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
SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
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.

But Faux News (mouthpiece for Israel) said Iran is spooky and creepy. I'm waiting for Faux news to dim the lights and shine a flashlight in their face when reporting on Iran.
Old 03-03-2012, 12:06 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#46  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

SamFarber
 
SamFarber's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirocyl44us View Post
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.

What is Iran in violation of and how do you know this?

Iran doesn't need to build a cutting edge research reactor.

There are a lot of things this same government could say you don't need, either. Funny how you would recoil at that but you think foreigners should be happy to take direction from this same government.
Old 03-03-2012, 12:08 PM SamFarber is offline  
Reply With Quote
#47  

Jas101
 
Jas101's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
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.


nice post.

didnt read it.

youre a tool.
__________________
gsharaf - maybe you just aren't ghey enough, so take one up da butt (for the team)
Jeff - Anyone got any midget porn? Its for a friend.
c449140ffaaa3f7c2e4d93e0ba37705e [pornmay.com]
Old 03-03-2012, 12:46 PM Jas101 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#48  

2[H]4U
 
2[H]4U's Avatar
 
For the record: Iran hasn't attacked another country in over 100 years. Maybe even 200 (can't remember actual figure).
__________________
jelly?
Old 03-03-2012, 12:50 PM 2[H]4U is offline  
Reply With Quote
#49  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
All you pro-Iranian nuke weapon people now have SamFarber on your side.
__________________
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, 12:50 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#50  

2[H]4U
 
2[H]4U's Avatar
 
Do you know the only Arab/ME country to attack the US?

Israel, that's right the ONLY country in the ME to ever attack the US was Israel.
__________________
jelly?
Old 03-03-2012, 12:51 PM 2[H]4U is offline  
Reply With Quote
#51  

5ive
 
5ive's Avatar
 
I'm neutral on this issue, but there is also a fear that if (or should I say when?) the current government falls, there's no telling what will happen to the nukes during the inevitably unstable transition period.
__________________
Chicho is full of win.
Member #5 of the Romeoz God R.I.P Collective
Old 03-03-2012, 12:59 PM 5ive is offline  
Reply With Quote
#52  

TUT RAGE!!!
 
TUT RAGE!!!'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2[H]4U View Post
Do you know the only Arab/ME country to attack the US?

Israel, that's right the ONLY country in the ME to ever attack the US was Israel.

so fuck you're herpes infested virgin girlfriend about it
Old 03-03-2012, 12:59 PM TUT RAGE!!! is offline  
Reply With Quote
#53  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2[H]4U View Post
Do you know the only Arab/ME country to attack the US?

Israel, that's right the ONLY country in the ME to ever attack the US was Israel.
Israel is an Arab country now? If you're talking about the USS Liberty....that was done while Israel was at war, and was either a mistake or a commander gone rogue. In any case Israel had to pay millions to the families of the sailors killed, as well as the U.S. govt for damage to the ship. Do you really think the Israeli government is dumb enough to pick a fight with the U.S.?

In any case, pathetic attempt at a derail.....tell me why Iran SHOULD have nuclear weapons.
__________________
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, 01:01 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#54  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive View Post
I'm neutral on this issue, but there is also a fear that if (or should I say when?) the current government falls, there's no telling what will happen to the nukes during the inevitably unstable transition period.
Pakistan is the most unstable country with nukes atm.....with NK not far behind.

But hey...lets let everyone have warheads!
__________________
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, 01:03 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#55  

Redrum
Crate&Barrel Roll
 
Redrum's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mamma Jamma View Post
This video is a little out-dated, but it should sum up most everything nicely for you.



+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
__________________
lol
Old 03-03-2012, 01:44 PM Redrum is offline  
Reply With Quote
#56  

5ive
 
5ive's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
Pakistan is the most unstable country with nukes atm.....with NK not far behind.

But hey...lets let everyone have warheads!

Yeah, but Pakistan has had nukes for a long time and there ain't shit we can do about it now, not to mention that we're "friends" with Pakistan. NK is probably far less likely to lose its nukes to anti-American terrorist organizations than Iran or Pakistan.

Like I said, I'm neutral. I'm just saying what I think some people are concerned about
__________________
Chicho is full of win.
Member #5 of the Romeoz God R.I.P Collective
Old 03-03-2012, 01:47 PM 5ive is offline  
Reply With Quote
#57  

joemama
Watch Toomer burn those cowboys. How bout them cowboys?
 
joemama's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ive View Post
Yeah, but Pakistan has had nukes for a long time and there ain't shit we can do about it now, not to mention that we're "friends" with Pakistan. NK is probably far less likely to lose its nukes to anti-American terrorist organizations than Iran or Pakistan.

Like I said, I'm neutral. I'm just saying what I think some people are concerned about
If the government of Pakistan were about to fall to Islamic radicals could we afford to not do anything about it? NK may seem more stable than Pakistan, but who knows what the fuck is going on in Kim Jong Jr's head....or for that matter the senior government officials who "advise" him..
__________________
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, 01:52 PM joemama is offline  
Reply With Quote
#58  

Redrum
Crate&Barrel Roll
 
Redrum's Avatar
 
^^norkor is perfectly stable and quite possibly one of the most successful and efficient authoritarian regimes on the planet
__________________
lol
Old 03-03-2012, 01:58 PM Redrum is offline  
Reply With Quote
#59  

[H]ard|On
tell me i is retarded and i will just potato
 
[H]ard|On's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone else View Post
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.

Okay so according to you "winning" areas is fair and square. So why can't Iran win some? Israel didn't just stop at defending their land, they took the next step. And the next and one more after that.

We can do all the same things against Korea and Pakistan as we can against Iran We're just being selectively uneven about it.

Also please tell me some of these crazy things Iran has done. Who decides they are the craziest country? Are they crazier than we are? How many countries are they occupying - how many military bases do they have all over the god damn world?


Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
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..

Nuclear bomb =/= ICBM

Koreans don't have a delivery system for example. They can't even hit the coast of Florida unless they bring it on a boat or a long range bomber.

If you're afraid of Iran but not afraid of Korea you're measurably ignorant and/or retarded. Personally I am not that deep into either category so i am not afraid of either country.

Wrong hands - lol. And then what are they going to do? Smuggle a nuclear device inside their butthole into New York or something? We have pretty good airport security and terrorist assholes aren't much larger than yours.
__________________
Make Genmay Great Again
Old 03-03-2012, 02:10 PM [H]ard|On is offline  
Reply With Quote
#60  

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 08:20 PM.



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