Iran threatens Europe
POSTED BY: pizmobeach
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 17:14
VIEWED: 8095
PAGE 3 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
We all know the larger issue is Iran getting nukes.
They're not. They're enriching Uranium. Based on the centrifuges they're using, the worst they could do would be to build a dirty bomb, and while that would be a scummy thing to do, that is not a nuke.
You have to have over 90% enriched Uranium for it to be weapons grade, and it's a fairly involved process. Reactor grade material is 3-4% enriched Uranium, which is what they can do with what they have.
Everything else is just panic without understanding the science. Or people just looking for any excuse to start a fight. On Iran's part they're just saber rattling.
"We all know the larger issue is [the potential of] Iran getting nukes."
People understand the science well enough - it's not a Big Mac, they are not there yet, and then there are delivery issues, but doesn't it looks like that's the path they are on however far off? Would you suggest they'd stop at generating electricity? I wouldn't if I were them.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let me put it this way. Even if they got a nuke, how many nations in the world currently have them, and how many nations have ever used them on a populated area?
How much do you hear about North Korea now that they certainly have a nuke? Did they bomb Japan like so many were fearing?
It's not about USING it. It's about HAVING it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do find it amusing that they are threatening to stop selling oil to Europe when Europe has considered embargoing their oil. Wouldn't Europe have already made contingencies in order to threaten that? It seems funny to threaten not to sell something to someone who's threatening not to buy your product...
I think if Iran would back off their promise to wipe Israel off the map, there might be some hope. As it is, that threat hangs over Israel like the sword of damoclese, with the predictable result that Israel is paranoid where Iran is concerned and would like to take "pre-emptive" steps. The difference between Korea and Iran is that LOTS of nations threaten to bomb other nations, etc., but Iran has said from Day One that they want to wipe Israel off the map, and given it's about religion, it's natural that people take them seriously.
Stupid, stupid nations. I'm hearing now that Ahmadinejad is actually a MODERATE compared to others in the government...oh joy...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Let me put it this way. Even if they got a nuke, how many nations in the world currently have them, and how many nations have ever used them on a populated area?
How much do you hear about North Korea now that they certainly have a nuke? Did they bomb Japan like so many were fearing?
It's not about USING it. It's about HAVING it.
They're connected in a hierarchy - the threat of USING it is what makes the threat of HAVING it have any value. Can't use one if you don't have one so prevention starts there. Ask any nation: "would you feel better if the world were nuke free?" I think it would be unanimous. No Nukes - at the very least start reducing them, not adding to their numbers. We're not sophisticated enough to have them.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust any nation that says they have every intention to wipe another one off the map.
And yet you trust one that fed you a deliberately and malicious translation via MEMRI that was so distorted it was factually untrue ?
What he said was far more equivalant to my "cast into the dustbin of history", same sentiment, without the threat, implied or otherwise.
Exact: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena/page of time.”
Not that there isn't antagonism, but when the primary source of english translation for US media distribution is part of one of the players in the game here, one might think to take those often seriously warped "translations" with a grain of salt.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
They're connected in a hierarchy - the threat of USING it is what makes the threat of HAVING it have any value.
Mutually Assured Destruction. You don't have to use it for it to be a threat. Isreal has nukes we gave them, Iran wants nukes to discourage Israel from using theirs.
And again, no one since the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima has used a nuclear device on a populated area, because they know what would happen.
Sure, I'd like to see less nukes... Though I suspect you'd all send your dismantled bombs and fissile material to bury in Utah. But on the other hand, nukes have been outclassed by research in more conventional explosives nowadays. There's a far bigger threat in nuclear reactors to the people LIVING around them nowadays than there is to people using radioactive weapons on their enemies. People running after nukes are just showing how behind the times they are. Anyone threatening to use one is just laughable. Both nations know tensions are a better way to rake in cash, supplies, and international support than open warfare. Why is any of this frightening?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's right, international political theatre, I'ma callin' you out!
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeYouWouldReallyDoIt
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I don't trust any nation that says they have every intention to wipe another one off the map.
And yet you trust one that fed you a deliberately and malicious translation via MEMRI that was so distorted it was factually untrue ?
What he said was far more equivalant to my "cast into the dustbin of history", same sentiment, without the threat, implied or otherwise.
Exact: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena/page of time.”
Not that there isn't antagonism, but when the primary source of english translation for US media distribution is part of one of the players in the game here, one might think to take those often seriously warped "translations" with a grain of salt.
Good point - and the press isn't known for being shy about going extreme.
Seems I've heard variations on that intention though from a number of sources and not just this famous one:
"The translation presented by the official Islamic Republic News Agency has been challenged by Arash Norouzi, who says the statement "wiped off the map" was never made and that Ahmadinejad did not refer to the nation or land mass of Israel, but to the "regime occupying Jerusalem". Norouzi translated the original Persian to English, with the result, "the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."[11] Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, agrees that Ahmadinejad's statement should be translated as, "the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[12] According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian." Instead, "he did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[13] The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translated the phrase similarly, as "this regime" must be "eliminated from the pages of history."[14]
Iranian government sources denied that Ahmadinejad issued any sort of threat. On 20 February 2006, Iran's foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference: "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognize legally this regime."
Hard to get the exact meaning of a phrase, even the context of where the thing is said. I took, "roast their bellies in Hell," as pretty easy to get. How do you know what "dustbin" is unthreatening?
"What should we drink to, Sir?"
"Down with Hitler."
"All the way down, sir."
Doesn't sound very threatening.
I've definitely heard A. speak in English, the way his mind works (doesn't work) makes me think bombing a nation into oblivion is well within his personal ideology.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:Quote:
They're connected in a hierarchy - the threat of USING it is what makes the threat of HAVING it have any value.
Mutually Assured Destruction. You don't have to use it for it to be a threat. Isreal has nukes we gave them, Iran wants nukes to discourage Israel from using theirs.
And again, no one since the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima has used a nuclear device on a populated area, because they know what would happen.
Sure, I'd like to see less nukes... Though I suspect you'd all send your dismantled bombs and fissile material to bury in Utah. But on the other hand, nukes have been outclassed by research in more conventional explosives nowadays. There's a far bigger threat in nuclear reactors to the people LIVING around them nowadays than there is to people using radioactive weapons on their enemies. People running after nukes are just showing how behind the times they are. Anyone threatening to use one is just laughable. Both nations know tensions are a better way to rake in cash, supplies, and international support than open warfare. Why is any of this frightening?
How is this helping Iran rake in cash and supplies and International support? Sanctions? You don't trust humans with reactors but humans with bombs are ok? You're afraid of dismantled nukes but not live ones? You're working awfully hard just to be contrary.. you might need your own personal mini-reactor at this rate.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Let me put it this way. Even if they got a nuke, how many nations in the world currently have them, and how many nations have ever used them on a populated area?
How much do you hear about North Korea now that they certainly have a nuke? Did they bomb Japan like so many were fearing?
It's not about USING it. It's about HAVING it.
Bingo. And sometimes a joke "news" site like The Onion just nails it:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-850
0th-nuclear-w,27325/
How worried is every other nation on Earth because the U.S. has thousands of nuclear devices, and has shown a clear proclivity for using them against other nations?
"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME