Welcome to the Second Life Forums Archive

These forums are CLOSED. Please visit the new forums HERE

Target: Iran, How Close Are We?

Einsman Schlegel
Disenchanted Fool
Join date: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 1,461
04-11-2006 18:28
From: someone
Tue Apr 11, 1:14 PM

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran has successfully enriched uranium for the first time, a landmark in its quest to develop nuclear fuel, hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday, although he insisted his country does not aim to develop atomic weapons.

In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad called on the West "not to cause an everlasting hatred in the hearts of Iranians" by trying to force Iran to abandon uranium enrichment.

The announcement came ahead of a visit to Tehran this week by Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, who is trying to resolve the West's standoff with Iran. The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran stop all enrichment activity by April 28. Iran has rejected this, saying it has a right to the process.

"At this historic moment, with the blessings of God almighty and the efforts made by our scientists, I declare here that the laboratory-scale nuclear fuel cycle has been completed and young scientists produced enriched uranium needed to the degree for nuclear power plants Sunday," Ahmadinejad said.

"I formally declare that Iran has joined the club of nuclear countries," he told an audience that included top military commanders and clerics in the northwestern holy city of Mashhad. The crowd broke into cheers of "Allahu akbar!" or "God is great!" Some stood and thrust their fists in the air.

The White House denounced the latest comments by Iranian officials, with spokesman Scott McClellan saying they "continue to show that Iran is moving in the wrong direction."

Ahmadinejad said Iran "relies on the sublime beliefs that lie within the Iranian and Islamic culture. Our nation does not get its strength from nuclear arsenals."

He said Iran wanted to operate its nuclear program under supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency and within its rights and regulations under the regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The announcement does not mean Iran is immediately capable of producing enough fuel to run or a reactor or develop the material needed for a nuclear warhead. Uranium enrichment can produce either, but it must be carried out on a much larger scale, using thousands of centrifuges.

Iran succeeded in enriching uranium to a level needed for fuel on a research scale _ using 164 centrifuges, officials said.

But the breakthrough underlined how difficult it will be for the West to convince Iran to give up enrichment.

Ahmadinejad made the announcement in a richly appointed hall of one of Iran's holiest cities in a ceremony clearly aimed at proclaiming the country's nuclear success.

Speaking before Ahmadinejad, Vice President Gholamreza Aghazadeh _ the nuclear chief _ said Iran has produced 110 tons of uranium gas, the feedstock that is pumped into centrifuges for enrichment. The amount is nearly twice the 60 tons of uranium hexaflouride, or UF-6, gas that Iran said last year that it had produced.

Aghazadeh said Iran plans to expand its enrichment program to be able to use 3,000 centrifuges by the end of the year.

The United States and some European countries accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons, an accusation Tehran denies, saying it intends only to generate electricity.

The IAEA is due to report to the U.N. Security Council on April 28 whether Iran has met its demand for a full halt to uranium enrichment. If Tehran has not complied, the council will consider the next step. The U.S. and Europe are pressing for sanctions against Iran, a step Russia and China have so far opposed.

McClellan told reporters traveling on Air Force One with President Bush that Iran's enrichment claims "only further isolate" Tehran and underscore why the international community must continue to raise concerns about its suspected ambition to develop nuclear weapons.

McClellan noted the Security Council clock now running on Iran.

"This is a regime that needs to be building confidence with the international community," McClellan said. "Instead, they're moving in the wrong direction."

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said the Iranians' announcement "shows that they're not paying any attention to what the Security Council has said."

"And it shows why we feel a sense of urgency here that we have to have Iran realize the mistaken course it's pursuing," he told The Associated Press.

In Vienna, officials of the IAEA, whose inspectors are now in Iran, declined to comment.

A diplomat familiar with Tehran's enrichment program said the announcement appeared to be accurate. He demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss information restricted to the agency.

The reported breakthrough came only two months after Iran resumed research on enrichment at its facility in the central town of Natanz in February. The resumption of work there prompted the IAEA to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council _ escalating the standoff.

The enrichment process is one of the most difficult steps in developing a nuclear program. It requires a complicated plumbing network of pipes connecting centrifuges that can operate flawless for months or years.

The process aims to produce a gas high with an increased percentage of uranium-235, the isotope needed for nuclear fission, which is much rarer than the more prevalent isotope uranium 238.

A gas made from raw uranium is pumped into a centrifuge, which spins, causing a small portion of the heavier uranium-238 to drop away. The gas then proceeds to other centrifuges _ perhaps thousands of them _ where the process is repeated, increasing the proportion of uranium-235.

The enrichment process can take years to produce a gas rich enough in uranium-235 that it can be used to power a nuclear reactor or produce a bomb.


http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2006/04/11/365652.html&cvqh=itn_irannuclear

My guess is we're close, Special Forces already targetting the areas needed to be hit, etc etc, any takers?
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
04-11-2006 18:29
Before the end of the month. THATs how close
_____________________
Briana Dawson
Attach to Mouth
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,855
04-11-2006 18:54
From: Kendra Bancroft
Before the end of the month. THATs how close


Hope so. The sooner the better.

:D
Weedy Herbst
Too many parameters
Join date: 5 Aug 2004
Posts: 2,255
04-11-2006 19:11
Iran is not necessarily an "imminent threat". There is absolutely no evidence that weapons grade nukes are being produced.

I don't favor Iran having nukes, mainly because of their threats against Israel, but Iran is a sovereign country and is not bound by what Bush says. Bush is just setting the preamble for starting yet another war, one which will be not easier.....alot harder than Iraq, and the USA is losing that fight.

They were shown on CNN paradeing some vials of so-called fissionable material, which was probably little more than performance art.

The truth is, it will take many more years to produce enough material to run a power plant, no less making weapons.

It's just alot of hysteria.
_____________________
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
04-11-2006 20:06
From: Einsman Schlegel
Target: Iran, How Close Are We?

Umm.. when is the next election? I say, 6mos prior to that. ;)
_____________________
Briana Dawson
Attach to Mouth
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,855
04-11-2006 20:53
From: Juro Kothari
Umm.. when is the next election? I say, 6mos prior to that. ;)

I figure he will need atleast 9 to figure out how to loophole his way into a longer term.

Briana Dawson
Juro Kothari
Like a dog on a bone
Join date: 4 Sep 2003
Posts: 4,418
04-11-2006 21:20
From: Briana Dawson
I figure he will need atleast 9 to figure out how to loophole his way into a longer term.

Briana Dawson

Good point, but that Rove is pretty good - so, he might be able to pull it off with only 6.

;)
_____________________
Phedre Aquitaine
I am the zombie queen
Join date: 26 Jan 2006
Posts: 1,157
04-12-2006 00:49
From: Briana Dawson
Hope so. The sooner the better.

:D


Ugh.

Hope you don't know anyone in the service - I do, and I sure as sh*t wouldn't wish for that.
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
04-12-2006 00:58
From: Briana Dawson
Hope so. The sooner the better.

:D



because why?
_____________________
Kris Ritter
paradoxical embolism
Join date: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 6,627
04-12-2006 01:05
I would say very close. And I would say Iran are far less likely to roll over and take it, too. This could get very ugly indeed. And frankly, Bush will have brought it on himself. Except it won't be Bush who suffers the consequences, of course. He'll just do a lot of tough talk and posturing from his comfy chair in his comfy office when the killing starts.

I just hope our fuckwit asshole Prime Minister doesn't still have his dick so far up your fuckwit asshole Presidents ass that he has to follow him blindly into an unjust war again. But he undoubtedly will. :(

So whats the general feeling about this in the US? I mean, there was at least a sizeable percentage of the population who believed that going into Iraq was a 'good thing'.... but how many think its fair and justified for Bush to go take away Irans nuclear toys with force as a preventative measure when there is zero evidence they're doing anything but generating energy? What's the media's position on this been like? And have there been any public opinion polls or anything yet?

I just have a hard time believing he's going to get any support for this. Not that he gives a shit, of course.
_____________________
Spinner Poutine
Still rezzin or am I
Join date: 28 Oct 2005
Posts: 583
04-12-2006 03:33
I'd say sometime before the midterm elections
_____________________
Can't we all just get along?
Doughnuts,err Pie, for everyone :D
Blueman Steele
Registered User
Join date: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 1,038
04-12-2006 03:58
From: Weedy Herbst
Iran is not necessarily an "imminent threat". There is absolutely no evidence that weapons grade nukes are being produced.

I don't favor Iran having nukes, mainly because of their threats against Israel, but Iran is a sovereign country and is not bound by what Bush says. Bush is just setting the preamble for starting yet another war, one which will be not easier.....alot harder than Iraq, and the USA is losing that fight.

They were shown on CNN paradeing some vials of so-called fissionable material, which was probably little more than performance art.

The truth is, it will take many more years to produce enough material to run a power plant, no less making weapons.

It's just alot of hysteria.


It's odd to hear anyone say that because the same was true of Iraq.

Before you counter that... don't confuse what was 'said' with what was true.

What proof did we have that Iraq was a threat? Links to Al Qeada proved false... no WMD's or even any nuclear grade material was found!

Iran is openly making the first ingredient, what could be being done covertly?

I'm not saying we should attack Iran, but the horrible way we went into Iraq with no plan and little proof will be repeated.
Einsman Schlegel
Disenchanted Fool
Join date: 11 Jun 2003
Posts: 1,461
04-12-2006 05:46
From: Kris Ritter
I would say very close. And I would say Iran are far less likely to roll over and take it, too. This could get very ugly indeed. And frankly, Bush will have brought it on himself. Except it won't be Bush who suffers the consequences, of course. He'll just do a lot of tough talk and posturing from his comfy chair in his comfy office when the killing starts.

I just hope our fuckwit asshole Prime Minister doesn't still have his dick so far up your fuckwit asshole Presidents ass that he has to follow him blindly into an unjust war again. But he undoubtedly will. :(

So whats the general feeling about this in the US? I mean, there was at least a sizeable percentage of the population who believed that going into Iraq was a 'good thing'.... but how many think its fair and justified for Bush to go take away Irans nuclear toys with force as a preventative measure when there is zero evidence they're doing anything but generating energy? What's the media's position on this been like? And have there been any public opinion polls or anything yet?

I just have a hard time believing he's going to get any support for this. Not that he gives a shit, of course.


I feel it would be catastrophic and possibly lead to WW3 as we know it. I can't see how people can blindly follow someone who could possibly think that this is a 'good thing' Once a country declares its nuclear prowess, its all over. I see this as the worst.
Briana Dawson
Attach to Mouth
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,855
04-12-2006 06:02
From: Phedre Aquitaine
Ugh.

Hope you don't know anyone in the service - I do, and I sure as sh*t wouldn't wish for that.

I know several people in the military including 2 admirals. 3 if you count the retired admiral in Springfield who I have had dinner with.

Iran has gotta go.

Either we strike them or they most likely will strike Israel.. Working standard shifts gives them a nuclear bomb in estimated 3 years. Who knows how quickly they can have it if they work around the clock.

But I do expect all the posts here to scream out against it. SL is chock full of liberals.

Briana Dawson
PetGirl Bergman
Fellow Creature:-)
Join date: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 2,414
04-12-2006 06:09
Whaty next after Iran to ”take care of” the USA way? EU?

/Tina
_____________________
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
04-12-2006 06:10
From: Briana Dawson
3 if you count the retired admiral in Springfield who I have had dinner with.





Yarrrrr. He don't be countin'.
_____________________
Taco Rubio
also quite creepy
Join date: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 3,349
04-12-2006 06:22
From: Briana Dawson
Working standard shifts gives them a nuclear bomb in estimated 3 years.


I'm not finding this anywhere, could you please cite where you found this estimate?
_____________________
From: Torley Linden
We can't be clear enough, ever, in our communication.
Briana Dawson
Attach to Mouth
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,855
04-12-2006 06:24
From: Taco Rubio
I'm not finding this anywhere, could you please cite where you found this estimate?


It was the estimate given by CNN interviews last night 11Apr06.

So, intelligence estimates.


Briana Dawson
Kris Ritter
paradoxical embolism
Join date: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 6,627
04-12-2006 06:25
From: PetGirl Bergman
Whaty next after Iran to ”take care of” the USA way? EU?

/Tina


Well, at least I know my country is safe - since this is where America stores and launches a lot of its missiles from! Which makes America quite clever and us fucking dumb, if you ask me. Mind you, we'd be a cinch to bomb, since we'd essentially bomb ourselves, wouldn't we? Maybe thats why Blair asslicks Bush so much? He's just scared.
_____________________
PetGirl Bergman
Fellow Creature:-)
Join date: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 2,414
04-12-2006 06:37
From: Kris Ritter
Well, at least I know my country is safe - since this is where America stores and launches a lot of its missiles from! Which makes America quite clever and us fucking dumb, if you ask me. Mind you, we'd be a cinch to bomb, since we'd essentially bomb ourselves, wouldn't we? Maybe thats why Blair asslicks Bush so much? He's just scared.


Are you sure that you are safe... ?:-)))

You have not only stored bumbs... you have Echelon to placed at your land...... ask Philips about it... Philips that loosed some important ideeas to USA companies - using Echelon to listen to company secrets.. and others as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

http://www.echelonwatch.org/

/Tina
_____________________
Taco Rubio
also quite creepy
Join date: 15 Feb 2004
Posts: 3,349
04-12-2006 06:51
From: Briana Dawson
It was the estimate given by CNN interviews last night 11Apr06.

So, intelligence estimates.


Briana Dawson


Thanks!

hmm, it wasn't just from a really biased source they were quoting? :confused:
_____________________
From: Torley Linden
We can't be clear enough, ever, in our communication.
Nala Galatea
Pink Dragon Kung-Fu
Join date: 12 Nov 2003
Posts: 335
04-12-2006 07:03
From: Briana Dawson
Either we strike them or they most likely will strike Israel..


I still haven't figured out why this is such a big deal.

I still haven't figured out why we don't just give every country in the area one short-ranged nuke and say "Have at it."

Let the region blow itself up and then our soldiers can walk over the bodies and collect the oil without all this diplomatic crap.
Briana Dawson
Attach to Mouth
Join date: 23 Sep 2003
Posts: 5,855
04-12-2006 07:04
From: Taco Rubio
Thanks!

hmm, it wasn't just from a really biased source they were quoting? :confused:


It was actually Wolf Blitzer and the Situation Room.

Briana Dawson
Siobhan Taylor
Nemesis
Join date: 13 Aug 2003
Posts: 5,476
04-12-2006 07:06
From: Nala Galatea
I still haven't figured out why we don't just give every country in the area one short-ranged nuke and say "Have at it."
Cos basically, they'd all just point them at Israel, rather than at each other. And generally, I don't think Bush would like to be remembered as the president who let Israel get nuked.
_____________________
http://siobhantaylor.wordpress.com/
Kendra Bancroft
Rhine Maiden
Join date: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 5,813
04-12-2006 07:09
From: Briana Dawson
It was actually Wolf Blitzer and the Situation Room.

Briana Dawson



[sarcasm]Oh well then everything makes sense. I mean if it's Wolf Blitzer who said it and all.[/sarcasm]
_____________________
1 2 3 4 5 6