Iran

#1,928
#1,928
TVOLS said:
Just to add to your post without any knowledge, but I've been giving this some thought since the heat turned up a few days ago. Those underground facilities have to be really deep and do we or Israel have the weapons to actually destroy all the equipment in the Underground facilities? Our biggest bunker buster I believe is 200ft depth. I guess if you hit the hole over and over you would finally get to it. Destroying the entrance will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...
Did you not see Top Gun: Maverick they have to have ventilation shafts.😎
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#1,929
#1,929
EasternVol said:
You're trying to muddle the issue, which is why they're at 60%. It could be to get a better deal from their negotiations , which seems more likely since they're aware of the scrutiny they're under. Or they could have been trying to pull a fast one somehow and build a bomb. I don't know how they would have thought that would succeed.
So going back to the question, why would Tulsi have said there's no evidence Iran's trying to build a bomb if they were?
Click to expand...

Bomb and enriched uranium are two separate standards. Why do you only pick one random view that aligns with yours and pretend that’s the only valid view within the government? You would do this same cherry picking nonsense if it were one random IDF member and then pretend if I couldn’t tell you exactly why they made the statement they did, that it somehow mattered. Idk why she says anything she does and I really don’t care. Her statement doesn’t change the established facts.

In your own responses you’re admitting that they’re threatening nuclear capability. The only thing you’re questioning is if they’re doing it for negotiations or for military reasons. I’m very clearly stating those are the same thing. I don’t care if they’re only doing it to make people believe they will make a bomb for negotiation or if they’re actively trying to do the thing. Either way the answer is the same. You remove their capability to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, lukeneyland, chuckiepoo and 3 others
#1,932
#1,932
Vol8188 said:
Bomb and enriched uranium are two separate standards. Why do you only pick one random view that aligns with yours and pretend that’s the only valid view within the government? You would do this same cherry picking nonsense if it were one random IDF member and then pretend if I couldn’t tell you exactly why they made the statement they did, that it somehow mattered. Idk why she says anything she does and I really don’t care. Her statement doesn’t change the established facts.

In your own responses you’re admitting that they’re threatening nuclear capability. The only thing you’re questioning is if they’re doing it for negotiations or for military reasons. I’m very clearly stating those are the same thing. I don’t care if they’re only doing it to make people believe they will make a bomb for negotiation or if they’re actively trying to do the thing. Either way the answer is the same. You remove their capability to do so.
Click to expand...
Other possibilities may well exist. I didn't say or imply that they don't.
It might be semantics but imply doesn't always mean threaten.
Why would Tulsi say there's no evidence Iran's trying to build a bomb if there is such evidence?
 
#1,936
#1,936
Orangeburst said:
Israel only has tactical aircraft and a tiny air refueling fleet, and hauling multiple 5K pounders, if they even have them, uses a lot of fuel and you are not going to get a lot of range. In my understanding, depending on how deep the target, you sometimes have to drop a bunker buster on top of another bunker buster to get the required penetration.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, marcusluvsvols, Volsdeep4 and 2 others
#1,937
#1,937
EasternVol said:
Other possibilities may well exist. I didn't say or imply that they don't.
It might be semantics but imply doesn't always mean threaten.
Why would Tulsi say there's no evidence Iran's trying to build a bomb if there is such evidence?
Click to expand...

Most disingenuous person on this board, by far.

Bomb and enriched uranium are two different things. I don’t care about evidence of a bomb once we accept that they’re enriching uranium. It’s a pathetic argument and shows you truly have nothing.

It clearly means threat here. If you’re just using the idea that you might make a nuclear bomb as a “negotiation tactic” it’s obviously a threat.

The only reason to enrich uranium to this degree is to make nuclear weapons. Bottom line. That’s why the best you can come up with is “I don’t know”. That capability should be removed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp1 and lukeneyland
#1,938
#1,938
EasternVol said:
Other possibilities may well exist. I didn't say or imply that they don't.
It might be semantics but imply doesn't always mean threaten.
Why would Tulsi say there's no evidence Iran's trying to build a bomb if there is such evidence?
Click to expand...
I don't understand your continued drivel on this. Are you driving for a gotcha and merit badge award from the left? Maybe in March that was the case of no evidence. You are aware that to go from 60% to 90% enrichment takes about a week and to assemble a bomb another 3-6 weeks, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and volbound1700
#1,940
#1,940
EasternVol said:
Other possibilities may well exist. I didn't say or imply that they don't.
It might be semantics but imply doesn't always mean threaten.
Why would Tulsi say there's no evidence Iran's trying to build a bomb if there is such evidence?
Click to expand...
I guess it's most likely related to semantics and the language you use depending on the situation.

For example, when asked a question about an adversary you are in negotiations with you use the more flattering choice of words.

For instance Iran is not currently working on trying to build a bomb......... Because they don't have material to build it yet.............but they are working "toward" building the capacity for that weapon.

I'm not in her head but that's my guess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#1,944
#1,944
TVOLS said:
Just to add to your post without any knowledge, but I've been giving this some thought since the heat turned up a few days ago. Those underground facilities have to be really deep and do we or Israel have the weapons to actually destroy all the equipment in the Underground facilities? Our biggest bunker buster I believe is 200ft depth. I guess if you hit the hole over and over you would finally get to it. Destroying the entrance will accomplish nothing.
Click to expand...

Yep. Conventional munitions taking out the entrance would allow them the dig out. Depending on the actual capability of the thermobarics and fuel-air mixture delivery, I wonder if one exists which could eliminate the oxygen supply...basically suck the air out of the scientists' lungs?
 
#1,945
#1,945
Vol8188 said:
Most disingenuous person on this board, by far.

Bomb and enriched uranium are two different things. I don’t care about evidence of a bomb once we accept that they’re enriching uranium. It’s a pathetic argument and shows you truly have nothing.

It clearly means threat here. If you’re just using the idea that you might make a nuclear bomb as a “negotiation tactic” it’s obviously a threat.

The only reason to enrich uranium to this degree is to make nuclear weapons. Bottom line. That’s why the best you can come up with is “I don’t know”. That capability should be removed.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, your title is safe. I don't want it. Lying's not my thing.
Nuclear fuel for reactors is enriched too you know.
It doesn't clearly mean threat. Other possibilities exist.
That question about Tulsi that you keep dodging, what's the answer, or reasonable possibilities?
 
#1,947
#1,947
CobbVol said:
I don't understand your continued drivel on this. Are you driving for a gotcha and merit badge award from the left? Maybe in March that was the case of no evidence. You are aware that to go from 60% to 90% enrichment takes about a week and to assemble a bomb another 3-6 weeks, correct?
Click to expand...
It's a very pertinent question given the current situation. The answer would be very helpful in understanding what's going on and why.
 
#1,948
#1,948
EasternVol said:
Don't worry, your title is safe. I don't want it. Lying's not my thing.
Nuclear fuel for reactors is enriched too you know.
It doesn't clearly mean threat. Other possibilities exist.
That question about Tulsi that you keep dodging, what's the answer, or reasonable possibilities?
Click to expand...

It’s not enriched to 60% Once again…you have nothing.

I’ve answered numerous times. Bombs and enriched uranium are not the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volbound1700
#1,950
#1,950
KB5252 said:
I guess it's most likely related to semantics and the language you use depending on the situation.

For example, when asked a question about an adversary you are in negotiations with you use the more flattering choice of words.

For instance Iran is not currently working on trying to build a bomb......... Because they don't have material to build it yet.............but they are working "toward" building the capacity for that weapon.

I'm not in her head but that's my guess.
Click to expand...
Given whose head it is I suppose it may be possible that's what she was thinking. Although I think anyone else would say that working toward 90% enrichment is working toward building a bomb.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top