General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Disclaimer: nothing I say in this thread represents either the official or the implied position of any of my associates or employers.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 03-03-2012, 05:40 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#76  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Forever Domon
 
Forever Domon's Avatar
 
it really all goes back to politics, namely that iran signed the npt. That limits them, theyre breaking those limits.

No other reason is needed.
Old 03-03-2012, 05:44 PM Forever Domon is offline  
Reply With Quote
#77  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
Well, remember:



There are good technical reasons related to efficiency to drive it higher actually. Medical isotope production being the biggest one. Materials testing (for civilian purposes) is another big one. In general, it's a lot harder to get a high local flux with LEU and 20% Uranium than with HEU.

There is an excellent reason why the MITR (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) or the ATR (Idaho National Laboratory) are not so hot on the idea of reducing their enrichment. And have been taking their time doing so. Hell, when I just arrived on the scene, kids at MIT were already defending PhDs working exclusively on the MITR conversion. As of right now, they are one of the very few places in the world that can do A LOT of tests than 20% facilities simply cannot, and to keep those reactors as nationally and internationally significant requires some very advanced design, and still sacrifices will be made. HEU is just flat out better, it's that simple.

Then there is also the issue of breeding (much easier with HEU), which, besides weapons applications, again provides a way to burn a hell of a lot more of the otherwise-useless U-238 that the once-through cycle (that US employs) burns quite inefficiently.

This is not to say that you NEED higher than 20% to get an LWR critical - you don't, 5% is enough. But there are excellent reasons to go higher.


They are sand niqqers, they are too stupid to know all this. All they want to do is assemble a nuke because they hate our freedom.


BORKED
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 05:45 PM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#78  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [H]ard|On View Post
Because there's no reason for black people to ride in the front of the bus... except this stupid concept called EQUALITY. I guess sand niqqers in the desert shouldn't have the right to do the same things we white people get to do. Or even other sand niqqers in the desert which we choose to like because they killed Jesus and got hated on by Nazis... (actually I still don't know why)
Equating weapons of mass destruction with bus seating is even worse than your gun control analogy. If the countries opposed to Iran getting nukes allow it to happen anyway...where does it end? Nobody in this thread (that I have seen) has said that military action should be taken against Iran...and nobody is opposed to Iran having nuclear power. But do you really think that if every country that has the desire and means to acquire nuclear weapons does so...the world will be a better place? Btw...I know from another thread you made that you oppose UN sanctions/inspections on Iran as well, so you didn't read everything teh rapist wrote.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 03-03-2012, 05:45 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#79  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Equating weapons of mass destruction with bus seating is even worse than your gun control analogy. If the countries opposed to Iran getting nukes allow it to happen anyway...where does it end? Nobody in this thread (that I have seen) has said that military action should be taken against Iran...and nobody is opposed to Iran having nuclear power. But do you really think that if every country that has the desire and means to acquire nuclear weapons does so...the world will be a better place? Btw...I know from another thread you made that you oppose UN sanctions/inspections on Iran as well, so you didn't read everything teh rapist wrote.

Yet all you can say is you don't like my analogy. It fits - one group of people can do something, while the other cannot and should not because "they are crazy" because they are not like us. Unlike you i realize the limits of my own country and it's efforts to "make the world a better place" usually end with massive casualties, no results and a giant deficit.

Who mentioned military actions? THE PRESIDENT IN THE MAIN ARTICLE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.




__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 05:51 PM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#80  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Domon View Post
it really all goes back to politics, namely that iran signed the npt. That limits them, theyre breaking those limits.

No other reason is needed.

Okay AND?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SHIT YOU OBVIOUSLY MISSED AND HAVE NOT CONSIDERED that Rapist posted
The arguments of "They stated", "They threatened", "They warned", "They dislike Israel" are idiotic, partly because there is no "They", but more importantly - because there is a massive difference between having a weapon and being guaranteed to use it.

So no, there is no good reason why they shouldn't. It's a country's right to have weapons, including weapons of mass destruction. If they are in a treaty that prohibits doing so, it is their right to choose to violate the treaty and face the penalty for doing so (which does not include being attacked by another country's standing military, without mounting an attack first).

It is also a country's right to enact sanctions etc. to put pressure on other nations. Pretty much what's happening right now.

It is NOT a country's right to mount a first attack, that is an act of aggression and starting a war.


DUUUURRRR

Your solution for peace is pre-emptive war. Nice. I'm guessing you have a poster of GWB in your bedroom.
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 05:52 PM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#81  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [H]ard|On View Post
Yet all you can say is you don't like my analogy. It fits - one group of people can do something, while the other cannot and should not because "they are crazy" because they are not like us. Unlike you i realize the limits of my own country and it's efforts to "make the world a better place" usually end with massive casualties, no results and a giant deficit.

Who mentioned military actions? THE PRESIDENT IN THE MAIN ARTICLE THIS THREAD IS ABOUT.




The president is posting in this thread? You still haven't presented a good argument why Iran should have nukes...all you have done (twice) is point people to Rapists posts as if that reinforces whatever the fuck you're trying to say.....and your race card is epic fail.
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 03-03-2012, 05:55 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#82  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Domon View Post
it really all goes back to politics, namely that iran signed the npt. That limits them, theyre breaking those limits.

No other reason is needed.

No other reason is needed for what? NPT sure as fuck does not justify military action against a country because they break it. Military action is justified in exactly one case - when you get attacked. NEVER first. Ever. Particularly based on words of a few figureheads.

I am not saying it's illegal. Anything's legal when the US does it, it's that simple. But I am saying that it's not reasonable, a good idea, or justified.

Now, sanctions? Those are completely within the rights of the international community.

Also worth noting, that US itself has withdrawn from the ABMT in 2001. So it's not exactly unheard of to break from, or withdraw from international treaties. And it would be completely wrong if Russia followed by attacking the US. Just like it would be completely wrong if US or Israel now attacked Iran.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 03-03-2012, 05:56 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#83  

Forever Domon
 
Forever Domon's Avatar
 
err. noones talking about military action?
Old 03-03-2012, 06:00 PM Forever Domon is offline  
Reply With Quote
#84  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
No other reason is needed for what? NPT sure as fuck does not justify military action against a country because they break it. Military action is justified in exactly one case - when you get attacked. NEVER first. Ever. Particularly based on words of a few figureheads.

I am not saying it's illegal. Anything's legal when the US does it, it's that simple. But I am saying that it's not reasonable, a good idea, or justified.

Now, sanctions? Those are completely within the rights of the international community.

Also worth noting, that US itself has withdrawn from the ABMT in 2001. So it's not exactly unheard of to break from, or withdraw from international treaties. And it would be completely wrong if Russia followed by attacking the US. Just like it would be completely wrong if US or Israel now attacked Iran.
I don't think a pre-emptive military strike on Iran (by anyone) is a good idea, and I'm pretty sure the Whitehouse feels the same way...but on the other hand, taking military action completely off the table weakens the opposition (which isn't just Israel/U.S. as many would like to believe) and is pretty much just saying "we give up"..

The bottom line is this: if Iran really only wants nuclear power and has nothing to hide....follow the rules, allow inspectors and basically do everything needed to get sanctions lifted. But of course the sanctions give the current administration in Iran an external "enemy" to take the blame for everything that Iranian citizens are upset about..
__________________
Rapid-fire double bass of the GenMay dru[M]mers collective

Syndrome of a Downs- drums/songwriter
._--_|\
/ииииииии\
\_.--Bumfuck Egypt
.......v
Old 03-03-2012, 06:02 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#85  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Domon View Post
err. noones talking about military action?

i certainly was. that, and i mean, it certainly is a topic discussed both behind closed and open doors these days, and i really don't like that it's even considered.

u didn't say what "there is no other reason needed" for. that's why i clarified, whether it was for sanctions, or for military action. that's all. i am assuming you meant sanctions then? or something else?
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 03-03-2012, 06:05 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#86  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Domon View Post
it really all goes back to politics, namely that iran signed the npt. That limits them, theyre breaking those limits.

No other reason is needed.

List what limit has been broken.
Old 03-03-2012, 06:07 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#87  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
I don't know, and I'm not a big fan of Israel or trying to defend all their actions...but what does this have to do with anything? Even if Israel didn't exist it wouldn't be a good idea for Iran to have nukes..

Still waiting for someone to spell out why it would be a good idea..

..

Because Israel is a bunch of psychos that need to be balanced in the region.
Old 03-03-2012, 06:08 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#88  

Forever Domon
 
Forever Domon's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
List what limit has been broken.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...15981&Cr=&Cr1=
Old 03-03-2012, 06:09 PM Forever Domon is offline  
Reply With Quote
#89  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
The president is posting in this thread? You still haven't presented a good argument why Iran should have nukes...all you have done (twice) is point people to Rapists posts as if that reinforces whatever the fuck you're trying to say.....and your race card is epic fail.

A) Why they should - same reason as Israel or United States or Russia or Pakistan

B) Why they shouldn't - YOUR TURN That's what i asked in the thread title.


I'm actually waiting for YOU to tell me why they SHOULD NOT. Your reasoning is "because they are a crazy country" - that magical "they"
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 06:11 PM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#90  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:54 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.