AnimeSuki Forums

Urzu 7 · 2012-02-17, 15:47

@Zetsubo, a very real concern is terrorists getting a hold of the materials to make a 'dirty bomb', which is a small type of nuclear bomb. The blast is not the worst part of it. It is the radiation created from it that is the real concern (hence the name 'dirty bomb'; from the radiation fallout). So if terrorists got a hold of the nuclear materials needed to make one, and just constructed some using blueprints found out there on the net, they could set one off in Times Square. It would kill many initially, and then kill many more due to the radiation, and make many people in the area very ill.

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention, for those not familiar with dirty bombs, is that they can construct them so small, they can conceal a dirty bomb inside a suitcase. So this very damaging weapon could be carried around a metropolitan area and no one would know because the terrorist is just walking around in a business suit and what appears to be a normal suitcase.

SaintessHeart · 2012-02-17, 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

only if Iran or NK really wants to die. if a nuke explodes in the US and was determined to be of foreign origin both NK and Iran would instantly be vaporize. US wouldn't even bother to bring it up with the UN and both county knows it. And if DC was taken out some Nuke Sub commander would probably just add Pakistan and Afghanistan to the list and nuke them all.

That would be mutually assured destruction. If China and Russia had seen US having no qualms about wiping a country off the face of the Earth, they would have nuked US as a form of "exercising a protective option".

And do you think US would wait and let those ICBMs fly over orbit onto them? No, they would have thought, "If I die, you are dying with me" and fire off all their nukes at China and Russia before they get obliterated.

Ithekro · 2012-02-17, 16:12

Quote:

It has been said that other arab nations are suspicious of IRAN:

1. Is this true
2. and Why ?
3. how does this tie into us domestic politics ?

1. Yes

2. Multiple reasons: Balance of Power. Historical conflict between Persians and Arabs. Differences in their Islamic faith (different sects that have been in conflict since after the passing of Mohammed if I recall correctly). Economic issues: Saudi Arabia and Iran both sell a lot of oil....and are economic rivals because of it.

3. The US wants "friends" in the region besides just Israel. As if they have friends in the Arab states they can keep them off Isael for one, and get deals and assurance that the oil will flow. Because Iran is a rival power to the Arab states, and one of he main sea routes for oil goes thought the Strait of Hormuz, the US is the main defender of free access of navigation on the open seas (this use to be a task for the British Royal Navy), thus to be sure that their oil (and profits) get out of the Persian Gulf, the Arabs have to be friendly with the Americans for protection in case the Iranians want to block them off. In turn, blocking off the Iranians helps the profits of the Arab nations, thus is also something friendly the Americans can provide them.

Because Oil is a vital resource within the domestic economy of the United States, the oil must flow. Even if the United States has its own oil, it still consumes more than it produces (presently) for everything from heating oil, to gasoline, to plastics. It is theorized that the United States is attempting to drain the Arabs (and possibly the Iranians as well) of their oil first, and then retap their own resources at the higher prices and make even more profit...as then they will be the main source of oil (again). While that might not help the people of the United States at all...it does help the corperations, and via taxes the country...and via lobbying...the politicians.

While it is not entirely over oil....it is mostly over oil. There are cultural reasoning, historical reasonings to have interests in the region...but most of those are in Israel (or Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, or Egypt...there is not much, outside of Islamic history and culture, in any of those places outside the "Fertile Crecent"...as it is desert....at least for Western civilization.). And of course political posturing between the United States, Russia, and China. Strategic positioning and alliances are bound to happen.

There is of course the whole "End of the World" business that tends to be focused around Israel...but to be fair, the ones writting those texts were Jewish. It is just there are a numbers of Christians and Orthodox Jews that seem to either want it to happen sooner, or want to go through greast lengths to prevent it from happening.

Zetsubo · 2012-02-17, 16:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urzu 7

@Zetsubo, a very real concern is terrorists getting a hold of the materials to make a 'dirty bomb', which is a small type of nuclear bomb. The blast is not the worst part of it. It is the radiation created from it that is the real concern (hence the name 'dirty bomb'; from the radiation fallout). So if terrorists got a hold of the nuclear materials needed to make one, and just constructed some using blueprints found out there on the net, they could set one off in Times Square. It would kill many initially, and then kill many more due to the radiation, and make many people in the area very ill.

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention, for those not familiar with dirty bombs, is that they can construct them so small, they can conceal a dirty bomb inside a suitcase. So this very damaging weapon could be carried around a metropolitan area and no one would know because the terrorist is just walking around in a business suit and what appears to be a normal suitcase.

I see.

But wouldn't the terrorists claim some kind of victory after such a possible bombing ?

Would they not want to crow about how they hurt the "filthy zionists" ?

That would be a dead giveaway about who and where the bomb comes from.

IRAN would be mad to supply the technology to the USA and hope to fight a war by proxy (using terrorists) and think that the USA wouldn't terminate them on the spot.

The pain that IRAN would feel from a detonation in times square would be far grater than the actual citizens living in and around times square.

I am talking about the magnitude of response if you are found out.

A device can't be detonated without a response and trigger a state of war...

and you do not want "enrage the people"an industrial giant capable of unleashing pinpoint destruction of your whole country.

IRAN bloody well knows the technical capabilities of the USA... they have a drone... they know how far the USA is and how far they are likely to get... plus the secrets.

No one new the USA had true stealth choppers... now the world knows... shocked... even China was gasping. Pakistan was embarrassed.. but why... its nothing your systems were capable of detecting.

So what else has uncle sam got up its sleeve ?

ISRAEL is another bad dog to worry about.

And if the idea of the other Arab nations turning against you is true... IRAN is in for a rude awakening.

North Korea is controlled... China won't be so forgiving if NK does anything to hurt their biggest customer, the hand that feeds them... and South Korea is NO PUSH OVER

But Iran can be isolated ... they must feel terrified... but nukes are not the way to go really ... HOWEVER !

If they do not obtain nukes... their nation may be weakened from the inside.

There is a concept that you do not want to EVER destabilize a country with nuclear power and weapons.

IRAN knows the USA and Israel will not try to blatantly undermine them from inside (espionage) if they have Nuclear technology. They will be larglely left alone.

The case of Egypt revolting against their leaders is one in point.

If anything... nuclear weapons ensure that Iran is allowed to have a stable economy and government in order that the weapons not be destroyed.

In other words the diplomatic game changes... because the West cannot afford an Egypt situation in IRAN... so they won't try to "foment rebellion" in IRAN once iran gets the technology.

So it will be a victory for IRAN.

MAD has benefits... IRAN is no where near MAD capabilities... but it will secure its internal peace of mind and be left alone to a better extent than now.

So let them have their nukes... the BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH IRAN IS TO NOT NEED OIL.

So if the West decides to really begin work in alternative energy production and free itself of oil... A LOT of the problems we have now will be gone.

Iran doesn't need nuclear energy by the way... crock... they have oil... so we all know its bollocks... but they need to ensure no one comes into iran to cause trouble.

Basically.. IRAN is making itself into a glass house... so now one throws any kind og stones from the inside.. or out.

Xellos-_^ · 2012-02-17, 16:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That would be mutually assured destruction. If China and Russia had seen US having no qualms about wiping a country off the face of the Earth, they would have nuked US as a form of "exercising a protective option".

as long as the US hasn't fire anything at China or Russia i doubt either country would fire at the US. Neither country is ready to nuke off the map which is what happen if they involve themselves in something that doesn't involve them.

Zetsubo · 2012-02-17, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

1. Yes
2. Multiple reasons: Balance of Power. Historical conflict between Persians and Arabs. Differences in their Islamic faith (different sects that have been in conflict since after the passing of Mohammed if I recall correctly). Economic issues: Saudi Arabia and Iran both sell a lot of oil....and are economic rivals because of it.

3. The US wants "friends" in the region besides just Israel. As if they have friends in the Arab states they can keep them off Isael for one, and get deals and assurance that the oil will flow. Because Iran is a rival power to the Arab states, and one of he main sea routes for oil goes thought the Strait of Hormuz, the US is the main defender of free access of navigation on the open seas (this use to be a task for the British Royal Navy), thus to be sure that their oil (and profits) get out of the Persian Gulf, the Arabs have to be friendly with the Americans for protection in case the Iranian want to block them off. In turn, blocking off the Iranians helps the profits of the Arab nations, thus is also something friendly the Americans can provide them.
Because Oil is a vital resource within the domestic economy of the United States, the oil must flow. Even if the United States has its own oil, it still consumes more than it produces (presently) for everything from heating oil, to gasoline, to plastics. it is theorized that the United States is attempting to drain the Arabs (and possibly the Iranians as well) of their oil first, and then retap their own resources at the higher prices and make even more profit...as now they will be the main source of oil (again). While that might not help the people of the United States at all...it does help the corperations, and via taxes the country...and via lobbying...the politicians.

While it is not entirely over oil....it is mostly over oil. There are cultural reasoning, historical reasonings to have interests in the region...but most of those are in Israel (or Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, or Egypt...there is not much, outside of Islamic history and culture, in any of those places outside the "Fertile Crecent"...as it is desert....at least for Western civilization.). And of course political posturing between the United States, Russia, and China. Strategic positioning and alliances are bound to happen.

THE SPICE MUST FLOW !

The beginning is a very delicate time. Know then that it is the year 10191. The Known Universe is ruled by the Padishah Emperor Shaddam IV, my father. In this time, the most precious substance in the universe is the spice Melange. The spice extends life. The spice expands consciousness. The spice is vital to space travel. The Spacing Guild and its navigators, who the spice has mutated over 4,000 years, use the orange spice gas, which gives them the ability to fold space. That is, travel to any part of universe without moving.
Oh, yes. I forgot to tell you — the spice exists on only one planet in the entire universe. A desolate, dry planet with vast deserts. Hidden away within the rocks of these deserts are a people known as the Fremen, who have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah who would lead them to true freedom. The planet is Arrakis, also known as Dune.

Kokukirin · 2012-02-17, 16:21

Quote:

For some perspective:

It has been said that other arab nations are suspicious of IRAN:

1. Is this true
2. and Why ?
3. how does this tie into us domestic politics ?

1. Yes

2. Iran is the Shia Muslim country. Many Arab states are ruled by Sunni but have a significant Shia population. They are quite concerned that a powerful Iran will seek to assert its influence in the region and undermine their rule.

Then there was the Iraq-Iran War. The Arabs were largely on Iraq's side, supporting financially.

3. This is mostly a foreign policy issue. The Arab states and Israel are US allies. Keeping Iran in check means US interests in that region are not threatened.

In terms of domestic politics, the most likely effect is the spiking oil price in face of rising tension in ME.

SaintessHeart · 2012-02-17, 16:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

as long as the US hasn't fire anything at China or Russia i doubt either country would fire at the US. Neither country is ready to nuke off the map which is what happen if they involve themselves in something that doesn't involve them.

Fear is a powerful emotion. The Russians were scared stiff by US following the collapse of the USSR, so are a number of ex-Soviet states. The US didn't move to destabilise their archenemy because the collapse of Federal Russia would mean that a whole crapload of ICBMs would make their way out of the silos and into the hands of unwanted people.

Who knows, that same kind of fear that the US will nuke them next after Iran might trigger the MAD.

Xellos-_^ · 2012-02-17, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Fear is a powerful emotion. The Russians were scared stiff by US following the collapse of the USSR, so are a number of ex-Soviet states. The US didn't move to destabilise their archenemy because the collapse of Federal Russia would mean that a whole crapload of ICBMs would make their way out of the silos and into the hands of unwanted people.

Who knows, that same kind of fear that the US will nuke them next after Iran might trigger the MAD.

Both the Russians and Chinese can detect the ICBM and project their course. No advantage in shooting the US first unless the US has already fire at them because the US will retaliate when being fire on.

Zetsubo · 2012-02-17, 16:38

So all in all is

1: US foreign policy about defending Israel at the expense of a specific set of people who just happen to be Muslim people... who also happen to have a bone to pick with Jews ?

2: Defending Arab nations so that the "spice flows" at the expense of a Persian nation who doesn't want to be controlled by "Judeo Christian infidels"

monsta666 · 2012-02-17, 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kokukirin

I don't think Iran has the ability to strike US with nukes. But Israel is certainly within its range. And for a country of Israel's size, a nuke will devastate almost the entire country. Iran, in turn, will be hit by Israel's god-knows-how-many nukes.

It is highly unlikely that Iran will actually strike Israel with nukes, but the possibility is there. I'd strongly prefer not to have another nuclear rivalry that is even worse than India-Pakistan.

The Arab countries are also highly suspicious of Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran will certainly start a regional arm race in ME. That, of course, is not a scenario that Israel and US would like to see.

IMO it would be highly irresponsible if US just let Iran do what they like without regard for its regional allies. And in the end a more uncertain future will bite back at US, in form of oil price hikes, or perhaps something worse.

If we consider the fact Iran has never initiated a war for hundreds of years this risk is unlikely. It is a open secret Israel has nuclear weapons so to fire a nuclear weapon would be suicide. Nuclear weapons are not meant to be fired but used as a deterrent to prevent countries from starting a unprovoked war i.e. another Iraq. Iran does not want to be under foreign occupation like Iraq so they probably see a nuclear weapon as the best way of achieving this objective.

As for the rivalry, it is certainly there between Israel and Iran but again the chances of conflict are quite minimal if you consider they have not initiated attacks on other countries. A nuclear war would most likely happen if Israel decided to attack Iran which is unlikely. If such a war broke out the damage inflicted would be beyond comprehension. None of the major powers such as Russia, China and the US would support it and they would not allow anyone to get too out of line. I think the risks of nuclear war are overstated for politic ends.

Zetsubo · 2012-02-17, 16:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by monsta666

If we consider the fact Iran has never initiated a war for hundreds of years this risk is unlikely. It is a open secret Israel has nuclear weapons so to fire a nuclear weapon would be suicide. Nuclear weapons are not meant to be fired but used as a deterrent to prevent countries from starting a unprovoked war i.e. another Iraq. Iran does not want to be under foreign occupation like Iraq so they probably see a nuclear weapon as the best way of achieving this objective.

As for the rivalry, it is certainly there between Israel and Iran but again the chances of conflict are quite minimal if you consider they have not initiated attacks on other countries. A nuclear war would most likely happen if Israel decided to attack Iran which is unlikely. If such a war broke out the damage inflicted would be beyond comprehension. None of the major powers such as Russia, China and the US would support it and they would not allow anyone to get too out of line. I think the risks of nuclear war are overstated for politic ends.

Sooo... basically feeding the fear monster ?

Fear is the mind killer !

You get the people to be fearful and they stop thinking.

They become controllable ... The militarists in Japan did this to Japanese people... telling them that the US troops were demons that would rape women, kill men and eat children.

So many civilian people (Okinawa) killed themselves rather than surrender because they were so fearfully brainwashed that they thought death was better than being a Slave to the Yankee demons.

If you want complete control and loyalty of your voters... drive them to fear... then they will willing go into the matrix.

(US example of fear feeding: Obama is an ungodly, non-christian, black muslim demon, not born in the USA. He will sell us out to the hayrabbs)

To obtain power. the DEMS and more obviously the REPS will feed the fear... the surrender of the minds of these people... gives them power as their reality will will be replaced by the simulation of "fear news" and infotainment you provide them... stroking and feeding that fear while promising actions to relive that fear ... soon... but in the end...

the spice must flow.

Ithekro · 2012-02-17, 17:01

Iran with nuclear energy gains a few things.

One: they can maximize oil profits by not needing oil for their own power needs.

Two: They can make their own medical equipment that requires lesser radiactives only possible if one has the nuclear technology to produce.

Three: It can reduce its enviromental issues by producing less carbon - Kyoto Accords (I don't know if they actually care about this or not).

And of course with the proper technology they can also produce weapons. The news, the Israelis, some Americans, and some Arabs, believe this is the entire reasoning behind Iran's nuclear aims. This may or may not be true. However with the amount of pressure being place in Iran...it may be a self-made prophecy.

As for fear about the bomb and those countries that made them that are not the originals...India, Pakistan, and Israel did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They specifically protested the thing and did not sign seeing it as their right to make such weapons (either at the present (Israel...though they still do not confirm or deny that they have them) of the future, as India and Pakistan didn't get such weapons until around the end of the Cold War). North Korea used a clause to back out of the treaty legally...though likely were working on the weapons beforehand illegally. Iran, signed the treaty and has not backed out of it as of yet. So they are still bound by said treaty. It is a diplomatic honor thing.

The worry that has been around since at least 1980 has been "what if one of these countries sells a bomb to terrorists". In the early 1980s it was always Libya in the films that was either the provider of nuclear materials, or the one that desired said materials for a bomb to use against either the Americans, the British, or the Israelis. In the 1990s it was Iraq who was trying to do the same thing in movies and television. Sometimes in both decades it was Iran, but usually Iran was associated with Airline hijacking than atomic bombs..taking the place of Cubans and Russians from the 1960s or 1970s. By the 2000s it was the general Islamic Terrorists...we didn't even both to give them a specific country anymore most of the time in films. Now in the 2010s it seems to be shifting back to Iran instead of random terrorists. Or random terrorists supported by Iran. That seems to be popular again.

It hasn't happened yet. But they say...someday it will happen. New York City with all its transients and suburbs has around 22 million people in it. Iran has around 75 million people in the entire country. Of course one bomb isn't going to be able to destroy the entire area around New York City, but even the likely target, Manhattan, has 1 and a half million people living there, plus those that work there. That you could probably take out with good bomb. Tehran has a similar sized poluation, thought only about half the size. Retribution would not be kind if someone exploded a nuclear device in Tehran in responce to a bombing in New York City. About equal numbers of people would die. Only depending on the device, Tehran would likely be inhabitable sooner than New York.

Xellos-_^ · 2012-02-17, 17:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Iran with nuclear energy gains a few things.

One: they can maximize oil profits by not needing oil for their own power needs.

Two: They can make their own medical equipment that requires lesser radiactives only possible if one has the nuclear technology to produce.

Three: It can reduce its enviromental issues by producing less carbon - Kyoto Accords (I don't know if they actually care about this or not).

And of course with the proper technology they can also produce weapons. The news, the Israelis, some Americans, and some Arabs, believe this is the entire reasoning behind Iran's nuclear aims. This may or may not be true. However with the amount of pressure being place in Iran...it may be a self-made prophecy.

that might not be their original aim but Iran hasn't really done much of a job in trying to persuade people otherwise that they can be trust with nuke tech. In that effect it is their own fault.

Ledgem · 2012-02-17, 17:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The worry that has been around since at least 1980 has been "what if one of these countries sells a bomb to terrorists".

I think it's a valid concern, but I also wonder if there isn't some tunnel-vision occurring when people hear the word "nuclear." There are a lot of tools that a terrorist could use to kill, such as conventional explosives, biological agents (although this stuff is more science fiction than reality), and chemicals (nerve gases). Is something nuclear really that much worse, or that much easier to get an attack off with?

I remember reading an article a few years ago which stated that the idea behind "dirty bombs" was fairly baseless, and that people were making a much larger deal out of it than it would be in reality. In my mind, it doesn't seem like a terrorist's ideal tool, either. Terrorist attacks are rarely about simply killing people, but rather are about making a statement. Radiation attacks are not particularly flashy, and the effects generally won't be immediate.

Is the threat overblown?

Ithekro · 2012-02-17, 17:20

I remind myself on spy films of the 1950s to 1970s. Where the fear was the Soviet either selling a bomb to some little country or terrorist group...or more often, some random terrorist group seeking world dominion would steal a nuclear decide from any one of the nuclear powers to hold the world ransom. Sometimes they involved either North Korea or Cuba in there plots. Rarely China. And almost never Vietnam.

Now in the present, no one seriously believes that Iran or "some random terrotist group" is going to be able to hold the world hostage with a nuclear weapon. Now we just thing they are crazy and won't bother with the ransom and just blow something up.

A "dirty bomb" in the conventional sense, is what was used on Japan. Those atomic bombs were primative by todays standards. And yet still large and complex. Present day neclear weapons are suppose to be "cleaner". They are more efficient at destroying a region over contaminating the region. The idea in warfare is that you want to take the land and resouces....eventually, and not have to wait a generation or two to get them.

Kokukirin · 2012-02-17, 17:20

@Ithekro: At this point there is no doubt of Iran's intention to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charge, but all signs are pointing to it. There is no more "may or may not". It is now a matter of when and whether it can be stopped. To call the situation self-made prophecy is rather off the mark. Iran clearly set out to build nukes from the start.

Vallen Chaos Valiant · 2012-02-17, 17:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

that might not be their original aim but Iran hasn't really done much of a job in trying to persuade people otherwise that they can be trust with nuke tech. In that effect it is their own fault.

And you think Israel can be trusted with nuke tech? Or Pakistan?

Who cares if you don't trust them with nuke tech? America and Britain overthrew a democratic elected government there and replaced it with a corrupt dictator, what made you think they care if the Western powers trust them or not?

America has no right to call Iranians untrustworthy. America and Britain wrecked their country, their animosity is in every way justified. There is no need to pretend there is any moral high ground here. Iran has every right to believe America wants to wipe them out from the face of the Earth, and take measures accordingly to protect themselves. Hey, don't forget America also justified pre-emptive strikes. Iran is a nation with a popular government, it isn't going to accept being treated like anything less than a sovereign state. Just ignore its nuclear weapons program the same way America ignores Israel's. I believe in fair treatment of everyone.

Look, there is a lot of bad blood going on, it just isn't going to solve itself by the United States acting like it is some hero of justice. Iran wants nukes because, rightly, it believe its survival depends on it. Tell me a possible scenario where Iran can survive without nukes, and I would love to hear it.

DonQuigleone · 2012-02-17, 17:29

Iran (Persia) has long been one of the most powerful countries of the region. There have been at least 4 or 5 historical Persian states that have held dominance in the region over the last 3000 years. Furthermore, Persia has long been a cultural rival of Arabia in terms of influence. While Arabs have held sway over North Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Levant, Persia has been a prime influence in Central Asia and India, while rivalling Arabic culture in Mesopotamia (Iraq). A good example of this is that the prefix "-stan" is Persian in origin, and that prefix is used throughout Central Asia and the middle east (even india calls itself "Hindustan").

This historical rivalry is not so different then what you might see between any two historically powerful neighbours, for instance France and England, France and Germany, etc.

Not only that, but you have to remember that Iran is larger then any other single Arab state, besides Egypt. Because of that, every other arab nation is highly wary of Iran becoming a more powerful state.

Kokukirin · 2012-02-17, 17:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

And you think Israel can be trusted with nuke tech? Or Pakistan?

Who cares if you don't trust them with nuke tech? America and Britain overthrew a democratic elected government there and replaced it with a corrupt dictator, what made you think they care if the Western powers trust them or not?

America has no right to call Iranians untrustworthy. America and Britain wrecked their country, their animosity is in every way justified. There is no need to pretend there is any moral high ground here. Iran has every right to believe America wants to wipe them out from the face of the Earth, and take measures accordingly to protect themselves. Hey, don't forget America also justified pre-emptive strikes. Iran is a nation with a popular government, it isn't going to accept being treated like anything less than a sovereign state. Just ignore its nuclear weapons program the same way America ignores Israel's. I believe in fair treatment of everyone.

Foreign policy has never been about fairness and rights. And well, Iran doesn't actually have rights to make nukes - they signed the NPT.

Interfering with Iran was a monumental mistake. But you don't right the past wrong by letting them get nukes.

2012-02-17, 15:47	Link #2741
Urzu 7 Juanita/Kiteless Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: New England Age: 40	@Zetsubo, a very real concern is terrorists getting a hold of the materials to make a 'dirty bomb', which is a small type of nuclear bomb. The blast is not the worst part of it. It is the radiation created from it that is the real concern (hence the name 'dirty bomb'; from the radiation fallout). So if terrorists got a hold of the nuclear materials needed to make one, and just constructed some using blueprints found out there on the net, they could set one off in Times Square. It would kill many initially, and then kill many more due to the radiation, and make many people in the area very ill. Edit: One thing I forgot to mention, for those not familiar with dirty bombs, is that they can construct them so small, they can conceal a dirty bomb inside a suitcase. So this very damaging weapon could be carried around a metropolitan area and no one would know because the terrorist is just walking around in a business suit and what appears to be a normal suitcase. __________________

2012-02-17, 17:01	Link #2753
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	Iran with nuclear energy gains a few things. One: they can maximize oil profits by not needing oil for their own power needs. Two: They can make their own medical equipment that requires lesser radiactives only possible if one has the nuclear technology to produce. Three: It can reduce its enviromental issues by producing less carbon - Kyoto Accords (I don't know if they actually care about this or not). And of course with the proper technology they can also produce weapons. The news, the Israelis, some Americans, and some Arabs, believe this is the entire reasoning behind Iran's nuclear aims. This may or may not be true. However with the amount of pressure being place in Iran...it may be a self-made prophecy. As for fear about the bomb and those countries that made them that are not the originals...India, Pakistan, and Israel did not sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. They specifically protested the thing and did not sign seeing it as their right to make such weapons (either at the present (Israel...though they still do not confirm or deny that they have them) of the future, as India and Pakistan didn't get such weapons until around the end of the Cold War). North Korea used a clause to back out of the treaty legally...though likely were working on the weapons beforehand illegally. Iran, signed the treaty and has not backed out of it as of yet. So they are still bound by said treaty. It is a diplomatic honor thing. The worry that has been around since at least 1980 has been "what if one of these countries sells a bomb to terrorists". In the early 1980s it was always Libya in the films that was either the provider of nuclear materials, or the one that desired said materials for a bomb to use against either the Americans, the British, or the Israelis. In the 1990s it was Iraq who was trying to do the same thing in movies and television. Sometimes in both decades it was Iran, but usually Iran was associated with Airline hijacking than atomic bombs..taking the place of Cubans and Russians from the 1960s or 1970s. By the 2000s it was the general Islamic Terrorists...we didn't even both to give them a specific country anymore most of the time in films. Now in the 2010s it seems to be shifting back to Iran instead of random terrorists. Or random terrorists supported by Iran. That seems to be popular again. It hasn't happened yet. But they say...someday it will happen. New York City with all its transients and suburbs has around 22 million people in it. Iran has around 75 million people in the entire country. Of course one bomb isn't going to be able to destroy the entire area around New York City, but even the likely target, Manhattan, has 1 and a half million people living there, plus those that work there. That you could probably take out with good bomb. Tehran has a similar sized poluation, thought only about half the size. Retribution would not be kind if someone exploded a nuclear device in Tehran in responce to a bombing in New York City. About equal numbers of people would die. Only depending on the device, Tehran would likely be inhabitable sooner than New York. __________________

2012-02-17, 17:20	Link #2756
Ithekro Gamilas Falls Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Republic of California Age: 46	I remind myself on spy films of the 1950s to 1970s. Where the fear was the Soviet either selling a bomb to some little country or terrorist group...or more often, some random terrorist group seeking world dominion would steal a nuclear decide from any one of the nuclear powers to hold the world ransom. Sometimes they involved either North Korea or Cuba in there plots. Rarely China. And almost never Vietnam. Now in the present, no one seriously believes that Iran or "some random terrotist group" is going to be able to hold the world hostage with a nuclear weapon. Now we just thing they are crazy and won't bother with the ransom and just blow something up. A "dirty bomb" in the conventional sense, is what was used on Japan. Those atomic bombs were primative by todays standards. And yet still large and complex. Present day neclear weapons are suppose to be "cleaner". They are more efficient at destroying a region over contaminating the region. The idea in warfare is that you want to take the land and resouces....eventually, and not have to wait a generation or two to get them. __________________

2012-02-17, 16:38	Link #2750
Zetsubo 著述遮断 Join Date: Jul 2009	So all in all is 1: US foreign policy about defending Israel at the expense of a specific set of people who just happen to be Muslim people... who also happen to have a bone to pick with Jews ? 2: Defending Arab nations so that the "spice flows" at the expense of a Persian nation who doesn't want to be controlled by "Judeo Christian infidels"

2012-02-17, 17:20	Link #2757
Kokukirin Shadow of Effilisi Join Date: Oct 2011	@Ithekro: At this point there is no doubt of Iran's intention to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies the charge, but all signs are pointing to it. There is no more "may or may not". It is now a matter of when and whether it can be stopped. To call the situation self-made prophecy is rather off the mark. Iran clearly set out to build nukes from the start.

2012-02-17, 17:29	Link #2759
DonQuigleone Knight Errant Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Dublin, Ireland Age: 35	Iran (Persia) has long been one of the most powerful countries of the region. There have been at least 4 or 5 historical Persian states that have held dominance in the region over the last 3000 years. Furthermore, Persia has long been a cultural rival of Arabia in terms of influence. While Arabs have held sway over North Africa, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Levant, Persia has been a prime influence in Central Asia and India, while rivalling Arabic culture in Mesopotamia (Iraq). A good example of this is that the prefix "-stan" is Persian in origin, and that prefix is used throughout Central Asia and the middle east (even india calls itself "Hindustan"). This historical rivalry is not so different then what you might see between any two historically powerful neighbours, for instance France and England, France and Germany, etc. Not only that, but you have to remember that Iran is larger then any other single Arab state, besides Egypt. Because of that, every other arab nation is highly wary of Iran becoming a more powerful state.