Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis.
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).


Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Effloresce
Someone


Member 3392

Level 4.59

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 11:49 AM #101 of 112
Originally Posted by Stealth
You have pretty much no evidence to make such a claim, other than dependent economies. Right.
Do any of us have real hard evidence? No, only speculation.

He does make a point though. China has a reliable business partner in the US.
China makes all kinds of things we use, from computer chips, tools, toys, and they're getting even larger than than now. Soon they will be rolling out new cards with a pricetag set at the same as ~$8,000-10,000 USD. They need us and, in a weird way, we need them.

Expect gas prices to just keep on rising, too. China is booming, and 10 years from now, lots of people are going to have cars. So they'll be tapping into the oil market as well.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Stealth
Indigo 1


Member 207

Level 22.37

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 07:20 PM Local time: Mar 20, 2006, 06:20 PM #102 of 112
Here's the thing. China is growing at an alarming rate. Sooner or later, at the rate our the American Economic decline, and China's growth, they won't be as dependent on us as we are on them. Saying that China will never attack the US because they need us is beying ridiculous.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?



loyalist
Carob Nut


Member 1217

Level 6.05

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 07:38 PM #103 of 112
Kind of like how Germany outstripped Britain's industrial capacity but could not get past the Royal Navy camping out in the English Channel.


Good luck with the Pacific.

FELIPE NO
Shoeless
The questgiver.


Member 834

Level 7.95

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 09:44 PM #104 of 112
Before we act rashly towards Iran, we should perhaps consider our other adventures in the Middle East and South Asia. Surely Afghanistan is now a moderate haven of democracy where religion is respected and tolerated. The same would most likely happen in Iran.

Oops.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4823874.stm

The Taliban and the Revolutionary Guard would be proud. Democracy, the tool that lets the masses oppress the minorities.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Last edited by Shoeless; Mar 20, 2006 at 10:26 PM.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 10:06 PM Local time: Mar 20, 2006, 08:06 PM #105 of 112
Originally Posted by Robo Jesus
As for compromise, what if the other side isn't willing to compromise? What’s more, why should they when they know they can get away with whatever they want?
Who knows. I don't think I'm smart enough to answer that question really. Compromise could be anything from the Russian deal to handle the enrichment of uranium, to having Israel get rid of it's suspected nuclear arsenal and declaring the Middle East a nuclear free zone.

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus
I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Iran in the wrong by violating a number of treaties with its current actions, actions with which there shouldn't be a need to compromise on as the treaties weren't supposed to be violated to begin with?
Technically I don't think there's any international law against the development of peaceful nuclear technology/energy. But which country has done that without building itself a few nukes? None that I know of.

America nor Israel can afford, nor will risk a "MAD"-like situation with Iran.

Most amazing jew boots
PUG1911
I expected someone like you. What did you expect?


Member 2001

Level 17.98

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 11:18 PM #106 of 112
Originally Posted by Watts
...which country has done that without building itself a few nukes? None that I know of.
Canada comes to mind at first, I'm not positive but I think Japan as well. There may be others as well, (Germany?).

There's nowhere I can't reach.
"The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote."
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2006, 11:36 PM Local time: Mar 20, 2006, 09:36 PM #107 of 112
Originally Posted by PUG1911
Canada comes to mind at first, I'm not positive but I think Japan as well. There may be others as well, (Germany?).
Slightly different situation. I don't think any of those countries have a nuclear reactor that's capable of pumping out weapons-grade plutonium.

Nuclear physics is not my area of expertise. I think there's a difference between the two kinds of reactors and processes applied. Something to do with how the uranium is enriched and processed by the reactor. Plus those countries allow IAEA oversight of their operations. Iran hasn't been forthcoming.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
Gumby
DANGEROUS WHEN WET


Member 1389

Level 22.25

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2006, 12:39 AM Local time: Mar 25, 2006, 07:39 AM #108 of 112
Originally Posted by Watts
Slightly different situation. I don't think any of those countries have a nuclear reactor that's capable of pumping out weapons-grade plutonium.

Nuclear physics is not my area of expertise. I think there's a difference between the two kinds of reactors and processes applied. Something to do with how the uranium is enriched and processed by the reactor. Plus those countries allow IAEA oversight of their operations. Iran hasn't been forthcoming.
They don't use a reactor to gather weapons grade uranium. Most reactors use less than 20% U235 where as the rest of the Uranium is U238. Weapons grade Uranium is usually greater than 90% U235 even though much lower percents can be used to make a bomb. There are several process' used to separate the two different isotopes of Uranium, however none of them require a nuclear reactor. Most methods rely on the slight differences in physical properties of the two isotopes. Did I mention that it is extremely expensive to enrich Uranium? I believe U238 is what we use in our DU ammunition.

List of countries with nuclear weapons.

Most amazing jew boots

"In a somewhat related statement. Hugging fat people is soft and comfy. <3" - Jan
"Jesus, Gumby. You just...came up with that off the top of your head?" - Alice
YeOldeButchere
Smoke. Peat. Delicious.


Member 246

Level 21.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2006, 01:29 AM #109 of 112
Uranium isn't such an attractive fuel for a nuclear bomb anyway. True, it allows for the construction of simple gun-triggered devices, something plutonium doesn't allow (technically speaking, it's not so much the plutonium as other impurities which are a by-product of the process used for plutonium production, but let's not go into details) and is perhaps slightly easier to handle, but otherwise it offers little advantage over plutonium. Plutonium, on the other hand, happens to be one of the major by-product of the nuclear reactions that happen in nuclear reactors and is created from U-238 which is plentiful. Thus it's easier to generate large quantities of plutonium than highly enriched uranium. Even "better", reprocessing is a legitimate activity in the peaceful nuclear fuel cycle, allowing to extract plutonium from spent fuel and later use it again in reactors.

With that said, there are plenty of countries which could easily enough get the bomb if they so much as wanted to. Canada, Japan and Germany are the most obvious examples, simply because they happen to have a mature nuclear industry, producing their own reactors designs and equipment, the necessary knowledge, often a complete nuclear fuel cycle and a strong industrial base in general. On top of that, they're trusted by most countries, and missing plutonium would likely not be that much of an international concern. Who'd believe someone saying "The Canadians are getting the bomb!"?

Other countries with a lesser technological and industrial base could get the bomb as well, but with a bit more difficulty. It essentially comes down to whether or not they already have at least one nuclear reactor, and whether they already have, or could reasonably easily build a reprocessing plant. With that taken care of, sure, you still have the theoretical side of things to take care of, but first of all, you're not looking at a H-bomb, making things much simpler, and the knowledge needed isn't exactly "cutting-edge" these days. And your average desktop computer likely has more computing power than was available at Los Alamos back in the forties.

The reason Iran is using uranium, or, well, is suspected to be using it for bombs, is simply that they happen to have a uranium enrichment plant and reconfiguring it for highly-enriched uranium production is easier than building a reprocessing plant. Other nations would likely follow North Korea's path and go with reprocessing.

I was speaking idiomatically.
The_Griffin
Nostalgia and Crossovers


Member 266

Level 32.27

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2006, 07:15 AM Local time: Mar 25, 2006, 05:15 AM #110 of 112
Originally Posted by YeOldeButchere
And your average desktop computer likely has more computing power than was available at Los Alamos back in the forties.
The first computer, ENIAC, was capable of processing I believe three thousand calculations per second. Today's processors make billions each second.

Understatement of the year.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
YeOldeButchere
Smoke. Peat. Delicious.


Member 246

Level 21.94

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2006, 12:11 PM #111 of 112
I know that. Though as far as I know the ENIAC wasn't used for anything related to A-bomb development, anyway. However I do know they used various mechanical calculating machines made by IBM at Los Alamos. Not that those are exactly powerful either.

FELIPE NO

Last edited by YeOldeButchere; Mar 25, 2006 at 12:14 PM.
Watts
"Thieves, Robbers, Politicians!"


Member 639

Level 21.12

Mar 2006


Reply With Quote
Old Mar 25, 2006, 05:14 PM Local time: Mar 25, 2006, 03:14 PM #112 of 112
Okay, I stand corrected by some very knowledgeable people.

Originally Posted by YeOldeButchere
On top of that, they're trusted by most countries, and missing plutonium would likely not be that much of an international concern. Who'd believe someone saying "The Canadians are getting the bomb!"?


So very true.

Most amazing jew boots
Reply

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.