Iran Reported to Security Council

William · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:05

Probably get nuked, or invaded so there is no real winning point.

Edit: drawing a cartoon now.

benjo plz. · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:06

dirtydog said:
Iran may or may not intend to make nuclear weapons but it is nonsense to say they have no legitimate reason to want to create nuclear energy now.

I'm not aware that Iran has a thriving non-oil export industry.

If you say so. What I class as nonsence is allowing Iran to have nuclear capabilities when there's a good chance they'll use it for weapons.

Only oil and terrorists tbh.

William · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:19

Cartoon of my view of what were to happen at the request of Mr.Sprout.

Edit: not sure it really makes sense in retrospect. :/

loopstah · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:25

William said:
Cartoon of my view of what were to happen at the request of Mr.Sprout.

Omg that has to be the funniest depiction of "The end of the world as we know it" I have ever seen.

I get the idea so it makes some sense.

Although I don't see any sea based launches so what would our mighty submarine based nuclear arsenal be doing?

benjo plz. · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:25

You ever seen that End of the World flash video? sort of sums up what will happen tbh.

William · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:38

Phnom_Penh said:
You ever seen that End of the World flash video? sort of sums up what will happen tbh.

Just watched it, very funny!

Sem · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:57

link?

benjo plz. · 4 Feb 2006 at 22:59

Sem said:
link?

No, contains swearies, reason I didn't link it in the first place

. Google tbh.

wormwood · 4 Feb 2006 at 23:48

dirtydog said:
Not really a fair analogy because children have less rights than adults. Iran on the other hand is a sovereign nation with a legitimate government which has the right in international law to have nuclear power or weapons if it wants.

Imagine if the situation was reversed and Iran and its allies started dictating to us, what would we say? "Alright then, whatever you say sir"? No we'd be outraged.

Forget laws and remember common sense.

Treefrog · 5 Feb 2006 at 14:54

Sirrel Squirrel said:
I don't feel comfortable with any country having nukes, don't think I made that clear in my other post though

Fair enough, you only mentioned Iran.

Personally I too would rather no-one had them as well. From a global perspective it's difficult to see situations where using a nuke would give a better result than not using one. Short term gains and long term losses is all I see.

William said:
It is odd that they specifically wish U235 for power generation when a fast breeder would do the job and use U238.

U238 is not fissile, U235 is. That's why it needs to be enriched. Weapons grade uranium is more highly enriched than fuel grade, that's all. A fast breeder works by some of the U238 capturing neutrons that are emitted when the U235 decays, turning it into U239 which then decays by beta emission and becomes Plutonium 239 . which can also be used as fuel and as a weapon. The bad news is that Plutonium is a lot more radioactive and a lot more toxic than Uranium. Just as an aside, Little Boy (Hiroshima) was a Uranium bomb and Fat Man (Nagasaki) was a Plutonium bomb.

AFAIK the only reason that Iran is suspected of having a nuclear weapon program is Dubyas say-so, and he's hardly the most trustworthy of people is he?

serlex · 5 Feb 2006 at 15:11

well the media does not help, if you do not believe the leaders, media is the only way, less you go to Iran and see it for yourself

benjo plz. · 5 Feb 2006 at 15:31

Treefrog said:
Just as an aside, Little Boy (Hiroshima) was a Uranium bomb and Fat Man (Nagasaki) was a Plutonium bomb.

Meh, I thought they were both Uranium, but were U235 and U238. Nakasaki was indeed Plutonium 239 though.

Treefrog · 5 Feb 2006 at 15:59

serlex said:
well the media does not help, if you do not believe the leaders, media is the only way, less you go to Iran and see it for yourself

True, and different sources give emphasis to different parts of a story, including parts which others miss out.

Just as an example: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11779.htm

Sleepy · 5 Feb 2006 at 16:09

Treefrog said:
U238 is not fissile

[nit pick] U238 is fissile when used as the third stage in a Teller-Ulam fusion bomb[/nit pick]

Treefrog · 5 Feb 2006 at 23:44

Sleepy said:
[nit pick] U238 is fissile when used as the third stage in a Teller-Ulam fusion bomb[/nit pick]

Hehe - and the Iranians are giving those away free with every box of dates!

Sleepy · 5 Feb 2006 at 23:52

Treefrog said:
Hehe - and the Iranians are giving those away free with every box of dates!

LOL