PDA

View Full Version : The Iranian Nuclear Showdown


TSA
04-26-2010, 03:11 AM
thoughts?

should the mother fuckers have a nuke?
is the US trippin?
is everyone else being Naive?
Israel....as RAEL as they claim?
what are the implications of a nuclear Iran?

EAGLE EYE
04-26-2010, 03:16 AM
Everyone loses in Nuclear warfare. Once the radiation gets in the cross winds (more near term birth defects appear) or as it increasingly builds up over time when countries 'trade shots' the human race dies off.

beautifulrock
04-26-2010, 03:20 AM
All I know is, both the US and Israel simply will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

EAGLE EYE
04-26-2010, 03:24 AM
All I know is, both the US and Israel simply will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

http://i30.tinypic.com/a4r8yr.gif

TSA
04-26-2010, 03:31 AM
I personally think the US is trippin waaaayyyyy too hard oer terrorism. it's only deep when you make it deep and anyone that doesn't believe me should look up "the mad mullah' and how he was fucking up the british in somalia. terrorist are like the kid that are specifically built to annoy others.

if you give them attention they get more annoying. engage them and the annoyance will overwhelm you and cause you to act belligerently until you fail


the reason i bring this up is cause we're affraid that iran will give nukes to 'terrorists'

but you know what? fuck it. If terrorists wanted a nuke and had the capability to set one off they would have it and would have used it. these 'terrorists' aren't a real advisary like we're trying to make them out to be (and by default making them) just scattered angry ppl that will always exst and have always existed



a nuclear iran would do nothing wrong to the world except make iran more untouchable to the west, which is ok cause if they fuck around with any real niggers they'll still get fucked like Daphne.

Everyone loses in Nuclear warfare. Once the radiation gets in the cross winds (more near term birth defects appear) or as it increasingly builds up over time when countries 'trade shots' the human race dies off.
the nuclear bomb is the official 'too much' of the international community, but if there's an area where a nuclear war is likely to PAWP OFF, it's the middle east and they're too gay to consider the damage on the rest of the world.

TSA
04-26-2010, 03:33 AM
http://i30.tinypic.com/a4r8yr.gif
AHAHAHAHAHahaAHAAHAHAHHAHH!!
Brock is ruining the cool kids table's new snack lunch scent

SID
04-26-2010, 06:21 AM
Iran should be able to conduct their affairs without being pestered and bullied by US and Israel, Iran wants nuclear power like eveyone else, i mean its not fair that Israel is the only nuclear power in the M.E, shits just not right.

beautifulrock
04-26-2010, 06:33 AM
AHAHAHAHAHahaAHAAHAHAHHAHH!!
Brock is ruining the cool kids table's new snack lunch scentAt least I don't smell like a filthy nigger.

Longbongcilvaringz
04-26-2010, 08:59 AM
Fuck Iran, they should not be allowed to proliferate.

Fuck those faggits talking about "peaceful nuclear energy", fuck that shit. Nobody is buying it.

And fuck the US, the most war mongering and aggressive nation, with a history of dropping nukes, moralising about warfare.

Fucking faggits.

No one should have nuclear weapons, but a country like the US which has bombed the shit out of other countries talking about other nation's being too volatile or unpredictable to have nuclear weapons is beyond a joke.

They should shut the fuck up and stop pretending like they'd give a shit if they were getting a slice of the pie.

The US never gave a shit about who it sold weapons to, and did everything in it's power to fraudulently supply weapons to some of the biggest mother fuckers known to man.

But now these faggits are on their high horse?

Give me a fucking break.

Longbongcilvaringz
04-26-2010, 09:06 AM
Everyone loses in Nuclear warfare. Once the radiation gets in the cross winds (more near term birth defects appear) or as it increasingly builds up over time when countries 'trade shots' the human race dies off.

Nah, this is just why you have to be careful about where and when you drop nukes.

You have to try and drop them on small islands 1000's of kilometers away.

Additionally, it helps if this country has no nuclear capabilities, because then you can nuke the shit out of them without worrying about retaliation.

Afterwards you can talk about how killing hundreds of thousands of people "saved like millions lolz".

Maybe the US will talk about how Iran is getting a little too unpredicable and that maybe they should mount a "pre-emptive strike" to "save the worldz".

Nuke the shit out of Iran (and as a positive by product, you destroy most of the Middle East) and solve the terrorism problem.

I guess the US kind of needs to solve that oil dependence thing before they do this though.

Come Honor Face
04-26-2010, 09:38 AM
I don't give a fuck if Iran gets nukes. No nation is stupid enough to use one on another nation. The only nations that could ever really use a nuclear bomb/warhead against another nation without being completely destroyed for doing so are NATO nations. I don't believe one will ever be used in an act of war between nations again myself. If Iran nuked Israel, they would suffer a total instant defeat by the same manner, and any nation that supported them would be on their knees begging for mercy from the rest of the world.

HANZO
04-26-2010, 09:41 AM
First lets get some things straight Isreal is by far the most aggressive country in the middle east. when was the last time Iran had a war, let alone one with them as the aggressor. Isreal has the bomb, everyone knows it but the world turns a blind eye. In my mind the world should be Nuke free (not Nuke energy but the bomb). the middle east should especially be Nuke free. but at the moment you have Isreal with the weapon, but everyone else is not allowed.

Western countries who are so threatened by Iran should first get rid of their Nuclear Arsenal and lead by example. the Iranians agree for a nuclear fuel swap deal where a third party country actually stores the nuclear fuel to be used in Iranian nuclear plants. this is the best solution cause Iran wont have bomb grade uranium, but the west lead by Sarkozy and Obama who has quick become a dick, just dont want to make a deal.

Isreal is no longer a regional power in the middle east believe it or not, Turkey, Iran and Egypt all pack more punch than Isreal. The Isrealis are cornered they know it, so does the whole world.

Come Honor Face
04-26-2010, 09:50 AM
First lets get some things straight Isreal is by far the most aggressive country in the middle east. when was the last time Iran had a war, let alone one with them as the aggressor. Isreal has the bomb, everyone knows it but the world turns a blind eye. In my mind the world should be Nuke free (not Nuke energy but the bomb). the middle east should especially be Nuke free. but at the moment you have Isreal with the weapon, but everyone else is not allowed.

Western countries who are so threatened by Iran should first get rid of their Nuclear Arsenal and lead by example. the Iranians agree for a nuclear fuel swap deal where a third party country actually stores the nuclear fuel to be used in Iranian nuclear plants. this is the best solution cause Iran wont have bomb grade uranium, but the west lead by Sarkozy and Obama who has quick become a dick, just dont want to make a deal.

Isreal is no longer a regional power in the middle east believe it or not, Turkey, Iran and Egypt all pack more punch than Isreal. The Isrealis are cornered they know it, so does the whole world.

I agree about Israel. i gotta tell you though, if you think a nuke free world is a possibility, that possibility ended in the 1940's. Never gonna happen. I mean, I agree that would be great, but it's not realistic at all. The U.S. will NEVER completely eliminate their nukes, and there are other nations that wouldn't either. Under any circumstance.

cutn' heads
04-26-2010, 10:01 AM
i live in the US. i like breathing. felons can't buy firearms and iran can't have nukes...

SKAMPOE
04-26-2010, 11:01 AM
At least I don't smell like a filthy nigger.
. repped:)9:(

TSA
04-26-2010, 03:22 PM
Iran should be able to conduct their affairs without being pestered and bullied by US and Israel, Iran wants nuclear power like eveyone else, i mean its not fair that Israel is the only nuclear power in the M.E, shits just not right.

Fuck Iran, they should not be allowed to proliferate.

Fuck those faggits talking about "peaceful nuclear energy", fuck that shit. Nobody is buying it.

And fuck the US, the most war mongering and aggressive nation, with a history of dropping nukes, moralising about warfare.

Fucking faggits.

No one should have nuclear weapons, but a country like the US which has bombed the shit out of other countries talking about other nation's being too volatile or unpredictable to have nuclear weapons is beyond a joke.

They should shut the fuck up and stop pretending like they'd give a shit if they were getting a slice of the pie.

The US never gave a shit about who it sold weapons to, and did everything in it's power to fraudulently supply weapons to some of the biggest mother fuckers known to man.

But now these faggits are on their high horse?

Give me a fucking break.

Nah, this is just why you have to be careful about where and when you drop nukes.

You have to try and drop them on small islands 1000's of kilometers away.

Additionally, it helps if this country has no nuclear capabilities, because then you can nuke the shit out of them without worrying about retaliation.

Afterwards you can talk about how killing hundreds of thousands of people "saved like millions lolz".

Maybe the US will talk about how Iran is getting a little too unpredicable and that maybe they should mount a "pre-emptive strike" to "save the worldz".

Nuke the shit out of Iran (and as a positive by product, you destroy most of the Middle East) and solve the terrorism problem.

I guess the US kind of needs to solve that oil dependence thing before they do this though.
HAHAHAHahahahahahah
australiopithicus is right. the US is a fucking joke in foriegn affairs.

in all honesty, we beg for this stuff, we thrive on conflict. being large and powerful/influencial doesn't mean you gather enemies, being a global cunt and control freak does.

who's China's enemy? nobody.
they're just concerned with making money, which all countries should be
who's Brazil's enemy? nobody.

both countries live and let live the but whoite countries and CONSTANTLY trying to impose their will on others so that they can be safer and in turn making themselves less safe.

France and been trying to 'control' africa for centuries now, its only recently that they realized "dude, this is wasting a lot of money and getting us no where wtf" cause wtf, are you really trying to be 'powerful' to a bunch of countries that the average citizen is makes 200 dollars annually?
really? i guess you're hard as fuck cause you influence affairs in congo right? what's the point? non of these countries want to hurt you or care about you.


the US is the same way, so is england, all of them, just retarded. and i find it funny that the richest ones per capita are the ones that leave ppl the fuck alone like norway, so its not like it's making them richer

you'd get cheap oil just buying the fucking thing like the chinese then you would making one tribe fight another, then buying them guns and bombs so long as they promise to give it to you cheaper, then they don't give it to you cheaper then you throw them out of power and do it again until you find someone that will, then you deal with all the blow back from other tribes.


wtf kind of retarded politics is that. just fucking buy the shit and go home wtf?

First lets get some things straight Isreal is by far the most aggressive country in the middle east. when was the last time Iran had a war, let alone one with them as the aggressor. Isreal has the bomb, everyone knows it but the world turns a blind eye. In my mind the world should be Nuke free (not Nuke energy but the bomb). the middle east should especially be Nuke free. but at the moment you have Isreal with the weapon, but everyone else is not allowed.

Western countries who are so threatened by Iran should first get rid of their Nuclear Arsenal and lead by example. the Iranians agree for a nuclear fuel swap deal where a third party country actually stores the nuclear fuel to be used in Iranian nuclear plants. this is the best solution cause Iran wont have bomb grade uranium, but the west lead by Sarkozy and Obama who has quick become a dick, just dont want to make a deal.

Isreal is no longer a regional power in the middle east believe it or not, Turkey, Iran and Egypt all pack more punch than Isreal. The Isrealis are cornered they know it, so does the whole world.

Pakistan is nuclear too.

i think every country having a nuke would be a better deterant then a nuke free world cause then ppl will make secert nukes.

a nuclear Iran will keep Israel at bay

SID
04-26-2010, 03:26 PM
I fully support the Iranians right to nuclear technology.

I mean if unstable, talibanified Pakistan has it why cant Iran?

Shit's not fair.

IrOnMaN
04-26-2010, 03:35 PM
The US cares because we don't want another "war". But since the US is the most powerful country in the world, we are....allowed to have nuclear weapons and other type of weapons destruction in our procession. Countries like Iran or Iraq shouldn't because they're considered "aggressive" because for one, they're Muslim. Second, they're a third world country.

Who cares, right? Well, I care because I don't want another terrorist attack on US soil or any attack on any country period.

Maybe they're testing the Obama administration, playing a wait and see. I don't know.

What if things get out of hand? WWIII? Isn't South Korea building nuclear weapons?

SID
04-26-2010, 03:49 PM
The US cares because we don't want another "war". But since the US is the most powerful country in the world, we are....allowed to have nuclear weapons and other type of weapons destruction in our procession. Countries like Iran or Iraq shouldn't because they're considered "aggressive" because for one, they're Muslim. Second, they're a third world country.

Who cares, right? Well, I care because I don't want another terrorist attack on US soil or any attack on any country period.

Maybe they're testing the Obama administration, playing a wait and see. I don't know.

What if things get out of hand? WWIII? Isn't South Korea building nuclear weapons?

Iraq and iran are not "aggressive" they are just tired of US inteference in their politics.

You really believe some mad terrorist plotted the grand scheme of 9/11 from their caves?

IrOnMaN
04-26-2010, 04:01 PM
Iraq and iran are not "aggressive" they are just tired of US inteference in their politics.

You really believe some mad terrorist plotted the grand scheme of 9/11 from their caves?

Ok. I'm saying that both Iran and Iraq are considered to be aggressive to most countries because of their religion and there are a third world country. I have nothing against them what is so ever. The samething goes for South Korea. I just don't want the US or any other country to become a target for bs. As I stated before, with the Obama administration, I think that they're playing a wait and see.

9/11/01? Hmm. I have my opinion on that and I believe that most people wouldn't agree with me.

HANZO
04-26-2010, 04:12 PM
The US cares because we don't want another "war". But since the US is the most powerful country in the world, we are....allowed to have nuclear weapons and other type of weapons destruction in our procession. Countries like Iran or Iraq shouldn't because they're considered "aggressive" because for one, they're Muslim. Second, they're a third world country.

Who cares, right? Well, I care because I don't want another terrorist attack on US soil or any attack on any country period.

Maybe they're testing the Obama administration, playing a wait and see. I don't know.

What if things get out of hand? WWIII? Isn't South Korea building nuclear weapons?

the Modern Iranian Nation has had 1 war in its history and that was with Iraq. Aggressive is the wrong word to describe them.

Iran isnt a third world country, it has a massively developing economy and has built up a very capable military. Iran doesnt support Al-Queda at all, i aint gonna go into in-depth middle eastern politics here but dnt believe for a second Iran will support Al-Queda.

and its north korea trying to build a nuke.

SID
04-26-2010, 04:23 PM
Ok. I'm saying that both Iran and Iraq are considered to be aggressive to most countries because of their religion and there are a third world country. I have nothing against them what is so ever. The samething goes for South Korea. I just don't want the US or any other country to become a target for bs. As I stated before, with the Obama administration, I think that they're playing a wait and see.

9/11/01? Hmm. I have my opinion on that and I believe that most people wouldn't agree with me.

Their religion? third world country?

The christians have a history of bloodthirsty crusades and imperialistic occupations, i would imagine them to be the "aggressive" ones, after all they did drop an atomic bomb on a city.

Iran is not a thir world country, it is developed, it is full of natrual resources and has a well built up and organized industrial infastructure.

If you really believe that some sandel wearing bedouins plotted 9/11 i have nothing else to say to you...

Olive Oil Goombah
04-26-2010, 04:24 PM
All I know is, both the US and Israel simply will not tolerate a nuclear Iran.

http://i30.tinypic.com/a4r8yr.gif

LMFAO...

this brock guy is just awful man

beautifulrock
04-26-2010, 04:35 PM
Maybe I should expunge on my comment.

If Iran is going to announce it's nuclear capability on Wednesday, the US and Israel are attacking on Monday.

EAGLE EYE
04-26-2010, 04:56 PM
HAHAHAHahahahahahah
australiopithicus is right. the US is a fucking joke in foriegn affairs.

in all honesty, we beg for this stuff, we thrive on conflict. being large and powerful/influencial doesn't mean you gather enemies, being a global cunt and control freak does.

who's China's enemy? nobody.
they're just concerned with making money, which all countries should be
who's Brazil's enemy? nobody.

both countries live and let live the but whoite countries and CONSTANTLY trying to impose their will on others so that they can be safer and in turn making themselves less safe.

France and been trying to 'control' africa for centuries now, its only recently that they realized "dude, this is wasting a lot of money and getting us no where wtf" cause wtf, are you really trying to be 'powerful' to a bunch of countries that the average citizen is makes 200 dollars annually?
really? i guess you're hard as fuck cause you influence affairs in congo right? what's the point? non of these countries want to hurt you or care about you.


the US is the same way, so is england, all of them, just retarded. and i find it funny that the richest ones per capita are the ones that leave ppl the fuck alone like norway, so its not like it's making them richer

you'd get cheap oil just buying the fucking thing like the chinese then you would making one tribe fight another, then buying them guns and bombs so long as they promise to give it to you cheaper, then they don't give it to you cheaper then you throw them out of power and do it again until you find someone that will, then you deal with all the blow back from other tribes.


wtf kind of retarded politics is that. just fucking buy the shit and go home wtf?



Pakistan is nuclear too.

i think every country having a nuke would be a better deterant then a nuke free world cause then ppl will make secert nukes.

a nuclear Iran will keep Israel at bay


Do you intentionally try to sound like a 6th grade kid when you string these assertions and mental farts together?

beautifulrock
04-26-2010, 04:58 PM
He can't help it, he has the mentality of a 12 year old on Ritalin.

Shogah
04-26-2010, 08:21 PM
thoughts?

should the mother fuckers have a nuke?

I hope those mother fuckers get a nuke, so they can teach you mother fuckers a lesson.






Israel....as RAEL as they claim?
what are the implications of a nuclear Iran?

Implication is next. iran gets a nuke, and that's the biggest and best toy on the playground.

Nobody fucks with iran and the possibility of an israeli/american attack on iran is very small.

In the mean time iran will sleep better and Ahmanejad will stop being such a prick, and starts behaving better.

netscape check two
04-26-2010, 08:37 PM
They should have had Ahmanejad in the Miami Vice remake.

TheBoarzHeadBoy
04-26-2010, 11:15 PM
People have this misconception that mass use of nuclear weapons=human extinction. That's a myth. The United States and Russia have continued to reduce their arsenal over time and will continue doing so. A nation needs a few hundred weapons tops to sit down at the big boy table. A single weapon or a few is sort of like asking to get punched in the ovaries. However the thing is everyone is afraid to use them even though realistically getting flash vaporized is a hell of a lot better way to die then getting hit with an IED. Even the radiation sickness which is bad does not compare to some of the ways we've come up with to hurt each other. People get afraid of numbers and ratios. One man killing a million is unimaginable, but a million people killing each other is just a war.

Nuclear weapons will not end the world. When they say they have enough weapons to destroy the world X times over they don't mean blowing up the planet. They don't even mean killing all the people on earth. They mean setting us back hundreds of years tops. What that means is they possess enough individual warheads to destroy a relatively long list of cities whose existence the military determined are necessary for modern civilization to continue. The loss of a few of these cities would cripple countries or regions. The loss of all of them would cripple the planet. Yes if you use enough nuclear weapons you cause atmospheric problems and create a nuclear winter. They aren't that long lasting in the scheme of things. They'd severely damage life on earth, but not wipe it out. The only weapons that would actually end life are Cobalt Bombs. A cobalt bomb "salts the earth" like Rome salted the fields of Carthage so that life could never grow there. A cobalt bomb is like a super neutron bomb with maximum lethal radiation.

There are several ways to use "nuclear" bombs. There are EMP attacks which focus on detonating the weapon in the atmosphere high above the target and blanketing a huge swathe of the earth in what are ultimately harmless low radiation which won't do crap to us but will break every electronic device in that swathe. You know how magnets break computers? Imagine a really really big magnet that touches all the computers. These are the only way that nuclear weapons would be used by a "moral" country. The only deaths would be caused by accidents from the lack of electronics.

There are Neutron Bombs which do the opposite. They kill all organic matter in a kill zone and nothing survives. However they wouldn't knock down a single building or anything like that. These would be the most efficient way to kill people ever devised. These won't ever be used by a sane country out of the backlash. There would need to be an even worse possibility for this to ever go on the table.

Finally there are good old fashioned big fucking nukes. You take a shit ton of plutonium and you imploded it until it has nuclear fission. You do this just above the ground and you get one fucking shock wave. You let it impact the ground and you get a really big hole and explosion, but the air works better. You have a big vaporization zone and a large irradiated zone. But guess what it's just one bomb. No spilled milk. The only issue is how much cheaper it is then using mass incendiary weapons. It's not worse, it's just cheating...

The Cold War led to the creation of weapons with multi megaton payloads and although very impressive they're actually way to big to use... You're never going to want a bomb that big. Why destroy so much so clumsily? The Tsar Bomba was 50Megatons. That's 210 petajoules. That's a 1 with 15 zeros following it. Which was using half the payload.

210,000,000,000,000,000 Joules

Hiroshima was 60,000,000,000,000 Joules which you only measure in Kilotons

There isn't any use for weapons larger then that. Those totally disrupt/kill a large city. Anything more is just beating your chest. These sorts of weapons are very cheap to make using modern technology. They might be a few million tops which compared to the billion dollar bombers we use to drop conventional ordinance just doesn't make sense.

Bioweapons are much scarier then nukes. You can damage a single city with a nuke. You can't control a bioweapon.

TSA
04-27-2010, 01:21 AM
well daymn.

.

----------------------------------------------------
Do you intentionally try to sound like a 6th grade kid when you string these assertions and mental farts together?
i aint gonna speak all eloquent with you scum bags

hectis
04-27-2010, 02:11 AM
I say why not I mean its not like if they have them they are going to go crazy and bomb every place they don't have enough and the end result for them would not be good but maybe I should say no since I look Arabian and people who stereotype them might get the wrong idea

IrOnMaN
04-27-2010, 12:40 PM
People have this misconception that mass use of nuclear weapons=human extinction. That's a myth. The United States and Russia have continued to reduce their arsenal over time and will continue doing so. A nation needs a few hundred weapons tops to sit down at the big boy table. A single weapon or a few is sort of like asking to get punched in the ovaries. However the thing is everyone is afraid to use them even though realistically getting flash vaporized is a hell of a lot better way to die then getting hit with an IED. Even the radiation sickness which is bad does not compare to some of the ways we've come up with to hurt each other. People get afraid of numbers and ratios. One man killing a million is unimaginable, but a million people killing each other is just a war.

Nuclear weapons will not end the world. When they say they have enough weapons to destroy the world X times over they don't mean blowing up the planet. They don't even mean killing all the people on earth. They mean setting us back hundreds of years tops. What that means is they possess enough individual warheads to destroy a relatively long list of cities whose existence the military determined are necessary for modern civilization to continue. The loss of a few of these cities would cripple countries or regions. The loss of all of them would cripple the planet. Yes if you use enough nuclear weapons you cause atmospheric problems and create a nuclear winter. They aren't that long lasting in the scheme of things. They'd severely damage life on earth, but not wipe it out. The only weapons that would actually end life are Cobalt Bombs. A cobalt bomb "salts the earth" like Rome salted the fields of Carthage so that life could never grow there. A cobalt bomb is like a super neutron bomb with maximum lethal radiation.

There are several ways to use "nuclear" bombs. There are EMP attacks which focus on detonating the weapon in the atmosphere high above the target and blanketing a huge swathe of the earth in what are ultimately harmless low radiation which won't do crap to us but will break every electronic device in that swathe. You know how magnets break computers? Imagine a really really big magnet that touches all the computers. These are the only way that nuclear weapons would be used by a "moral" country. The only deaths would be caused by accidents from the lack of electronics.

There are Neutron Bombs which do the opposite. They kill all organic matter in a kill zone and nothing survives. However they wouldn't knock down a single building or anything like that. These would be the most efficient way to kill people ever devised. These won't ever be used by a sane country out of the backlash. There would need to be an even worse possibility for this to ever go on the table.

Finally there are good old fashioned big fucking nukes. You take a shit ton of plutonium and you imploded it until it has nuclear fission. You do this just above the ground and you get one fucking shock wave. You let it impact the ground and you get a really big hole and explosion, but the air works better. You have a big vaporization zone and a large irradiated zone. But guess what it's just one bomb. No spilled milk. The only issue is how much cheaper it is then using mass incendiary weapons. It's not worse, it's just cheating...

The Cold War led to the creation of weapons with multi megaton payloads and although very impressive they're actually way to big to use... You're never going to want a bomb that big. Why destroy so much so clumsily? The Tsar Bomba was 50Megatons. That's 210 petajoules. That's a 1 with 15 zeros following it. Which was using half the payload.

210,000,000,000,000,000 Joules

Hiroshima was 60,000,000,000,000 Joules which you only measure in Kilotons

There isn't any use for weapons larger then that. Those totally disrupt/kill a large city. Anything more is just beating your chest. These sorts of weapons are very cheap to make using modern technology. They might be a few million tops which compared to the billion dollar bombers we use to drop conventional ordinance just doesn't make sense.

Bioweapons are much scarier then nukes. You can damage a single city with a nuke. You can't control a bioweapon.

Interesting post.