Iran

Because then ol Rubio turned around and weaseled out the exact opposite of what he had just said. You know, as politicians do.

Remember again, this admin still hasn't figured out if we attacked to take out nukes, we attacked to prevent an attack, we attacked just because, or any number of reasons. We also will do a quick strike but maybe not, and Iranians can take back their country but maybe we need to do more.

Like I said, I'm young, but this whole thing is more farcical than anything I've ever seen. It's like a real life SNL skit, and I hate SNL.
Defensive preemptive strikes is so funny to me
 
First sentence in your link:

Iran accelerated its production of uranium enriched to near-weapons grade levels in November, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

'near-weapons grade' isn't weapons grade.
I'm guessing the idea is once you go beyond "normal" enrichment (under 20%) it starts getting pretty sketchy to play the "nothing to see here" game. That story had them at 60% enrichment followed by

"Accelerating the production of uranium enriched to 60 percent U-235 is concerning because the material can be quickly enriched to weapons-grade levels or 90 percent."

I guess the argument would be that waiting until we're actually aware of "weapons grade" enrichment levels might be a bit late.
 
Same here. Unsure how this statement from Rubio means anything different.

After a reporter asked Rubio to clarify whether the United States was forced to strike because of Israel’s plans, the secretary said no.
Because it directly contradicts what he just said was the reason! He realized he said it out loud and tried to backtrack

Friday night they claimed a peace deal was within our reach and both sides would continue. Saturday morning we're blowing stuff up after Israel Leroy Jenkins'd it and kicked things off. In what world did the actions of Israel not force our action?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
I'm guessing the idea is once you go beyond "normal" enrichment (under 20%) it starts getting pretty sketchy to play the "nothing to see here" game. That story had them at 60% enrichment followed by

"Accelerating the production of uranium enriched to 60 percent U-235 is concerning because the material can be quickly enriched to weapons-grade levels or 90 percent."

I guess the argument would be that waiting until we're actually aware of "weapons grade" enrichment levels might be a bit late.
And how was that not handled with last year's strike? There has been no evidence presented that they have started the program back up. It's not even mentioned as a reason we're bombing them now
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dobbs 4 Heisman
Because it directly contradicts what he just said was the reason! He realized he said it out loud and tried to backtrack

Friday night they claimed a peace deal was within our reach and both sides would continue. Saturday morning we're blowing stuff up after Israel Leroy Jenkins'd it and kicked things off. In what world did the actions of Israel not force our action?
I believe his first statement was correct no matter what he said trying to backtrack.
 
I've always wondered this and maybe one of you can answer.

If you don't get to the threshold for "weapons grade" what happens? Did it not meet the threshold for energy needed and it becomes a dirty bomb? A baby nuclear explosion? A thud with no reaction but a nuclear leak in a small area?
I have no idea. But I think it is a good question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KB5252
I gave the link to the exact question I asked. It was very simple. "Why did the United States choose to station the USS Gerald Ford next to Israel?"
Because of you are stationing ships in the Mediterranean ( see US Sixth Fleet) and you want to be as close as possible to your target (Iran); you place said ships in the Part of the Mediterranean that is actually closest to Iran. And that would be at the far eastern end which is the coast of Israel. Where else would you put them? Spain 🙄
Consult a map please
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
What did the Israelis have to gain by assassinating JFK?

Unlike Epstein is a Mossad asset, there isn't a ton of support for this, but Israel has had pretty close relationships with every POTUS for a while, and the theory is based on the fact that JFK was a hardass with them in some ways. I don't find it convincing, or the evidence interesting. But it's possible.
 
I'm guessing the idea is once you go beyond "normal" enrichment (under 20%) it starts getting pretty sketchy to play the "nothing to see here" game. That story had them at 60% enrichment followed by

"Accelerating the production of uranium enriched to 60 percent U-235 is concerning because the material can be quickly enriched to weapons-grade levels or 90 percent."

I guess the argument would be that waiting until we're actually aware of "weapons grade" enrichment levels might be a bit late.
Fair points. But hog's post was in reply to PJ asking about weapons grade. The answer was invalidated because the link was about "near weapons grade".
 

Advertisement



Back
Top