Jump to content

Khamenei says Iran may enrich uranium to 60% purity if needed


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you expect a reasonable reply, then you need to make a reasonable argument. Shifting the goalposts, or even contradicting your own points is bound to make responding troublesome. Slogans are great, and if that's your thing, sure. They are, however, rarely a substitute for informed discussion.

I reply the best way I know I don't have a degree in English.

If you can't see where I'm trying to come from I can't help you with that.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Good post but expect to receive couple of negative comments from some of the members here who are thinks that Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only...

Don’t think you are in a good position to play brinkmanship with all due respect one push of the button could destroy your country personally I’d like to see the Iranian navy sunk that would stop a lo

....or want to defend themselves against outside aggressors!

Posted Images

1 minute ago, Kwasaki said:

I reply the best way I know I don't have a degree in English.

If you can't see where I'm trying to come from I can't help you with that.  

 

You don't need a degree in English (I don't got one either), just keeping things fairly consistent would be fine.

I think, based on your previous posts here and on similar topics, that your stance is essentially anti-Western (as far as governments go). Sometimes this comes to the level of ignoring, or putting aside, issues related to the other side discussed.

 

Saying that sanctions aren't nice is not saying much. They are supposed to be a bother. They directly effect the people, and supposedly, in turn/indirectly effect the leadership. It's all very well to point out the US/Western responsibility in this regard, but shouldn't be ignored that it's also the Iranian leadership's choice to prolong the situation. Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first, while their opponents get a free pass on that.

 

Countries routinely use respective advantages, difference in power and circumstances to advance their goals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You don't need a degree in English (I don't got one either), just keeping things fairly consistent would be fine.

I think, based on your previous posts here and on similar topics, that your stance is essentially anti-Western (as far as governments go). Sometimes this comes to the level of ignoring, or putting aside, issues related to the other side discussed.

 

Saying that sanctions aren't nice is not saying much. They are supposed to be a bother. They directly effect the people, and supposedly, in turn/indirectly effect the leadership. It's all very well to point out the US/Western responsibility in this regard, but shouldn't be ignored that it's also the Iranian leadership's choice to prolong the situation. Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first, while their opponents get a free pass on that.

 

Countries routinely use respective advantages, difference in power and circumstances to advance their goals.

My stance is what I see as reasonable it's hard to be consistent and easier to be drawn into what I consider to be positive thoughts of an outcome to deal with something.

 

There's a great lack of understanding here as seen in the past, western powers behaviour towards other countries just causes erratic behavior making them unpredictable.

 

Instead of taking a different approach and act in another way to make progress, the west see's that as a weakness.

It may well be considered as irregular or illogical for the situation, or not keeping within their usual standards of behavior but worth a try.

 

As for   " Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first ".  what's wrong with that if it gets results.

As for  "Countries routinely using their respective advantages" you mean bullying is OK I take it.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

My stance is what I see as reasonable it's hard to be consistent and easier to be drawn into what I consider to be positive thoughts of an outcome to deal with something.

 

There's a great lack of understanding here as seen in the past, western powers behaviour towards other countries just causes erratic behavior making them unpredictable.

 

Instead of taking a different approach and act in another way to make progress, the west see's that as a weakness.

It may well be considered as irregular or illogical for the situation, or not keeping within their usual standards of behavior but worth a try.

 

As for   " Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first ".  what's wrong with that if it gets results.

As for  "Countries routinely using their respective advantages" you mean bullying is OK I take it.

 

 

 

I don't know that Western powers behavior toward other countries makes them other countries 'unpredictable'. That's a claim that needs a wee bit more meat to it. For example, can't really say Iran's actions are 'unpredictable', even.

 

Not quite sure what general 'different approach' is suggested.

 

Why do you think that the US/West folding first would get 'results'? Why ignore that there are drawbacks to such a move? Why is the onus to act in constructive manner solely rests with the US/West?

 

No, bullying is not ok. Nor is using a country's advantage always 'bullying'. It's a fact that's how international relations work. I'm acknowledging it, not celebrating it. Iran, for example, does the same on a regional level, and even, currently, vs. the US. All the moves, threats and deadlines are in place to exert pressure and get the result it wants. Each plays the cards they got.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Morch said:

1> It was used against people (and other soft targets) within. It's  not a perpetrator weapon. Plus Iran's sites are much better fortified than the ISIS stronghold was.

2>The Russian bomb was delivered by a Russian bomber, not sure what was the point?

1> Regardless of the designation ('perpetrator') it seems to have worked.

2> You didn't notice it had much bigger yield?

1 + 2 => similar weapons might be effective against better fortified (Iranian) sites.

(I didn't think this needed to be spelled out like this...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Morch said:

I don't know that Western powers behavior toward other countries makes them other countries 'unpredictable'.

Ever heard of North Korea, never mind China at this point in time.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Not quite sure what general 'different approach' is suggested.

A better one than say Iraq.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Why do you think that the US/West folding first would get 'results'?

Don't let US/West think that's dangerous try a different approach.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Why ignore that there are drawbacks to such a move?

What drawbacks it hasn't been tried.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Why is the onus to act in constructive manner solely rests with the US/West?

You tell me, they don't have to be the world police because they don't like the idea of someone having the same as they have.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Iran, for example, does the same on a regional level, and even, currently, vs. the US. All the moves, threats and deadlines are in place to exert pressure and get the result it wants. Each plays the cards they got.

Well engage negotiations by dropping sanctions, shovel the cards and re-deal em.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, onebir said:

1> Regardless of the designation ('perpetrator') it seems to have worked.

2> You didn't notice it had much bigger yield?

1 + 2 => similar weapons might be effective against better fortified (Iranian) sites.

(I didn't think this needed to be spelled out like this...)

 

It worked in a specific scenario and against a specific set of targets. I have no idea why you assume that the ISIS compound and the Iranian nuclear sights are same-same. They are not.

 

Larger yield does not necessarily imply a munition would be very effective against a target it wasn't designed for.

 

As far as I understand, the Iranian facilities are dug deeper and are massively fortified. For a non-perpetrator weapon to do his "thing", another needs to punch a whole through first. I don't think that there an conventional, effective, 2-in-1 solution available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@Kwasaki

 

I'd appreciate if you don't cut my post like that while replying, as it makes quoting back problematic.

 

China is 'unpredictable'? How so? North Korea is more of a one-man show, hardly comparable with Iran. Again, it's not enough to say 'unpredictable' without actually supporting this with something. Same goes for Iraq - how does that apply? Or rather which set of actions are you referring to? And, of course, you fail to actually describe the desired approach.

 

Simply folding would imply weakness. It would broadcast that the US administration is soft, and fears confrontation (not necessarily military, but in a broader sense). It would be cast as a major achievement by Iran's leadership, bolster hardliners and probably set a precedent for future disagreements. You do not really provide any reasoning which counters these points. As for 'it' never being tried - not so. Negotiations with Iran on the issue of its nuclear program have been going on for years. There's ample reason for Iran not being trusted and for the general reluctance to give it a free pass on things. 

 

I tell you what? You're the one who comes up with these notions, I'm not required to justify your reasoning for you. China and Russia are signatories to the JCPOA as well, are they too 'the West' now? Are they some kind of World Police? Proliferation of nuclear arms is bad. The logic of if-this-country-got-it-why-can't-that-one is a slippery slope.

 

The issue of simply dropping sanctions was addressed above. As for shoveling the cards and re-dealing them - I suspect you didn't get the point. Countries possess different kinds and levels of power. There's no easy changing that short of remaking the World. A bit out of the scope of the current issue and discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, auto spell checker fail.

Ok, np!

Quote

I don't think that there an conventional, effective, 2-in-1 solution available.

That we "know" about.

 

I saw liveleak video of a huge explosion in Syria a few years ago. I wasn't able to find it just now, but IIRC the light-vs-sound delay indicated it was ~2km from the camera, and the shockwave still did significant damage. I think that's close to 100 kiloton yield. So it seems like very high yield non-nuclear bombs are out there.

 

Whether they're amenable to bunker busting duty IDK, but certain parties have a huge interest in developing that capability, are no sluggards when it comes to weapons design, and have no interest in leaking details of that capability. A year ago, who would have guessed a nuclear scientist would get assassinated by a remote controlled machine gun?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, onebir said:

Ok, np!

That we "know" about.

 

I saw liveleak video of a huge explosion in Syria a few years ago. I wasn't able to find it just now, but IIRC the light-vs-sound delay indicated it was ~2km from the camera, and the shockwave still did significant damage. I think that's close to 100 kiloton yield. So it seems like very high yield non-nuclear bombs are out there.

 

Whether they're amenable to bunker busting duty IDK, but certain parties have a huge interest in developing that capability, are no sluggards when it comes to weapons design, and have no interest in leaking details of that capability. A year ago, who would have guessed a nuclear scientist would get assassinated by a remote controlled machine gun?

 

I kinda doubt, what with surveillance in the region being what it is, that an explosion of such magnitude could be kept secret. And then not all stuff on the internet is what it seems to be....Of course, there could be secret weapons developed. I'm commenting on what's known. As for the assassination, such technologies were demonstrated for several years now. More in the context of urban warfare, though. I'm pretty sure that there were operatives on site as well anyway.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Morch said:

1>I kinda doubt, what with surveillance in the region being what it is, that an explosion of such magnitude could be kept secret. And then not all stuff on the internet is what it seems to be....Of course, there could be secret weapons developed. I'm commenting on what's known.

 

2>As for the assassination, such technologies were demonstrated for several years now. More in the context of urban warfare, though. I'm pretty sure that there were operatives on site as well anyway.

1> This may be exactly why that weapons ended up being used in a live war. There were videos of the same event from several angles, much like the Beirut event; it seemed convincing to me (but my munitions expertise runs out around pea-shooter caliber).

 

2> True, but constructing and deploying such a weapon in a very hostile environment took some doing. About the operatives on site, didn't the Iranians retract that part of the story? (Not that that means much...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A post has been removed, easier for everyone if you don't snip a quoted reply and or multi quote, both of which can lead to confusion further down the topic.

 

5. Please do not quote multiple nested quotes. Quote only the relevant section that you are discussing. Moderators will snip excessively long nested quotes. 

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...