Obama Get's one RIGHT

[jtabeb]

This is BRILLIANT policy (for once) on Obama's part. He got it exactly right. Iran can talk with all the bravado they want, but it doesn't change the fact that they now KNOW that they have a nuclear "bullseye" painted on their forehead. (Which would make me shit in my pants if I were them).


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348...ideastn_africa

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president on Wednesday ridiculed President Barack Obama's new nuclear strategy, which turns the U.S. focus away from the Cold War threats and instead aims to stop the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists. Obama on Tuesday announced the new strategy, including a vow not to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. Iran, however, was a notable exception to that pledge, along with North Korea, because Washington accuses them of not cooperating with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

This is BRILLIANT policy (for once) on Obama's part. He got it exactly right. Iran can talk with all the bravado they want, but it doesn't change the fact that they now KNOW that they have a nuclear "bullseye" painted on their forehead. (Which would make me shit in my pants if I were them).


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348...ideastn_africa

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president on Wednesday ridiculed President Barack Obama's new nuclear strategy, which turns the U.S. focus away from the Cold War threats and instead aims to stop the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists. Obama on Tuesday announced the new strategy, including a vow not to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. Iran, however, was a notable exception to that pledge, along with North Korea, because Washington accuses them of not cooperating with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

So using Uranium depleted weapons in Iraq is not counted as a Nuclear country NOT using Nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is thicker than an 18th century coal burning factory bellowing smoke.

[jacobdcoates]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

Actually, Depleted Uranium has very low radioactivity(half-life ~4 million years), Its main threat to people and the environment is that it is a very toxic heavy metal. On another note it can not be used to make a nuclear weapon and hence would in my humble opinion not qualify as going nuclear on a non-nuclear county.

[Sharky]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

The pressure on Iran and N Korea seems appropriate.

However, by saying the US won't use nukes on non-nuclear countries, wouldn't that mean that a non-nuclear country could attack the US with biological or chemical warfare, and not have to face nuclear retaliation? Is that a good thing?

[radon]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

This is BRILLIANT policy (for once) on Obama's part. He got it exactly right. Iran can talk with all the bravado they want, but it doesn't change the fact that they now KNOW that they have a nuclear "bullseye" painted on their forehead. (Which would make me shit in my pants if I were them).


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348...ideastn_africa

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president on Wednesday ridiculed President Barack Obama's new nuclear strategy, which turns the U.S. focus away from the Cold War threats and instead aims to stop the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists. Obama on Tuesday announced the new strategy, including a vow not to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. Iran, however, was a notable exception to that pledge, along with North Korea, because Washington accuses them of not cooperating with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

As if they didn't have one before; you'll see the second coming before Iran gets nuked.

Iran knows they don't have anything to worry about from us. Its all just rhetoric and saber rattling. Just like in NK we are the bogeyman that helps them stay in power. This is just business as usual, they know it and we know it. Israel on the other hand ..... maybe they didn't get the memo.

[jtabeb]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

As if they didn't have one before; you'll see the second coming before Iran gets nuked.

Let's just say, I disagree with you (I have my reasons), and leave it at that. Ok?

Agree to disagree.

[radon]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

Actually, Depleted Uranium has very low radioactivity(half-life ~4 million years), Its main threat to people and the environment is that it is a very toxic heavy metal. On another note it can not be used to make a nuclear weapon and hence would in my humble opinion not qualify as going nuclear on a non-nuclear county.

It is almost entirely u-238 with a half life of around 4.468E9. If it had a half life of 4 million years there would be hardly any left since the earth formed.

But you are right in that it is toxic and cannot support a chain reaction. On the other hand it is fertile and you can use it to produce plutonium as part of a breeder cycle. So save those bullets and recycle!

[iyamwutiam]

Actually, Depleted Uranium has very low radioactivity(half-life ~4 million years), Its main threat to people and the environment is that it is a very toxic heavy metal. On another note it can not be used to make a nuclear weapon and hence would in my humble opinion not qualify as going nuclear on a non-nuclear county.

The irony is your actually serious. Pushing the boundaries of common sense with specious arguments is not the point. Besides -we ALL know -who the ONLY country in the world is to ACTUALLY use nuclear weapons is -don't we. It just amazes me -call it nepotism, racism, nationalism -I call it stupidity and being unfair and quite frankly ignorant. How many people would rather be the horse with blinders in the race to finish than be a
free bird -is at -times- most appalling and particularly revolting.

But this is the site for it. So I shall excuse myself from further discussion.

[radon]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

Agree to disagree.

I can go with that. I have my reasons to believe that such an action will never be authorized.

[radon]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

The irony is your actually serious. Pushing the boundaries of common sense with specious arguments is not the point. Besides -we ALL know -who the ONLY country in the world is to ACTUALLY use nuclear weapons is -don't we. It just amazes me -call it nepotism, racism, nationalism -I call it stupidity and being unfair and quite frankly ignorant. How many people would rather be the horse with blinders in the race to finish than be a
free bird -is at -times- most appalling and particularly revolting.

But this is the site for it. So I shall excuse myself from further discussion.

Are you seriously arguing that a metal whose most valuable property is its cross sectional density rises to level of a nuclear engagement?

[jtabeb]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

Are you seriously arguing that a metal whose most valuable property is its cross sectional density rises to level of a nuclear engagement?

Well it IS pyrophoric too, ya know.

[konj]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

As if they didn't have one before; you'll see the second coming before Iran gets nuked.

Iran knows they don't have anything to worry about from us. Its all just rhetoric and saber rattling. Just like in NK we are the bogeyman that helps them stay in power. This is just business as usual, they know it and we know it. Israel on the other hand ..... maybe they didn't get the memo.

I think the above statement is as accurate as it can get. Surprisingly to most people in the West, the US or even Israel are not Iran's enemies per se.

These are just advertising tools to influence impressionable youths in the neighboring Gulf states which Iran considers part of their "historical domain".

The Shia vs Sunni conflict is very much alive and kicking. Has been for centuries, way before the US and Israel were on the map.

[Scot]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

So using Uranium depleted weapons in Iraq is not counted as a Nuclear country NOT using Nuclear weapons. The hypocrisy is thicker than an 18th century coal burning factory bellowing smoke.

By your logic if we dropped turkeys on them from helicopters the radioactive potassium in their bodies would make them nuclear weapons, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FXSnoy71Q4

[Glenn Black]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

This is BRILLIANT policy (for once) on Obama's part. He got it exactly right. Iran can talk with all the bravado they want, but it doesn't change the fact that they now KNOW that they have a nuclear "bullseye" painted on their forehead. (Which would make me shit in my pants if I were them).


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36212348...ideastn_africa

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president on Wednesday ridiculed President Barack Obama's new nuclear strategy, which turns the U.S. focus away from the Cold War threats and instead aims to stop the spread of atomic weapons to rogue states or terrorists. Obama on Tuesday announced the new strategy, including a vow not to use nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them. Iran, however, was a notable exception to that pledge, along with North Korea, because Washington accuses them of not cooperating with the international community on nonproliferation standards.

http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_bueno..._s_future.html

Highly recommended video. TED speaker shows how he predicts in a scientific method that US should leave Iran alone, and they will naturally back away from their nuclear program & posturing.

If US keeps pushing their buttons, somebody make make a mis-step, or drag out the problem much longer than necessary.

[Sharky]

Re: Obama Get's one RIGHT

http://www.ted.com/talks/bruce_bueno..._s_future.html

Highly recommended video. TED speaker shows how he predicts in a scientific method that US should leave Iran alone, and they will naturally back away from their nuclear program & posturing.

Interesting talk, but I don't buy it.

I know a decent amount about game theory. Between that and his statement about assuming that people always act in ways that rationally support what they say they're interested in (something that's easy to show isn't true), it's hard for me to imagine how his model could result in much more than an educated guess.

Just the way he described that "90%" number was odd: it was how often the model predicted things correctly when the experts got it wrong. OK, but how well did it do overall? How many test cases were there? How detailed were the inputs in each case? How rational were the groups involved? There are way too many unknowns for that number to be meaningful, and a real scientist would know that.