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
[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by why_ask_why View Post
because we're the only country full of religious morons that should have nukes

__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 01:43 AM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#31  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

mikeawesome
Baloneyflaps is my lord. I have asked him into my heart.
 
mikeawesome's Avatar
 
that eagle been snorting coke
__________________
RIP Malamute
Old 03-03-2012, 01:50 AM mikeawesome is offline  
Reply With Quote
#32  

[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
So what are the arguments for Iran (or any other country) that doesn't already have nukes to create their own arsenal? Will it make the world a safer place and speed up the process of eliminating them completely?

If you are anti-gun control you should be able to understand this - why can't they have a global equivalent of a gun?

My arguments are for countries to go on about their business with nuclear energy or whatever they feel like doing. I just don't see the problem - what are they going to do in your opinion?

Are you one of those who thinks there are thousands of Al Quaida members ready to attack you in the middle of the night?
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 01:50 AM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#33  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack's raging erection View Post
It's a balance of power thing. Israel has nukes to deter another six day war type thing. Iran gets nukes, Israel feels threatened, M.A.D. enacted in the Middle East, psychotic religious extremists reenact The Crusades with nukes, shit gets confusing, Russia launches thinking U.S. attack for some reason, U.S. launches retaliatory strikes, 2012 prophecy comes true.

Shit son. I'm moving to my secret hide out. It's my shed.

I got at least six hours worth of supplies.
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 02:01 AM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#34  

thrawn
 
thrawn's Avatar
 
would you give capnjerk a loaded gun?
__________________
ohio doesn't suck so much
Old 03-03-2012, 02:16 AM thrawn is offline  
Reply With Quote
#35  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [H]ard|On View Post
If you are anti-gun control you should be able to understand this - why can't they have a global equivalent of a gun?

My arguments are for countries to go on about their business with nuclear energy or whatever they feel like doing. I just don't see the problem - what are they going to do in your opinion?

Are you one of those who thinks there are thousands of Al Quaida members ready to attack you in the middle of the night?
Nuclear energy and weaponizing that same energy are two entirely different things. Bringing up the gun control thing is popular among people who think everyone should have nukes, but do yourself a favor and research the effects of just a single detonation of a modern thermonuclear warhead and see if you still feel that it's equivalent to a bullet from a gun. Even people who are against gun control acknowledge the fact that everyone having guns increases the chance of accidents...as well as the chances of them falling into the wrong hands, but it's not even close to the same thing as everyone having an ICBM silo in their backyard. What kind of body armor or bullet proof glass would be needed to protect from a bullet that could kill everyone in a 3-4 mile radius, and make the general area where the "shot" was fired uninhabitable for generations? The Hiroshima/Nagasaki atomic bombs are small potatoes compared to their modern counterparts btw..
__________________
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, 06:48 AM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#36  

Fiah
Sinds ik als transseksuele prostituee bezig ben, heb ik mezelf eindelijk leren accepteren. PM me voo
 
Fiah's Avatar
 
not to mention that a proper nuclear cluster bomb could wipe out an entire state
Old 03-03-2012, 07:17 AM Fiah is offline  
Reply With Quote
#37  

someone else
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by [H]ard|On View Post
No dumbo it's like prosecuting people by using "precogs" like in that stupid Tom Cruise movie.... for doing the same thing as other people are doing who you are not prosecuting



Great and Israel of course is NOT occupying three areas that were never given to them in the first place They hate muslims yet they can have nukes if they want to. For no other reason than we've been in bed with them for half a century.

Israel is like a shitty girlfriend. We get nothing but grief and expenditures from it, yet we're too pathetic to break up and say "get fucked, I've had enough of your problems"

I will come back to the thread when i get off work but i have one thing to poke in here.

Occupying 3 areas? The won those in the wars started against them with the intention of whiping them off tge fucking planet. There are a million reasons we dont want iran to have nukes. Korea and pakistan argument? We dont want them to have nukes either but we cant do much about it after the fact.

Edit: and the antigun control thing? Even those of us against it we still dont want the mentally unstabke owning guns. Iran is the country equivelant of a mentally unstable person who has been vocal.about killing someone.
__________________
Driving:
2005 Acura RSX Type-S
1996 Pontiac Trans Am - LT1 + T56, not stock
2001 Jeep Cherokee Sport

Shooting:
Nikon D300, Rolleiflex 2.8F, Nikon F100, Olympus OM-1, Pentax 645
Old 03-03-2012, 08:11 AM someone else is offline  
Reply With Quote
#38  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
In a nutshell, because it would be politically inconvenient for the US and Israel if they did.

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.

I think the basic argument is:
- Let P_a be the probability that Iran, once it gets a functioning weapon, will use it without first being openly attacked by another country - let's say Israel. Let's say, for the sake of argument (and conservatism), that this takes out the most populated city in Israel (N1 people), and, from a response, every single person within Iranian military (N2 people), and maybe like 10% of the population (0.1 * N3). It's obviously questionable what the response will be, but I think these numbers are sufficiently conservative for this back of the envelope analysis.
- Let N4 be the number of people (presumably all within Iran) who get killed by an Israeli/US/whoever else attack on Iranian soil sufficiently significant to delay the development of the weapon by, say, T1 years (if it does not cause such delay, there is no reason to do it).
- Note, however, that such attack, even if it has no consequences outside of Iran, is just about guaranteed to increase (domestic) support for those currently in power there, simply because an average person may hate whoever's in power, but love his country (case in point, many conservative members of US military, or many imperial Russian expatriates that openly expressed desire to go back and join the Red Army when Germany attacked USSR (and were not permitted to do so)).
- Let's say the current regime kills N5 people per year (if we equate, say, X units of loss of freedom to one human life, we can factor that in here as well, but we really don't need to for a rough estimate).
- Let's assume that the regime will topple in T2 years if no reason to support it (such as an external attack) is given. Let's assume that it will stay in power for T2+T3 years otherwise, due to gained support from an external attack on the country.

Basically, assumming all human lives are equally valued, the expected human life loss from P_a happening is: P_a * (N1 + N2 + 0.1 * N3).
Expected human life loss from a preemptive attack such as the one described in the second point is, by definition: N4.
Expected human life loss INCREASE from the regime's subsequent stay in power is: (T2+T3)*N5 - T2*N5 = T3*N5.

Therefore, expected human life loss with not launching a preemptive military attack on Iran: P_a * (N1 + N2 + 0.1 * N3)
Expected human life loss with launching a preemptive military attack on Iran: N4 + T3*N5.

Now let's see which of these parameters we actually know:
N1 = ~1e6 (Population of Jerusalem)
N2 = ~0.9e6 (Roughly the size of Iranian armed forces, including reservists)
N3 = ~7.8e6 (10% of population of Iran)
N4 = ? (I would guess a couple of thousand, so let's say 2e3)
N5 = 1200 (roughly the number of people executed per month, times 12)

T2 = ? (let's say 30 years? again, obviously questionable, but I am guessing like 2-3 generations)
T3 = ? (let's say 45-T2=15 years? 45 is roughly how long USSR existed after WW2; obviously a very rough estimate)

Therefore, for a net expected life gain, to justify the attack, we require:
P_a * (N1 + N2 + 0.1 * N3) >> N4 + T3*N5, therefore:
P_a >> 0.75%

So roughly on the order of 1%.

Thing is, that is not AT ALL a small number. And it was arrived at by using massively conservative estimates (both N1 and N3 are massive overestimates). If we reduce each by a factor of 5 (thus getting the weapon effect closer to what, for example, Hiroshima was, and getting the response effect much closer to what the invasion of Iraq was), we get: P_a >> 1.6%. Again a huge number for a probability of a use of a nuclear weapon.

Now the question is - is it that high? I don't see any reason to believe that it is. Crazy figureheads saying crazy shit is very different from a weapon of mass destruction being used. Again, North Korea, Pakistan, even Israel itself all have more than a fair share of their own crazy-ass people - and yet the only ones of those to actually launch military attacks on other nations were Israel and Pakistan (and if you count the shelling of the South Korean Island, NK as well), none of which involved anything close to weapons of mass destruction. USSR certainly had plenty of those as well - and yet again, no direct military engagements to be had.

So basically - I am saying that P_a is nowhere near the 0.75% (or 1.6% if using a less conservative estimate), which is why I am saying that an actual military attack on Iran is in no way justified.

That said, sanctions etc. are fully within the rights of the countries enacting them, and do NOT strengthen the regime.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.

Last edited by teh_rapist; 03-03-2012 at 08:25 AM..
Old 03-03-2012, 08:13 AM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#39  

TUT RAGE!!!
 
TUT RAGE!!!'s Avatar
 
MM-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-M-MONSTER POST
Old 03-03-2012, 08:18 AM TUT RAGE!!! is offline  
Reply With Quote
#40  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone else View Post
Occupying 3 areas? The won those in the wars started against them with the intention of whiping them off tge fucking planet. There are a million reasons we dont want iran to have nukes. Korea and pakistan argument? We dont want them to have nukes either but we cant do much about it after the fact.

LOL! Started against them? Israel is like a home invader that is surrounded by the police and claiming the cops are "against them." Israel flat out started the 1967 war anyway - they attacked Egypt.
Old 03-03-2012, 08:29 AM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#41  

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Most people have been propagandized into believing Iran as a state is irrational which justifies imperialism against it.

Ahmadenijad is a civil engineer trying to advance power generation. Our leaders are usually lawyers, sometimes disbarred ones! They are mostly standing in the way of not only Iran, but our own power generation (they actively work to make energy more expensive to dampen our own freedom and activity and to increase "conservation.") LOL! Now, strip away all the Jew-media propaganda and apply an Atlas Shrugged template to this scenario.
Old 03-03-2012, 08:36 AM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#42  

sirocyl44us
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamFarber View Post
Ahmadenijad is a civil engineer trying to advance power generation. Our leaders are usually lawyers, sometimes disbarred ones! They are mostly standing in the way of not only Iran, but our own power generation (they actively work to make energy more expensive to dampen our own freedom and activity and to increase "conservation.") LOL! Now, strip away all the Jew-media propaganda and apply an Atlas Shrugged template to this scenario.
Why is Iran enriching uranium to 20%? That is far beyond what is needed for a reactor.
Old 03-03-2012, 09:18 AM sirocyl44us is offline  
Reply With Quote
#43  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirocyl44us View Post
Why is Iran enriching uranium to 20%? That is far beyond what is needed for a reactor.

Not necessarily true. Even in the US, the enrichment limit for research reactors is 20%. Many fast reactors literally cannot go critical without ~18% enrichment.

Power reactors are different, but medical isotope production generally does require higher enrichment.

This is not supporting or defending what Iran is doing, I think they in all likelihood do have a weapons program going, but your specific statement is flat-out uninformed. Power reactors, research reactors, isotope reactors, naval reactors, and breeder reactors are all different things, and most of them require higher than 5% enrichment.

Add to that the fact that they are legally prohibited from having access to the new cross-section databases (which are publicly available in the US, but export-controlled), and it's yet another reason.

Also worth noting that 20%, while still low for many reactors, is nowhere near the ballpark that a weapon needs.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 03-03-2012, 09:25 AM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#44  

sirocyl44us
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
Not necessarily true. Even in the US, the enrichment limit for research reactors is 20%. Many fast reactors literally cannot go critical without ~18% enrichment.

Power reactors are different, but medical isotope production generally does require higher enrichment.

This is not supporting or defending what Iran is doing, I think they in all likelihood do have a weapons program going, but your specific statement is flat-out uninformed. Power reactors, research reactors, isotope reactors, naval reactors, and breeder reactors are all different things, and most of them require higher than 5% enrichment.

Add to that the fact that they are legally prohibited from having access to the new cross-section databases (which are publicly available in the US, but export-controlled), and it's yet another reason.

Also worth noting that 20%, while still low for many reactors, is nowhere near the ballpark that a weapon needs.
LOL

Yeah, I'm sure Iran is enriching large quantities of uranium in secret bunkers for scientific research. Give me a break.

The NPT is clear on what Iran can and can't do and they are in flagrant violation of it. Iran doesn't need to build a cutting edge research reactor. If they need to generate power they can do it with uranium enriched to far less than 20%. What they are doing is trying to hit a major milestone on the way to the 85-90% enrichment needed for a weapon.
Old 03-03-2012, 09:55 AM sirocyl44us is offline  
Reply With Quote
#45  

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 02:26 AM.



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