BF2S Forums Iran holds enough uranium for bomb

Last edited by Poseidon (2009-02-19 20:18:17)

Poseidon wrote:

You stay classy, Mahmoud.

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2009-02-19 20:18:48)

Poseidon wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

You stay classy, Mahmoud.

You keep using overused jokes, Poseidon.

and not all muslims are crazy and don't care, but the ayatollah and mahmoud sure are

you're an overused joke

isn't the Ayatollah really the one in charge of the nuke program anyways?

Poseidon wrote:

And if they detonate that one nuclear bomb that they're probably making, they'll be faced with about 2800 raining down on them from several locations in the world.

You stay classy, Mahmoud.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

they are using it for electricity... this report is completely bogus...lol

Harmor wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

they are using it for electricity... this report is completely bogus...lol

Yep...the bomb will be used for peaceful means.  I mean what do you think they would do with a nuclear bomb?   :-P

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I'm more concerned with the numerous nukes the Russkies have supposedly lost in the last 20 years.  The US resumed building nukes some time ago in violation of the NPT, so it's not like we can use that card against them.  The moment any facility that could further enrich their uranium gets built Israel will blow it up and the US will pressure Iran into not doing anything.

Are we replacing or just building up? It seems kinda stupid considering this:

The United States responds to criticism of its disarmament record by pointing out that since the end of the Cold War it has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons and eliminated over 80% of its deployed strategic warheads and 90% of non-strategic warheads deployed to NATO, in the processing eliminating whole categories of warheads and delivery systems and reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons. U.S. officials have also pointed out the United States' ongoing -- and, throughout 2007, sharply accelerating -- work to dismantle nuclear warheads. When current accelerated dismantlement efforts ordered by President George W. Bush have been completed, the U.S. arsenal will be less than a quarter of its size at the end of the Cold War, and smaller than it has been at any point since the Eisenhower administration, well before the drafting of the NPT. The United States has also purchased many thousands of weapons' worth of uranium formerly in Soviet nuclear weapons for conversion into reactor fuel.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

I'm more concerned with the numerous nukes the Russkies have supposedly lost in the last 20 years.  The US resumed building nukes some time ago in violation of the NPT, so it's not like we can use that card against them.  The moment any facility that could further enrich their uranium gets built Israel will blow it up and the US will pressure Iran into not doing anything.

Are we replacing or just building up? It seems kinda stupid considering this:

The United States responds to criticism of its disarmament record by pointing out that since the end of the Cold War it has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons and eliminated over 80% of its deployed strategic warheads and 90% of non-strategic warheads deployed to NATO, in the processing eliminating whole categories of warheads and delivery systems and reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons. U.S. officials have also pointed out the United States' ongoing -- and, throughout 2007, sharply accelerating -- work to dismantle nuclear warheads. When current accelerated dismantlement efforts ordered by President George W. Bush have been completed, the U.S. arsenal will be less than a quarter of its size at the end of the Cold War, and smaller than it has been at any point since the Eisenhower administration, well before the drafting of the NPT. The United States has also purchased many thousands of weapons' worth of uranium formerly in Soviet nuclear weapons for conversion into reactor fuel.

We are replacing old-school, giant blow-em outta the water-style nukes with smaller "tactical nukes", whatever that phrase means.  It is ridiculous, and it really paints the US in a bad light internationally.  How are we supposed to reduce the levels of nukes across the board if the US government shows a wanton disregard for an international treaty that it helped push forward?  It's another case of the US government showing that it will agree to international mandates on a piecemeal basis, only if and when we see fit.  There is a trend regarding that fact and it transcends administrations and party lines.  It is kind of depressing really.

Kmarion wrote:

I'm not being sarcastic. What part of the treaty exactly is being violated? Sincerely.


Are we replacing them with safer alternatives?

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-02-19 21:43:37)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I'm not being sarcastic. What part of the treaty exactly is being violated? Sincerely.


Are we replacing them with safer alternatives?

We probably are (or will be soon) in violation of the ABM Treaty, which I think the US is no longer a participant in (so in violation according to the rest of the world, not in violation according to our government).  I know the US reached an agreement with India regarding dual-use technology and assistance in their nuclear weapons program, which would be a direct violation of the "not assisting a state from gaining nuclear weapons" part of the treaty.  Plus the development of new nuclear technology like bunker busters is a direct violation of the "not building any more nuclear weapons" part of the treaty (one of the main tenants of the treaty one would think).  There are also various other treaties and agreements that are kind of good-faith measures to go along with the NPT that the US has backed out of or not ratified over the years, including the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty.  There was another treaty brought up in the UN in 2004 in which the US was the sole "no" vote (FMCT).

So there are quantifiable violations and theoretical violations.  It all adds up to the US doing whatever it wants and also means the US is one of the major forces in making sure nuclear weapons are around for a long time.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I'm not being sarcastic. What part of the treaty exactly is being violated? Sincerely.


Are we replacing them with safer alternatives?

We probably are (or will be soon) in violation of the ABM Treaty, which I think the US is no longer a participant in (so in violation according to the rest of the world, not in violation according to our government).  I know the US reached an agreement with India regarding dual-use technology and assistance in their nuclear weapons program, which would be a direct violation of the "not assisting a state from gaining nuclear weapons" part of the treaty.  Plus the development of new nuclear technology like bunker busters is a direct violation of the "not building any more nuclear weapons" part of the treaty (one of the main tenants of the treaty one would think).  There are also various other treaties and agreements that are kind of good-faith measures to go along with the NPT that the US has backed out of or not ratified over the years, including the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty.  There was another treaty brought up in the UN in 2004 in which the US was the sole "no" vote (FMCT).

So there are quantifiable violations and theoretical violations.  It all adds up to the US doing whatever it wants and also means the US is one of the major forces in making sure nuclear weapons are around for a long time.