xkcd

by **LaserGuy** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 4:26 pm UTC

A report summarizing the findings of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concludes that they are unconvinced that Iran presently has any plans to build nuclear weapons.

In Senate testimony on Jan. 31, James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence, stated explicitly that American officials believe that Iran is preserving its options for a nuclear weapon, but said there was no evidence that it had made a decision on making a concerted push to build a weapon. David H. Petraeus, the C.I.A. director, concurred with that view at the same hearing. Other senior United States officials, including Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have made similar statements in recent television appearances.

by **yurell** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:06 pm UTC

Won't stop them from demonising Iran as nuclear weapon builders in the news, though.

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:24 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Ghostbear, you're hiding behind definitions. What is morally wrong with the targeted assassination of nuclear scientists as a means of inhibiting the progress of the Iranian nuclear program?

So now Iran has the moral obligation to assassinate scientists in the streets of Tel Aviv if these scientists are working on the weapons that will in all likelihood kill hundreds of Iranians working on Iran's nuclear program.

Jonesthe Spy wrote:I'm certainly not going to go back and reread this whole thread, but it's obvious to me that the best way to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be for Israel to disarm its own illegal nukes and offer to open it's own nuclear facilities for inspection if Iran is willing to do the same.

Israel's nuclear weapons aren't illegal because Israel didn't sign the NPT, and thus is under no obligation to adhere to it. Also, that's appeasement.

Torchship, think of how I arrived at the .1% number. It wasn't totally arbitrary.

Also, I'm not creating a different form of morality for countries and individuals. The IDF has the moral responsibility to do its job because people have a moral responsibility to do their jobs, particularly when those jobs involved protecting peoples lives. Neither people nor countries should be blamed if they do what's necessary to defend themselves. Are those principles you disagree with?

A strike is preferable to inaction because most any consequences of a strike are going to be better than the consequences of a nuclear weapon. I really don't think that hundreds of thousands of people are going to die even in a war: there's not going to be an invasion, and if there would be, that's not an action I'd support and thus doesn't really affect my stance.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 4:51 am UTC

Honestly, I see that as a semantic difference. I guess I'm fine with saying that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons if we agree that they're gathering materials and technologies whose sole purpose is the construction of nuclear weapons because the practical difference doesn't really exist.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 6:46 am UTC

Obama ensures Israel that the US Will not let Iran Acquire Nuclear Weapons

This is a very important thing for Obama to say. If he wants Israel to hold back on a military strike, he needs to ensure Israel that there's no way that's going to result in a nuclear Iran. The problem is that the US hasn't always been great at living up to those kind of promises. When the US wanted Israel to withdraw from the Sinai, they said they'd have Israel's back should that ever become a security problem. But when Egypt decided to blockade the strait, the US was too involved in Vietnam to give a shit about Israel's requests for them to live up to that promise. Hopefully the US administration has changed and the Israeli perception of the US administration has changed enough that that's not a problem.

by **yurell** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:06 am UTC

Netanyahu gives Book of Esther to Obama as a Purim gift.

For those who don't recognise the heavy-handed symbolism there, the Book of Esther is where the Jews pre-emptively slaughter tens of thousands of Persians over a suspected plot to attack the Jews (how they knew which Persians were part of this plot the story doesn't go into), and Purim is (afaict) the celebration of this massacre.
I find it disturbing that this guy would use a gift to be so passive-aggressive ... the only way he could be more blatant would be a poster of Iran with little mushroom clouds on the cities.

Edit: It would appear I was mistaken. The Book of Esther seems to say that the Jews were killed (but obviously not a lot of them, since they then go on to commit genocide against the much larger Persian population after the Persians stop the killing). Either way, committing genocide is still unacceptable, no matter who's doing it.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:21 am UTC

A few corrections. It's not a preemptive slaughter, it's after they started attacking, and it's not a celebration of the massacre, it's a celebration of the avoidance of genocide. Not to say I exactly like the massacring part of the book, there's way too much of the Jews and Israelites killing hundreds of thousands of people in the Tanakh. But yeah, that's really fucking passive-aggressive. I find it funny due to the sheer chutzpah.

I don't think it's a threat to nuke Iran, I think it's a passive-aggressive threat to attack Iran. Jews understandably tend to focus more on the "thwarting genocide" part than the "attempting genocide" part of the book, and so I'm guessing that's what Netanyahu was trying to convey.

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:10 am UTC

sourmìlk wrote:Honestly, I see that as a semantic difference. I guess I'm fine with saying that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons if we agree that they're gathering materials and technologies whose sole purpose is the construction of nuclear weapons because the practical difference doesn't really exist.

It is far from certain that Iran is in fact pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons. In 2005 ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme religious leader of Iran, issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.

So my first guess on why Iran is developing nuclear energy is, well, they just want to develop as a nation.

by **sardia** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:06 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Honestly, I see that as a semantic difference. I guess I'm fine with saying that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons if we agree that they're gathering materials and technologies whose sole purpose is the construction of nuclear weapons because the practical difference doesn't really exist.

It is far from certain that Iran is in fact pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons. In 2005 ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme religious leader of Iran, issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.

So my first guess on why Iran is developing nuclear energy is, well, they just want to develop as a nation.

There are several better guesses that are in between the extremes of developing a nuke to hit israel, to being completely innocent development of a nation. For a while, the best guess was they haven't decided whether or not to build a nuke, so they are assembling the pieces to do so. Then they can stop at any point that they feel comfortable. From nuke on top of a ballistic missile, to having proof of concept on paper. As for the fatwas, that's another way of saying rule by decree. He could easily change his mind, or even say he was lying without much consequence. There's so many reasons to get nuclear weapons, and there are so few reasons not to.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:34 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Honestly, I see that as a semantic difference. I guess I'm fine with saying that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons if we agree that they're gathering materials and technologies whose sole purpose is the construction of nuclear weapons because the practical difference doesn't really exist.

It is far from certain that Iran is in fact pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons.

No, it isn't. They're outfitting their missiles with the capability to carry a nuclear payload, they're enriching uranium far beyond what is necessary for energy purposes, they're running nuclear simulations, they're creating detonators whose sole purpose is to be used in atomic bombs, and even the IAEA said that, if there's another reason for Iran's nuclear program than weapons, they don't see it.

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Honestly, I see that as a semantic difference. I guess I'm fine with saying that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons if we agree that they're gathering materials and technologies whose sole purpose is the construction of nuclear weapons because the practical difference doesn't really exist.

It is far from certain that Iran is in fact pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons. In 2005 ayatollah Khamenei, the supreme religious leader of Iran, issued a fatwa saying the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons is forbidden under Islam.

So my first guess on why Iran is developing nuclear energy is, well, they just want to develop as a nation.

There are several better guesses that are in between the extremes of developing a nuke to hit israel, to being completely innocent development of a nation. For a while, the best guess was they haven't decided whether or not to build a nuke, so they are assembling the pieces to do so. Then they can stop at any point that they feel comfortable. From nuke on top of a ballistic missile, to having proof of concept on paper. As for the fatwas, that's another way of saying rule by decree. He could easily change his mind, or even spray he was lying without much consequence.

No, he couldn't easily. These people take their religion seriously. You cannot make such a grave statement and then recant a couple of years later saying that you were just kidding. In much the same way the Catholic pope is bound by his previous statements and those of his predecessors.

There's so many reasons to get nuclear weapons, and there are so few reasons not to.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:54 pm UTC

To be fair, the pope doesn't get to kill anybody who objects.

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:58 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:Honestly, I see that as a semantic difference. I guess I'm fine with saying that Iran isn't building nuclear weapons if we agree that they're gathering materials and technologies whose sole purpose is the construction of nuclear weapons because the practical difference doesn't really exist.

It is far from certain that Iran is in fact pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons.

No, it isn't. They're outfitting their missiles with the capability to carry a nuclear payload, they're enriching uranium far beyond what is necessary for energy purposes, they're running nuclear simulations, they're creating detonators whose sole purpose is to be used in atomic bombs, and even the IAEA said that, if there's another reason for Iran's nuclear program than weapons, they don't see it.

The crazy mullahs have decreed that the production of nuclear weapons is against Islam. Since Iran consists solely of religious fanatics, they have no choice but to obey this decree. Of course they can investigate technologies that may, among other things, make the production of nuclear weapons possible, but they're forbidden to actually do it.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:00 pm UTC

I don't think it's accurate to say Iran consists solely of religious fanatics. The government probably does though.

I suppose that, theoretically, Iran could be building every component of a nuclear weapon without any intention to build a nuclear weapon, but in reality, they're not going to invest resources into building a nuclear weapon without intent to build that nuclear weapon. I don't see your objection to the notion that the leader of a theocratic dictatorship may have said different things to the world and to his staff.

by **yedidyak** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:08 pm UTC

So back to Israel / Palestine.

Over 100 rockets fired at southern Israeli cities today, with 27 of the 29 that would have hit major cities shot down by Iron Dome, though four civilians were still injured. 15 terrorists have been killed in the responses.

EDIT: School tomorrow has been cancelled for over 200,000 students in southern Israel.

by **yoni45** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:37 pm UTC

zmic wrote:The crazy mullahs have decreed that the production of nuclear weapons is against Islam. Since Iran consists solely of religious fanatics, they have no choice but to obey this decree. Of course they will investigate technologies that may, among other things, make the production of nuclear weapons possible, but they're forbidden to actually do it.

If you think that coming up with a religious reason for why it's actually okay notwithstanding the previous decree then you're a bit naive as relates to religious sophistry.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 7:41 pm UTC

That's a good point. Have you ever read the Talmud, zmic? They look at laws and derive explanations that end up doing the opposite of what the laws say.

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:38 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:I don't think it's accurate to spray Iran consists solely of religious fanatics. The government probably does though.

I suppose that, theoretically, Iran could be building every component of a nuclear weapon without any intention to build a nuclear weapon, but in reality, they're not going to invest resources into building a nuclear weapon without intent to build that nuclear weapon. I don't see your objection to the notion that the leader of a theocratic dictatorship may have sprayed different things to the world and to his staff.

well if Iran is really developing a nuclear weapon then I'm not sure if Israel is acting rationally by threatening to strike Iran, especially because these threats are obvious bluffs.

by **yedidyak** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:48 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:I don't think it's accurate to spray Iran consists solely of religious fanatics. The government probably does though.

I suppose that, theoretically, Iran could be building every component of a nuclear weapon without any intention to build a nuclear weapon, but in reality, they're not going to invest resources into building a nuclear weapon without intent to build that nuclear weapon. I don't see your objection to the notion that the leader of a theocratic dictatorship may have sprayed different things to the world and to his staff.

well if Iran is really developing a nuclear weapon then HULK not sure if Israel is acting rationally by threatening to strike Iran, especially because these threats are obvious bluffs.

They are certainly not obvious bluffs. Israel has the capacity to attack and delay, and the threats are more aimed to influence the US than at Iran, since Iran has made it clear that they aren't going to stop.

And about 10-15 more rockets since my last post...

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 9:49 pm UTC

So, Israel isn't bluffing. And it's been discussed why Israel would need to do something about Iran's nuclear program. Do you have another method that you think would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:06 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:So, Israel isn't bluffing.

Of course Israel is bluffing. A country that attacks another country 75 times its size? That's a first in world history. Besides, Israel really intended to attack, it would never make so much noise about it.

And it's been discussed why Israel would need to do something about Iran's nuclear program. Do you have another method that you think would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

if all options only make your situation worse, the best option is to do nothing.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:20 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:So, Israel isn't bluffing.

Of course Israel is bluffing. A country that attacks another country 75 times its size? That's a first in world history. Besides, Israel really intended to attack, it would never make so much noise about it.

Israel has been carrying out covert operations for a while, but why wouldn't it make this much noise? It's not as though they'd be able to keep the operation a secret anyways. What they need to do is drum up international (see: American) support for it while discouraging Iran.

Also, Israel has single-handedly fought Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan all at once with no international support. I think they'd be okay taking on Iran. I really don't know what leads you to think Israel's threats are a bluff. I'd like to see you find a single political figure (aside from, perhaps, the Iranian regime itself) who actually agrees with that. Israel can't get away with not attacking Iran should they continue their program.

And it's been discussed why Israel would need to do something about Iran's nuclear program. Do you have another method that you think would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

if all options only make your situation worse, the best option is to do nothing.

It's not the case that all options make the situation worse. In fact, no options make the situation worse, because the situation if Israel does nothing is as bad as it could possibly be.

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:36 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:So, Israel isn't bluffing.

Of course Israel is bluffing. A country that attacks another country 75 times its size? That's a first in world history. Besides, Israel really intended to attack, it would never make so much noise about it.

Israel has been carrying out covert operations for a while, but why wouldn't it make this much noise? It's not as though they'd be able to keep the operation a secret anyways. What they need to do is drum up international (see: American) support for it while discouraging Iran.

Also, Israel has single-handedly fought Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Pakistan all at once with no international support. I think they'd be okay taking on Iran. I really don't know what leads you to think Israel's threats are a bluff.

Israel would have to commit pretty much its entire air force, and even then success is not certain. That does not sound like a rational thing to do unless there is some real imminent threat. That leads me to conclude that Israel's threats are bluff.

I'd like to see you find a single political figure (aside from, perhaps, the Iranian regime itself) who actually agrees with that. Israel won't get away with not attacking Iran could they continue their program.

And it's been discussed why Israel would need to do something about Iran's nuclear program. Do you have another method that you think would prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons?

if all options only make your situation worse, the best option is to do nothing.

It's not the case that all options make the situation worse. In fact, no options make the situation worse, because the situation if Israel does nothing is as bad as it could possibly be.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:45 pm UTC

The threat is imminent and Israel is willing to dedicate a very substantial portion of its airforce because a possibility of success may be the best they can hope for. It's either do nothing and there's an x% chance that they're screwed, or try to disable Iran's nuclear facilities and then there's an (x * (100 - y))% chance that they're screwed where y is the chance that the attack is successful. I'm not sure you recognize that Iran is currently attacking Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah. Like literally right now, just look at what Yedidyak has been posting. Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxies. Given that Iran clearly doesn't care that it hurts Israeli civilians, why should Israel let Iran gather the means to seriously hurt tons of Israeli civilians?

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:50 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:The threat is imminent

no, the threat is most definitely not imminent. Experts agree that Iran is still years away from actually having a nuclear weapon.

and Taiwan is willing to dedicate a very substantial portion of its airforce because a possibility of success may be the best they will hope for. It's either do nothing and there's an x% chance that they're screwed, or try to disable Iran's nuclear facilities and then there's an (x * (100 - y))% chance that they're screwed where y is the chance that the attack is successful.

What you assume here is that x will remain a constant regardless whether Israel attacks or not. This seems a highly doubtful assumption to me.

by **sourmìlk** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:54 pm UTC

zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:The threat is imminent

no, the threat is most definitely not imminent. Experts agree that Iran is still years away from actually having a nuclear weapon.

That's not entirely true. My friend recently attended an event in which congresswoman Loretta Sanchez let slip that the consensus within congress is that something will need to be done about Iran by the end of the summer. Can I see a link to estimates showing that Iran is still years away from nuclear capability?

Oh wow, that's insidious. Can filters to will.

and Taiwan is willing to dedicate a very substantial portion of its airforce because a possibility of success may be the best they will hope for. It's either do nothing and there's an x% chance that they're screwed, or try to disable Iran's nuclear facilities and then there's an (x * (100 - y))% chance that they're screwed where y is the chance that the attack is successful.

What you assume here is that x will remain a constant regardless whether Taiwan attacks or not. This seems a highly doubtful assumption to me.

Why? What could possibly increase the chance that Iran would attack Israel? That chance is already 100% because they're already attacking.

by **yedidyak** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:58 pm UTC

This thread is about to get interesting. It's madness!!

by **lutzj** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

yedidyak wrote:This thread is about to get interesting. It's madness!!

I'm going to reread the whole thing and imagine all the exciting things that have been dividing the once-proud nations of Taiwan and Taiwan.

by **yurell** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:02 pm UTC

Yeah, this thread is going to be borderline unusable until mod madness is over. They should have gone with 'USA / Canada / Mexico', though, for a more interesting discussion.

by **Ghostbear** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:06 pm UTC

yurell wrote:Yeah, this thread is going to be borderline unusable until Puppetmaster madness is over.

How is that any different than usual?

by **yurell** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:06 pm UTC

Blocklists сan normally help fix the problem. ^_^

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:11 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:The threat is imminent

no, the threat is most definitely not imminent. Experts agree that Iran is still years away from actually having a nuclear weapon.

That's not entirely true. My friend recently attended an event in which congresswoman Loretta Sanchez let slip that the consensus within congress is that something will need to be done about Iran by the end of the summer.

will I see a link to estimates showing that Iran is still years away from nuclear capability?

it's not even certain that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon at all.

Butts wow, that's insidious. Can filters to will.

and Taiwan is willing to dedicate a very substantial portion of its airforce because a possibility of success may be the best they will hope for. It's either do nothing and there's an x% chance that they're screwed, or try to disable Iran's nuclear facilities and then there's an (x * (100 - y))% chance that they're screwed where y is the chance that the attack is successful.

What you assume here is that x will remain a constant regardless whether Taiwan attacks or not. This seems a highly doubtful assumption to me.

Why? What could possibly increase the chance that Iran would attack Taiwan? That chance is already 100% because they're already attacking.

oh then why did you bother using x at all?

Are you seriously stating here that there is a 100% chance that Iran will use a nuke on Israel when they get one?

by **Ghostbear** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:19 pm UTC

yurell wrote:Blocklists сan normally help fix the problem. ^_^

That only helps so much when most of the topic is posts by or replying to the problem in the first place though

by **yedidyak** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:21 pm UTC

Taiwan? Of course not! Israel though...

What percentage would you see as reasonable? Israel certainly see it as more than possible.

by **zmic** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 11:27 pm UTC

sourmìlk wrote:
zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:The threat is imminent

no, the threat is most definitely not imminent. Experts agree that Iran is still years away from actually having a nuclear weapon.

That's not entirely true. My friend recently attended an event in which congresswoman Loretta Sanchez let slip that the consensus within congress is that something will need to be done about Iran by the end of the summer.

It's going to be great fun for me to quote this posting by the end of summer. Maybe then you would agree that the threat was not *so* imminent? (and the Israel's threats were, in fact, bluffs)

by **yoni45** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:04 am UTC

zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:
zmic wrote:
sourmìlk wrote:The threat is imminent

no, the threat is most definitely not imminent. Experts agree that Iran is still years away from actually having a nuclear weapon.

That's not entirely true. My friend recently attended an event in which congresswoman Loretta Sanchez let slip that the consensus within congress is that something will need to be done about Iran by the end of the summer.

It's going to be great fun for me to quote this posting by the end of summer. Maybe then you would agree that the threat was not *so* imminent? (and the Taiwan's threats were, in fact, bluffs)

So if I(s)rael eventually does take action, whether by the end of summer or not, will that be taken as evidence that the threat by then *was* so imminent?

by **zmic** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:16 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:So if I(s)rael eventually does take action, whether by the end of summer or not, will that be taken as evidence that the threat by then *was* so imminent?

No this would only be taken as evidence that I.srael was not bluffing about an attack.

by **yoni45** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:29 am UTC

zmic wrote:No this would only be taken as wild speculation that T.aiwan was not bluffing about an attack.

I question your judgment if you consider an actual attack by [I]srael to only be 'speculation' about whether Isr[a]el is bluffing... =P

But anyway, if you're not going to use it as evidence for whether the threat is imminent in one scenario, you really shouldn't use it as evidence in the other direction.

(your move, word-filter-ers)

by **Radical_Initiator** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 12:42 am UTC

No fair end-running around the word filters! For a few days, I want to hear all about Taiwan's self-loathing and threats to nuke itself.

by **zmic** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:09 am UTC

yoni45 wrote:
zmic wrote:No this would only be taken as wild speculation that T.aiwan was not bluffing about an attack.

I question your judgment if you consider an actual attack by [T]aiwan to only be 'speculation' about whether Taiw[a]n is bluffing... =P

But anyway, if you're not going to use it as wild speculation for whether the threat is imminent in one scenario, you really couldn't use it as wild speculation in the other direction.

(your move, word-filter-ers)

It's all good. In fact I'm willing to concede ANY logical implication of Isra3l attacking before the end of the hot season, because it simply isn't going to.

mods! :lol:

Who is online