something... nope, a threat of 'pre-emptive war'. And their threats are credible - they've attacked several of their neighbours and have a significant arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Iran has not made any specific threats toward Israel. If you paid attention, you'd note that they've called for regime change and stated that the world must act to rid the 'Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem'. If you think a call for regime change is a specific threat that requires immediate action, just about every nation on the planet has been guilty of that. Hell, there's been tons of threats in the presidential election if that's what you believe to be a threat.
It's quite difficult to take you seriously when you use terms like "mr moron" and "you sick fuck" in a discussion such as this one. In fact, the only option I'm left with now is to assume that everything you state has been stated in ignorance, and thus is incorrect.
Actually, it is. There is no 'wipe off the map' in Farsi - it's a western expression. That should be your first clue - a poor translation will use colloquialisms. The translation, appropriately interpreted, is 'Khomeini said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from page of time'. You know, regime change. Like the US and Israel threaten other nations with pretty much daily. And act upon. With the support of useful idiots like yourself.
Who in 1936 envisioned Auschwitz or Dachau in 1944? Well Israel has many citizens with tattoos from those very places. Now they hear similar rhetoric spewing from Iran AND see that they are actively working on pieces of a weapon that could unleash an even greater holocaust. I don't know about you, but I would take it VERY SERIOUSLY.
Conservative, mod down for violating
In particular, it is an unstable country with frequent political turnover, missiles and a possible intention to smite its neighbor Israel.
The US changes government every four years, and the validity of the vote is sometimes questionable. It has missiles and every now and then starts wars with weaker nations based on outright lies and deception, apparently for its own economic benefit. Israel has nuclear power and is hardly a model of peace and stability either.
Unfortunately the situation is now FUBAR and any hope of working with Iran to find an alternative is long gone. The fact that Israel has nukes really does not help, and even if Iran doesn't develop its own it needs the capability to build them quickly to deter attack.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Where are the booth babes?
My very point of view as well.
I ran should have the right to 'talk back' to the localized powers that be. When someone refers to Israel as a sane democratic state, the first thing that comes to mind is how Palestinians have been forcefully removed from their homes over the past 70 years. When we talk about Peace talks, Israel has always been the first party to flip the middle finger at negotiations. Then later on return to the UN tables to ask for Peace once more without any intention on following through. Bill Clinton stated it very clearly when he was President, and even recently when the subject matter came back up.
When you have a people who are willing to go ahead and sign their land away only to be equally recognized as such by Jews. Only to be told. "fuck off", we will remove you from the OUR land. Gaza strip anyone? A bit of recent history where Jews have been actively sabotaging all efforts at doing anything fairly.
But I digress, In regards to Iran what other nation is surrounding Iran with ever increasing military assets, and is in a continued war mongering path to enact war on a moments notice if Israel decides to fire first? .USA. The most updated military layout map I saw from CNN was a little over six months ago. American military bases surround Iran, thanks to our involvement in the Middle East. Do we see any military assets of Iran surrounding USA today? Does Iran have assets in foreign countries surrounding America with the active Political threat of attacking USA with WMDs? No and No.
Does Iran have a nutty neighbor who violates just as much of any UN laws that are enforced/sanctioned against Iran? Yes. Does this neighbor actively garner support from its allies to "war with us if we goto war with Iran?", Yes. So I would say Iran has every right to build up its defenses when it has active aggressors who are publicly announcing they will go to war with them.
As for Nuclear power. Why wouldn't we as a world power, allow them access to Nuclear energy when we could provide them access to those resources that wouldn't result in weapons grade materials. Why prevent a country from using cleaner energies, and rely less on foreign resources. Isn't that what the United States has been bitching about for the past 50 years? Getting away from the foreign dependency of resources.
Iran doesn't necessarily have a unstable government. They just happen to have a government that has a higher authority of Clerics who can dictate the rules of how government acts towards its society. The government is strong in Iran. It was able to subdue the rising power of the Green Party, which was attempting to change the way the Iran government was heading. Even the United States wanted to help out in defeating the oppression Iran was having against Green Party supporters. USA couldn't intervene because of our foreign policy towards Iran. If USA were to have helped influence the Green Party in Iran, the Religious Clerics would have used that movement to give themselves more power to oppress. Instead the green part lost the elections, and the Iranian government has held steady to its power. Howe is that an unstable government?
American's used the same excuse when we went back to Iraq to remove Saddam. "Saddam allowed Terrorists to roam his country", when in fact Saddam was a ruthless dictator who would never allow any rebel type group to succeed in Iraq, it could impose a risky behavior of rebellion. Allow a small group of rebels to use your land to fight a foreign country, and you open your country to all sorts of hell in retaliation. Saddam wasn't a dumb person.
What we have here is a nation full of one sided story telling. If I truly wanted to visit Iran as an American, Iran would allow me to visit. If I were to go on a pilgrimage to visit holy cities located within Iran's borders I would be al
"Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
Looks like somebody hasn't done their homework before joining the discussion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#.22Wiped_off_the_map.22_controversy
I take it you've missed out on things like trade embargoes, Stuxnet, and assassination of Iranian scientists. There are reasons why Iran doesn't have fission bombs now and one of those reasons is because most of the rest of the world has been trying fairly hard and so far successfully to keep them from having nuclear weapons.
That sounds like nigger talk.
speaking of brown people causing problems
Right? And those american Indians, occupying our land for thousands of years and then complaining when we came, gave them diseases and kicked them off.
I find it hilarious that you equate nuclear weapons to be a technology only for the sane and logical, when it would clearly take an act of insanity for anyone in any country at any time to actually use one.
Fucking. Dumbest. Argument. Ever.
Do you really think it'd be better to have crazy people using nukes frequently rather than sane people in a tense but peaceful standoff with nukes? I fail to see the dumbness of the argument.
War and get it over with.
You dont wait for your foe to arm them self better.
That is a fools game.
Thank you, King Abdullah?
The war between Iran and the US/Israel is escalating.
That is complete and utter nonsense. There is NO war - let alone one with the US.
Israel is like the puny nothing who acts all big and tough knowing their retarded big brother (the US) will be there to back them up.
Israel is a rogue state.
Do you really think a subjective judgement of 'sanity' is the best way to determine eligibility for nuclear weapons?
Why can't they (Iran) abide by the treaty that they signed with the IAEA? (not US controlled, btw.) They refuse to abide by the terms they voluntarily signed that got them into the "nuclear club" so to speak. And you wonder why Europe is just as pissed and forcing sanctions on Iran for it? This isn't a "great satan v. islamic republic" standoff. This is about Iran not abiding by the rules THEY agreed to. Not rules made up by the US, but the International Community, including China and Russia, who are really not on board with Iran's belligerence either.
This "we've provoked the Iranians" bullshit is getting tiresome. I get that people want to defend the Iranians getting nuclear weapons because everyone else who is their "enemy" has them, but their voluntary signing of the NPT means they have obligations that they are not meeting, and are basically thumbing their noses at the other members (that include China and Russia)... (India and Pakistan are not members. Nor is Israel... but their conflict has been going on since 1948.)
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Israel has openly and notoriously demanded the US attack Iran for over 20 years, of course Iran should have nukes.
Hear hear!!
The parent poster is a bit shortsighted or selective
in his caution (at best).
Go go go!!!
Yep, it's all have been going on for too long - let them develop the freaking nukes already, that will balance the powers and bring peace to the region. Or anybody really think they will bomb Israel? Nope, they will not, as Israel also have the nukes so it will be MAD (Mutually Assured Desruction). Polititians or religious freaks can proclaim anything to please the crowd, but they will not turn their country into nuclear wasteland, and that is true for the both sides of conflict, as usual. USA-USSR, India-Pakistan - MAD strategy is perfect working solution, untill 100% working missile defence system is developed by one side.
"Iran's police chief, Brig. Gen. Esmail Ahmadi-Moqadam: 'It's true that the U.S. made Stuxnet virus did some damage to our facilities but we were able to get them all up and running in no time. However, those who attack should expect retaliation and we haven't gone there just yet.'"" - QUOTE FROM ARTICLE ITSELF AS SUMMARY POSTED HERE ON /.
See subject-line: The man was very, Very, VERY FOOLISH stating that, as imo @ least, it is WHAT "the infamous they" WANT!
I.E.-> Go on, make that next move, get "tough"... since then, after that? We can TRULY really SHOW YOU, what "tough" is...
* I'd almost BANK on it that the "powers that be" WANT them to make some move like that, ala "go for it, so we can utterly PUMMEL you out of existence, eliminating future issues from you!"...
You don't hassle a GIANT, even if they took a small "poke" @ you first, unless you are SURE you can win... & I honestly do NOT *think* Iran can even BEGIN to hassle us in the least without being utterly turned into a giant bowl of green fused glass in a crater in the end.
That's just how the "real world", works...
APK
P.S.=> Talking about it & implicating yourself should it happen, especially if NOT from Iran? Stupid... Then, there's actually going @ it and doing it... And, doing it?? Even MORE stupid - give the "other side" (the USA & Israel most likely) an excuse on political grounds to utterly WIPE YOU OUT...
... apk
brown people
No, all the world's problems are caused by ignorant people who still believe fervently in superstitious nonsense and use that belief as an excuse for all manner of misbehaving. I mean seriously, how can anyone have warm feelings towards a so-called religion that makes some people think it's OK to hurt little girls just because they want to go to school to learn to read and write? What the fuck?
Bomb them all back into the Stone Age. Make people who believe in Invisible Sky Friends undergo psychological treatment for delusional behaviour. The world is all fucked up in a large part because these people have been given free reign to do whatever they want in the name of their so-called "religious beliefs", and it's got to stop NOW before there isn't a world to save anymore.
You can't have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons unless at least one party believes another party will use them. So, to have tense standoff, at least one side has to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
if, as the zionists contend, iran just wants to launch a suicidal massacre to kill as many jews as possible, they could have easily built and launched rocket packs which each contained ground up fuel rods, a sort of mother of all dirty bombs. launch 1000 military grade dirty bomb rockets, and 9000 regular rockets at the same time and even the best interceptor system would be so horribly overrun that it wouldn't matter, and even intercepted dirty rockets would be deadly.
/dealing/ with those problems, something they have not been terribly successful at.
therefore either
a) Iran does not actually want to destroy israel, this is likely because even if they were successful (give it another 15 years of US decline and throw in support from Russia and China they could pull it off) they would then have nobody to blame for their social and economic issues and would have to start
b)Iran does wish to destroy Israel, but does not wish to do so more than they wish to survive, in which case them acquiring nukes would change nothing, as no amount of nukes would prevent the US from raining nuclear fire on them if they were to launch an atomic strike on Israel
lastly: if Iran were to get their hands on a few nukes it iwould force them to cool their rhetoric, as the better armed you are the less you can yell threats without getting serious consequences (example; if iran had nukes dinnerjacket would likely have been forced to step down and or given some hot lead therapy after his "wipe off the map" comments) just like two guys can yell and threaten each other loudly but if one of them pulls out a gun shit just got real
having nukes would then force an end to economic sanctions in one of two ways, either they would be ended because they serve no purpose, or once proving the ability to build nukes they could negotiate an end of sanctions in return for inspections and no new construction of nukes
ending economic sanctions would create trade which would normalize relations between people and governments
look at US/china relations in the past and present day, countries don't point missiles at important trading partners, at least not often
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Iran is opposed to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Because the Palestinians have more children than the Jews, Israel feels the need to maintain an apartheid state to preserve the Jewish character of Israel, if they stopped the ethnic cleansing and allowed the occupied territories to vote the Zionists would lose the elections, especially after decades of oppression.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Letting Iran have nukes does not "restore the balance of power."
Rather, it destroy it completely.
Iran hates Arabs a whole lot more than it hates Israel. Now every unstable Arab regime will want nukes to defend itself. They have declared so!
Saudi Arabia will be the first to get them, as they are the ones who funded the development of Pakistani nukes and already have Chinese missiles that can carry the warheads.
Do you seriously believe that in this age called "Arab Spring" Arabs should get nukes?
You can't have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons unless at least one party believes another party will use them. So, to have tense standoff, at least one side has to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
You are being a bit harsh on the US and the USSR now, aren't you?
To have a tense standoff, you just need to believe that either a) you can win a nuclear war by surprise attack or b) the opponent believes he can win a nuclear war by surprise attack. That can be entirely rational. The number of weapons available to the US and the USSR at the end of the Cold War made both a) and b) quite far fetched, but earlier it was much more realistic.
Iran cannot possibly believe a), and it is unlikely that they will believe b) either. Israel cannot possibly believe b), but could theoretically go for a). However, doing a nuclear first strike while already in the middle of conventional war is most likely politically unpalatable for Israel. During the Cold War, the US and the USSR did not have to worry much about what anyone else thought about Global Thermonuclear Warfare.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
israel threatens iran. yeah, that's a pretty level-headed assessment of the world situation.
Think about it for a while. You will find that the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran is actually quite high. It has several times been talked about as a near-certainty in fact, but so far it has not happened.
On the other hand, Iran can dream of attacking Israel all it wants, but it will never work. Just look at the geography. Yes, they could in theory lob a missile or two at Israel, but the likelihood is that the missile defence systems will knock them down (unless the Israeli forget to do their firmware updates again). Should the attack succeed, the response from both Israel and the US would be overwhelming.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
If we did regime change at every country which thumbed its nose at the UN, US governments would change monthly.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The state of Iran has not declared war because they fund, arm, and support 3rd party proxies to project their power around the world. The controversy over Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is not really about whether the state of Iran would actually use them. I don't believe any nuclear capable state would use their nuclear arsenal except as a last resort of defense. The risk is Iran providing a nuclear weapon to one of it's 3rd party proxies. If a 3rd party non-state actor was to obtain and actually use a nuclear weapon who would the victim retaliate against? Eventually the nuclear weapon could be traced to it's origin but would anyone support a retaliatory nuclear strike 6 months after the fact? This type of scenario negates the MAD philosophy.
It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday. As you know, the Premier loves surprises.
if, as the zionists contend, iran just wants to launch a suicidal massacre to kill as many jews as possible, they could have easily built and launched rocket packs which each contained ground up fuel rods, a sort of mother of all dirty bombs. launch 1000 military grade dirty bomb rockets, and 9000 regular rockets at the same time and even the best interceptor system would be so horribly overrun that it wouldn't matter, and even intercepted dirty rockets would be deadly.
There's no such thing as "military grade" dirty bombs. Radioactive material just isn't that dangerous. Israel's nuclear strike would be far deadlier.
having nukes would then force an end to economic sanctions in one of two ways, either they would be ended because they serve no purpose, or once proving the ability to build nukes they could negotiate an end of sanctions in return for inspections and no new construction of nukes
Given the second option, economic sanctions would continue to have a purpose, to get Iran to give up its nuclear weapons. It might also slow everyone else in the region from trying to get them as well. Saudi Arabia and Egypt aren't going to be happy with a nuclear Iran. One wonders if Pakistan and India might beef up their nuclear forces as well.
To have a tense standoff, you just need to believe that either a) you can win a nuclear war by surprise attack or b) the opponent believes he can win a nuclear war by surprise attack. That can be entirely rational.
Thinking that you can go ahead with a nuclear war and win it is genocidal thinking. It's beyond psychotic. I stand by my assertion that to have a tense standoff with nuclear weapons, at least one side needs to be crazy or reasonably believable as crazy.
I'm white.
I am the guy who means problem for you, despite being white -- because I just now made useless your rule about blackies bringing trouble, since I'm white and, boy, you can put me right in the 'black" category of nuisances.
Think you can trust someone of your color? Well, better think again,baby...
I was at an event in London recently about Iranian Internet censorship run by small media: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/27/403-forbidden-iranian-internet http://smallmediafoundation.com/ They said that watching which Iranian blogs get censored was a good way of seeing how power struggles were playing out in the Iranian government, and that at the moment right-wing nationalist blogs that were pro-Ahmadinejad were being censored showing that he was increasingly out of favour with the clerics...
> > It's fool-proof. There is no question God is just. No worries.
> anybody notice all the world's problems are caused by brown people?
God _is_ still just.
Stop trolling ... Satan!
Thinking that you can go ahead with a nuclear war and win it is genocidal thinking. It's beyond psychotic.
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic. You just need to attack someone with sufficiently few weapons, preferably zero, or be very sure that you can stop any counterattack.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
However, I don't think the time is right for Iran to have nuclear power.
How odd. I don't think it's the right time for the USA to have nuclear power. We seem to use it as a blank check.
When Iran shows it's stable and mature, maybe it can have nukes
And when the USA shows it's stable and mature, it can be permitted to act as the world's police force. As it is, the USA is acting just like the police treat the people of the USA... very badly.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Polititians or religious freaks can proclaim anything to please the crowd, but they will not turn their country into nuclear wasteland,
... except when they openly say that the end of the world must be hastened, because that's when the hidden Imam comes back and makes everything fine and dandy.
Every end has half a stick.
Or maybe they are not developing nuclear weapons. Yeah, too weird to consider that right?
One thing everyone seems to be missing, Iran's government has officially said they would like to wipe israel out of existance, this is reason enough to support a stable democracy (Israel) as I have not heard them say they would wipe an entire country out of existance???!
Evidence points to them having nuclear weapons. And this isn't an innocent until proven guilty situation. If they don't want to be considered to have nuclear weapons (and as a result subject to the penalties that they currently experience), then they need to open their facilities to inspection by the IAEA and they need to cease whatever nuclear weapons programs they have going on now.
Iran's government is more stable than the US's or Israel's who replace their leaders more frequently than Iran does, Iran's missiles are weaker and fewer in number than either the US or Israel's, and US/Israel have far worse reputations for actually smiting their neighbors, particularly those in Iran's neighborhood.
Seriously, everything about your statement is backwards and wrong.
First of all, Iran hasn't threatened to wipe anyone off the map, that's based on an intentional mistranslation, and second, consider the context. We're having a discussion about whether the US should basically 'wipe Iran off the map'. And people wonder why Iran wants deterrents.
The US went ahead with nuclear war and won it, against Japan. That was not beyond psychotic.
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
Which side is it you're saying was reasonably believable as crazy during the Cold War?
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both sides truly believe that the other will never use their nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first, you can't have a tense standoff.
Considering that they were attacking civilians (although I'm sure you have a justification since there were factories in those cities, which somehow makes everyone and their mother a combatant) , it kind of was. When you consider further that it looks like the main reason the US did it was to essentially call "first dibs" on Japan and stop the Soviets from invading, it doesn't look much better.
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad. They were not even all that heinous by WW2 standards, compare with e.g. Dresden or Tokyo.
Both of them. Clearly each side believed that the other would be willing to murder their entire citizenry. If both sides truly believe that the other will never use their nuclear weapons unless attacked with nuclear weapons first, you can't have a tense standoff.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
If you think Ahmadinejad is "batshit crazy" then you are heavily brainwashed, as it's clear that he's very much sane. (or are you talking about the Ayatollah?) In fact, the use of that term "batshit crazy" is not new, and clearly was implanted into your skull at some point.
I do not have a justification for the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Calling them the acts of madmen is just wrong. You can call them evil if you prefer, but you cannot call them irrational, and certainly not mad.
Evil or crazy, no difference. For the purposes of this discussion, evil is a form of functional insanity. Evil enough to kill the civilians of another country is evil enough to subject the citizens of your own country to retaliation and write it off.
You are still suffering from the mistaken belief that all nuclear wars end with everyone dead. We have had one so far, it killed somewhere in the region of 200,000 people.
I've never suffered from that belief. I'm fully aware that a nuclear war wouldn't kill everyone, but the sheer volume of death would be pretty massive. I said that both sides thought that the other would be willing to kill their entire citizenry, not that they necessarily could. Not just from the first order deaths and the fallout, but from the collapse in infrastructure that would follow. In any case, citing Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples isn't very applicable. Those bombs were proofs of concept. They were 16 kiloton and 21 kiloton bombs respectively. Most of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal these days have a yield more in the range of 500 kilotons.
For the purposes of this discussion, evil is a form of functional insanity.
Right, THAT is where the real disagreement lies. You do not believe that evil can be rational and sane, and I believe it can be.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
I do actually believe that evil can be rational and sane, although still, you know... evil! I said that it was functionally insane, meaning that it's not technically insane, but for all intents and purposes behaves the same way.
Metropolitan Police Virusü Metropolitan Police gerçek bir program deildir ve aslnda bir virüstür. Son günlerde çok fazla internet de dolaan sahte virüslerden biri Metropolitan Police bu virüsü kaldrmak için aadaki admlar kullanabilirsiniz sistem geri yükleme yada SpyHunter indirip çaltrp temizleyebilirsiniz. Bir aldatmaca olduunu, bu özel virüs gerçek olduuna ikna etmesi çalr. Metropolitan Police en ksa zaman’da bilgisayarnzdan kaldrmanz öneririz. Metropolitan Police, olarak da bilinir, kötü niyetli olan baka bir sahte antivirüs programdr. Bu, özellikle virüs bir sahte olarak bilinir, ve bilgisayar kullanclar kandrmak için sosyal mühendislik ve görsel taktikleri kullanr. System Progressive Protection Nasl Kaldrlr Antivirus Protection 2012 yani System Progressive Protection Son zamanlarda virüsü dünya çapnda dolamda bulunmutur. System Progressive Protection gerçek bir program deildir ve aslnda bir virüstür. Son günlerde çok fazla internet de dolaan sahte virüslerden biri System Progressive Protection bu virüsü kaldrmak için aadaki admlar kullanabilirsiniz sistem geri yükleme yada SpyHunter indirip çaltrp temizleyebilirsiniz. Bir aldatmaca olduunu, bu özel virüs gerçek olduuna ikna etmesi çalr. Metropolitan Police en ksa zaman’da bilgisayarnzdan kaldrmanz öneririz. http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/Bilgisayardestek-System-Progressive-Protection-423.html http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/Bilgisayardestek-live-security-platinum-kaldiramiyorum-489.html http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/Bilgisayardestek-FBI-Moneypak-Nedir-Bilgisayardan-Nasil-K-478.html http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/Bilgisayardestek-Metropolitan-Police-Nedir-Nasil-Kaldiril-474.html http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/Bilgisayardestek-Win-7-Defender-2013-Nedir-437.html
http://www.tr-teknoloji.com http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/
live security platinum virusü nasl kaldrlr live security platinum gerçek bir program deildir ve aslnda bir virüstür. Son günlerde çok fazla internet de dolaan sahte virüslerden biri Metropolitan Police bu virüsü kaldrmak için aadaki admlar kullanabilirsiniz sistem geri yükleme yada SpyHunter indirip çaltrp temizleyebilirsiniz. Bir aldatmaca olduunu, bu özel virüs gerçek olduuna ikna etmesi çalr. live security platinum en ksa zaman’da bilgisayarnzdan kaldrmanz öneririz. live security platinum sahte virus program olarak da bilinir, kötü niyetli olan baka bir sahte antivirüs programdr. Bu, özellikle virüs bir sahte olarak bilinir, ve bilgisayar kullanclar kandrmak için sosyal mühendislik ve görsel taktikleri kullanr. live security platinum bilgisayarnzn kilitlenmesine sebep olan ve açmak için bir ücret talep eden, ve kötü niyetli kiilerin para kazanmaya çalrken tekniklerini nasl gelitirdiini gösteren bir yazlmdr. Bu virüs sizi yanl yönlendirecek, live security platinum’dan gelmi gibi gözükecek uyarlar göndermekle kalmaz; ayn zamanda sisteminizi kilitler ve bu durumda sizi çaresiz brakr. Dolandrclarn böyle bir virüs hazrlamaktaki temel amac, sizi telif hakk olan bir içerii yasad olarak izlediinize ve bunun için Moneypak servisi araclyla ceza ödemeniz gerektiine inandrmaktr. Tabi ki, buna inanmamal ve internette suç ileyenlere böylelikle destek vermemelisiniz. http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/Bilgisayardestek-System-Progressive-Protection-423.html
http://www.tr-teknoloji.com http://www.teknolojirehberi.org/