Iran

#3,726
#3,726
Matt2496 said:
Suddenly Iran being "two weeks" away from a fission based nuclear weapon causes my BS meter to spike.

Obviously, you need more than just enriched U-235 to create a nuclear bomb. You also need a proper detonation mechanism, which is extremely difficult to get right.

This "two weeks away" statement sounds like something the government warmongers pulled out of their rear end to justify getting directly involved with Iran.

All I want to see is definitive proof of that statement.
Click to expand...

Why does that statement matter?
 
#3,728
#3,728
FortSanders said:
There is no definitive proof, but will bet that both China, Russia and North has provided or will provide the technology to allow Iran to break out a deliverable nuke.
Click to expand...

I have no clue why anyone would need more proof than 60% enriched uranium. Seems everyone agrees on that.
 
#3,729
#3,729
Berry4Heisman14 said:
Yes, Iraq didn’t enrich uranium, but the parallel is in how fear was used to justify war. The public was told by US media Iraq had WMDs when it didn’t, just like we’re constantly told Iran is days away from a bomb yet that day never comes. So I’m not denying enrichment or even concern. I’m questioning how the narrative is used because “getting close” has been a political tool for a long time, even if a nuke never actually appears.
Click to expand...

Fear is the only valid justification of any war. So in that regard we could compare this to WWII or even the civil war.

The question that matters isn’t “ is it a political tool to say ‘they’re getting close to a bomb’”, but rather “is it true”.

Once you’re at 60% the obvious answer is you’ve shown the world that you intend on making a nuclear weapon. If we estimate they can get there in 2 months and it actually takes them another 2 years, why would that even be relevant?

They have the means. They have shown the intent. From there we accept the outcome is the same “without significant intervention they will soon (how soon is debatable) have a nuclear weapon”.

So why would we focus on the exact timeline rather than the obvious fact that they’re continuing to get closer and have shown that their intent is well beyond just nuclear power and is actually nuclear weapons.
 
#3,731
#3,731
So semi-Devil's Advocate question: given how much damage has been done to Iran's infrastructure, personnel, ICBM capabilities, etc. - seems the nuke issue should be off the table for a good number of years. The current leadership is old - maybe a bit more infrastructure degradation by Israel is enough and it avoids 1) us getting directly involved and 2) creating a premature regime change. When the current dude dies or is pushed out maybe the next group decides nukes aren't worth it. Pummel any known/suspected entries and supply conduits to the underground facilities and see where the next 5 years take us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, Orangeslice13, hog88 and 2 others
#3,732
#3,732
Vol8188 said:
Why does that statement matter?
Click to expand...
That statement matters because, per the tweet I shared, our involvement in this conflict now seems to be predicated on the imminent threat of Iran developing a nuke in "two weeks". TBH, I don't even think our GBU-57s are the only way Israel could take out Fordow.

Furthermore, it should never be acceptable for our government to lie to us.
 
#3,733
#3,733
Matt2496 said:
That statement matters because, per the tweet I shared, our involvement in this conflict now seems to be predicated on the imminent threat of Iran developing a nuke in "two weeks". TBH, I don't even think our GBU-57s are the only way Israel could take out Fordow.

Furthermore, it should never be acceptable for our government to lie to us.
Click to expand...

Why your focus on the timeline specifically? Rather than the overall point.

If I told you that you’re dying of cancer in 2 months and you live 4, is the timeline the most important element or the fact that you’re dying?

You can go from 60% uranium to weapons grade in 2-3 days. If everything goes right. But that’s not the important part here.

The important part is that they’re obviously attempting to make nuclear weapons. You accept that right?

So if they’re wrong about the timeline and let’s assume a hypothetical Iranian regime actually takes 4 months instead of 2 weeks, what in the world would that change?
 
#3,735
#3,735
volinbham said:
So semi-Devil's Advocate question: given how much damage has been done to Iran's infrastructure, personnel, ICBM capabilities, etc. - seems the nuke issue should be off the table for a good number of years. The current leadership is old - maybe a bit more infrastructure degradation by Israel is enough and it avoids 1) us getting directly involved and 2) creating a premature regime change. When the current dude dies or is pushed out maybe the next group decides nukes aren't worth it. Pummel any known/suspected entries and supply conduits to the underground facilities and see where the next 5 years take us.
Click to expand...
I see where you're going, and in theory I agree it's as good an idea as any I've heard, there are flaws and drawbacks to almost every one. The only real fault I see in it is they are very careful in selecting their next leader, he always seems to fit the same mold.
 
#3,736
#3,736
Vol8188 said:
Why your focus on the timeline specifically? Rather than the overall point.

If I told you that you’re dying of cancer in 2 months and you live 4, is the timeline the most important element or the fact that you’re dying?

You can go from 60% uranium to weapons grade in 2-3 days. If everything goes right. But that’s not the important part here.

The important part is that they’re obviously attempting to make nuclear weapons. You accept that right?

So if they’re wrong about the timeline and let’s assume a hypothetical Iranian regime actually takes 4 months instead of 2 weeks, what in the world would that change?
Click to expand...
I definitely agree Iran is trying to get a nuke. No Islamic theocratic dictatorship should have access to such things. I agree with you on that.

The difference between 2 weeks and 4 months is actually quite massive. That buys Israel time to create an alternative plan of taking out the Fordow complex. There could even be a regime change in that amount of time. I honestly don't think they need us to deploy our GBU-57s.

I looked up the capacity of a C-130. It's 45,000 lbs. A GBU-57 weighs 30,000 lbs, so they could theoretically drop one of these from a C-130 if we sold them to Israel. Considering Israel controls the airspace over Iran completely, it isn't like these slower aircraft have a huge likelihood of being shot down.
 
#3,737
#3,737
Matt2496 said:
I definitely agree Iran is trying to get a nuke. No Islamic theocratic dictatorship should have access to such things. I agree with you on that.

The difference between 2 weeks and 4 months is actually quite massive. That buys Israel time to create an alternative plan of taking out the Fordow complex. There could even be a regime change in that amount of time. I honestly don't think they need us to deploy our GBU-57s.

I looked up the capacity of a C-130. It's 45,000 lbs. A GBU-57 weighs 30,000 lbs, so they could theoretically drop one of these from a C-130 if we sold them to Israel. Considering Israel controls the airspace over Iran completely, it isn't like these slower aircraft have a huge likelihood of being shot down.
Click to expand...

Once the attacks start, you realize the two week timeline moves, right?

I think that’s part of the problem. When you give a timeline, you’ve giving the best case. It’s like saying “they’re a mile away and running, how fast can they get here!”. Well, best case scenario is about 4 minutes. If it takes them 10, I’m not going to proclaim I was lied to about them being one mile away. If someone tries to fight them in the middle of their mile run, it’s likely going to take even longer.

Here’s an example. Through one specific form of cyber warfare that started in 2010, they may have set back Iran years. You add that, the Obama deal, you add assassinations, numerous sanctions, etc and of course the timeframe gets set back.

1750386186891.jpeg
 
Last edited:
#3,738
#3,738
Iran-backed militias have threatened to join in the war with Israel if the Trump administration enters the Israel-Iran conflict.

Iraqi militia Kataib Hezbollah vowed to attack US military bases in the Middle East should the US launch a strike on Iran.

'We reaffirm, with even greater clarity, that should the United States enter into this war, the deranged (US President Donald) Trump shall forfeit all the trillions he dreams of seizing from this region.

'Operational plans have been established for that purpose,' Abu Ali al-Askari, the security leader of Kataib Hezbollah, said in a statement today.

Meanwhile, the leader of Hezbollah, a pro-Iran Lebanese militant group, said it would 'act as we see fit' in response to the ongoing war between its main backer Iran and Israel.

www.dailymail.co.uk

LIVE: Pro-Iran militias threaten to join war with Israel

President Donald Trump will wait another two weeks before deciding whether or not to intervene in Israel's war with Iran in the hope of a peace-deal being brokered in the Middle East before then.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
#3,739
#3,739
volinbham said:
So semi-Devil's Advocate question: given how much damage has been done to Iran's infrastructure, personnel, ICBM capabilities, etc. - seems the nuke issue should be off the table for a good number of years. The current leadership is old - maybe a bit more infrastructure degradation by Israel is enough and it avoids 1) us getting directly involved and 2) creating a premature regime change. When the current dude dies or is pushed out maybe the next group decides nukes aren't worth it. Pummel any known/suspected entries and supply conduits to the underground facilities and see where the next 5 years take us.
Click to expand...
That's my concern with regime change. Those closest to power are more hardline than the current F-wad
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#3,740
#3,740
KB5252 said:
I see where you're going, and in theory I agree it's as good an idea as any I've heard, there are flaws and drawbacks to almost every one. The only real fault I see in it is they are very careful in selecting their next leader, he always seems to fit the same mold.
Click to expand...

well then rinse and repeat - I have little doubt Israel and the U.S. abilities will advance quicker than the Iranian ones will.

I think the bigger deal is that their ability to materially support and fund all their militia partners (Hamas, Hezbo, Houti, etc) is severely degraded. As long as they can't get a nuke in the next so odd years they've been pretty well neutered already.
 
#3,741
#3,741
Further, seems several of the Arab states are prepping for a post-oil economy where supporting radicalization doesn't have the same power that it did when the world was dependent on them. Iran is the last hold out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and Vol8188
#3,742
#3,742
#3,743
#3,743
Vol8188 said:
Why your focus on the timeline specifically? Rather than the overall point.

If I told you that you’re dying of cancer in 2 months and you live 4, is the timeline the most important element or the fact that you’re dying?

You can go from 60% uranium to weapons grade in 2-3 days. If everything goes right. But that’s not the important part here.

The important part is that they’re obviously attempting to make nuclear weapons. You accept that right?

So if they’re wrong about the timeline and let’s assume a hypothetical Iranian regime actually takes 4 months instead of 2 weeks, what in the world would that change?
Click to expand...

Were? No evidence to support this. Speculative at best.

Now? Likely. Any rational actor would if they were being attacked like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#3,744
#3,744
Persian Vol said:
Were? No evidence to support this. Speculative at best.

Now? Likely. Any rational actor would if they were being attacked like this.
Click to expand...

Not speculative at all. Both the Iranian government and the UN admit they have enriched uranium to 60%.

Can you provide me with any alternative explanations for that?
 
#3,745
#3,745
volinbham said:
Further, seems several of the Arab states are prepping for a post-oil economy where supporting radicalization doesn't have the same power that it did when the world was dependent on them. Iran is the last hold out.
Click to expand...

I’ve never considered the idea that the realigning of the Middle East was due to fears of a future without oil dependence. It’s an interesting thought.
 
#3,748
#3,748
www.foreignaffairs.com

How Iran Lost

Tehran’s hard-liners squandered decades of strategic capital and undermined deterrence.
www.foreignaffairs.com www.foreignaffairs.com

"Whatever happens, the Iranian regime has doubtless lost its decades-long conflict with Israel. It will either have to give up its foundational political ideology and seek integration with the rest of the region through diplomatic and economic engagement, or it will need to double down on its beliefs, drawing further into itself. Ali Khamenei and the IRGC have lost; the regional status quo they established is finished."
 
#3,749
#3,749
Vol737 said:
Yes, Let’s just move on to tonight’s fireworks. Anything gone up yet?
Click to expand...
Seems like normal air strikes on reactors, a city near the port in Iran has been called to evacuate (idf gave prior warning), reports that khamenei’s bunker was directly hit (last I heard that was what is said)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top