You don't need missile silos. The enrichment plants are capable of making weapon grade material.
we have offered to give them everything they need for power. They probably see it as an insult. But that's their choice.
Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites
- Thread starter Teki187
- Start date
You don't need missile silos. The enrichment plants are capable of making weapon grade material.
we have offered to give them everything they need for power. They probably see it as an insult. But that's their choice.
Who mentioned missile silos?
So why should a country capable of creating there own nuclear power with most if not all of there own materials, be forced to buy other countries stock because its "safer"?
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,424
You don't need enriched uranium for nuclear power. At least not for some reactors.
exactly that it's safer.
Because the said country has a leader that wants to wipe out Israel, has publicly said that as well ...
because nuclear fuel can't be used in nuclear bombs.
Why should they? because as a world we have deemed them unsafe to handle nukes. And Israel has bigger guns than them.
reactor fuel is around 3-4% +U235
Where as weapon grade is 90%+ U235
Last edited:
If there as monstrous as people claim, they would just keep enriching the uranium so they can create the bombs and accept the fuel from other countries. Win win for them it seems....
Just wondering, how many nuclear tests have they done? Who created the Cold War of the mid-1940s to the early 1990s? Who dropped the nukes on the Japanese?
To me they haven't done anything wrong, they said they want to wipe Israel off the map, did they say with nukes? Do they mean that literally? Or was it a heated comment?
Typical, one rule for us, another for everyone else.
as Israel wants to bomb the enriching and other processing sites. They would have no need from them and as such could not justify them.
what's wrong with one rule for us and another for them?
we do not go around publicly saying we want to wipe another nation of the face of the planet. Yes they certainly do mean that literally.
The bombs on the Japanese are totally justifiable and saved many lives.
couldn't disagree with you more
Israel does every it does out of survival
iran/syria and other countries have been fueling terrorism in one way or another and the more deadly weapons they have, the worse it will get if these weapons make there way to terrorists hands
Because who's to say our rule is better then theres? And who's to say where more capable of having nukes then them? Have they invaded any counties yet?
Depends on how you see this is suppose, is the killing of 100 of thousands of people justifiable to save one country from being attacked?
Granted the attacks stopped the Japanese, but that doesn't mean it was the right decision.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
These places don't tend to be very democratic and thus shouldn't be allowed to make nukes or we get a North Korea.
Crazy guy who will probably nuke the world because he is safe in his bunker. he has no obligation to his people as it is a dictatorship so he doesn't care if they die.
They don't have much to lose as they can't win so a "draw" is a win.
a nuke is a bit too much responisbility for one person.
As for the Japanese. you have to remember it wasn't like iraq or Vietnam, this was a world war from a real enemy. Killing of civillians was a valid tactic and both sides did it. Why invade by land and lose loads of troops. if the Japs had any sense they would have surendered after the first blast.
Oh yeah and at the end of the day we could crush them in seconds. so do what we say or else 16 aircraft carriers outside ya house.
Crazy guy who will probably nuke the world because he is safe in his bunker. he has no obligation to his people as it is a dictatorship so he doesn't care if they die.
They don't have much to lose as they can't win so a "draw" is a win.
a nuke is a bit too much responisbility for one person.
As for the Japanese. you have to remember it wasn't like iraq or Vietnam, this was a world war from a real enemy. Killing of civillians was a valid tactic and both sides did it. Why invade by land and lose loads of troops. if the Japs had any sense they would have surendered after the first blast.
Oh yeah and at the end of the day we could crush them in seconds. so do what we say or else 16 aircraft carriers outside ya house.
Last edited:
Does it matter if they have invaded another country? he threat is real their regime highly questionable and as such the world should protect it's self.
Perhaps due to are record of having them.
World war. Far more would have died in the following fighting. In ended WW2 far earlier than it would otherwise.
Yes it does matter, because we (UK, USA and co) made mild threats and invaded 2 countries, Iran made aggressive threats but haven't done anything on them.
To me it looks like Iran's bark is stronger then its bite. Yet in our case, our bite is a lot stronger then our bark.
The only reason there government is highly questionable is because they wont subvert to western pressure. We only have claims that there helping/funding terrorism and what "terrorism" is that? Because i personally haven't seen anything that isn't justified.
If your going to claim "well the suicide bombers in Iraq where funded by them", first off provide the proof and second of, would you not want to protect your own country from an invading force?
Because they would get slaughtered, a nuke is the ultimate back up and makes you more or less invincible.
The world is far to small a place, we need a world police and to keep countrys in line.
Yes we invaded countrys and oh look we are handing them back.