ForumGarden

William Ess wrote: Then I am indeed in the wrong place.


the name of the forum, and the introductory text ("Conversations of Life"), don't strike me as particularly obscurant compass points.

anastrophe wrote: the name of the forum, and the introductory text ("Conversations of Life"), don't strike me as particularly obscurant compass points.


obscurant compass points. Eh?

William Ess wrote: To be balanced a poll should cover all likely possibilities.


Not sure about that, but the questions certainly should not be loaded.

If one can try and advance the topic a little; I gather the issue revolves around whether Iran (Persia) should have a nuclear facility. On a personal basis, given the rise of irresponsible fundamentalism over the last thirty years, I would prefer them not to have nuclear capability but I am at a loss to think of a just or moral reason why they should not.

Nor, I think, do we have the ability to deprive them of it especially given the farce that Iraq is developing into.

William Ess wrote: obscurant compass points. Eh?


you said you were in the wrong place. a compass is traditionally employed to find one's way.

William Ess wrote: If one can try and advance the topic a little; I gather the issue revolves around whether Iran (Persia) should have a nuclear facility. On a personal basis, given the rise of irresponsible fundamentalism over the last thirty years, I would prefer them not to have nuclear capability but I am at a loss to think of a just or moral reason why they should not.

Nor, I think, do we have the ability to deprive them of it especially given the farce that Iraq is developing into.


perhaps israel will assist with another Operation Opera.

anastrophe wrote: you said you were in the wrong place. a compass is traditionally employed to find one's way.


It was the tautology rather than the analogy that caught my eye.

anastrophe wrote: perhaps israel will assist with another Operation Opera.


I doubt if the Persians will be caught off-guard twice.

William Ess wrote: Then I am indeed in the wrong place.'sokay. I'm sure it's hard to read the road signs with your nose in that position.



Here's a link.

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/forum ... .php?f=271



It was way too formal for a hick like me, so you should be right at home.

William Ess wrote: I doubt if the Persians will be caught off-guard twice.


operation opera was not conducted against persia, or persians.

anastrophe wrote: operation opera was not conducted against persia, or persians.


Who was it conducted against, then?

William Ess wrote: Who was it conducted against, then?


i would normally recommend google. but to satisfy your curiousity, it was conducted against iraq.



last i checked, iraq was not iran, notwithstanding the one letter difference in the names. nor are iraqis persians.

seekerw wrote: Intelligence agencies of many nations also believed Iraq had WMD before we invaded. And we have found some since the invasion of Iraq. Would you rather we waited until we knew Saddam had them before trying to invade?


No, the intelegence agencies were telling the government that there was no evidence of the development or stockpiling of WMDs and no evidence of intent.

Can you show what WMDs have been found - 'cos Tony Blair has been totally unable to.

anastrophe wrote: i would again submit that nuclear weapons are not defensive weapons, nor does any nation have a "right" to own them (setting aside for the moment that nations and governments have powers, not rights).


I would ask, does any country have a "right" to stop another country from owning them if that "right" is contingent on invading said country to enforce your view?

William Ess wrote: If one can try and advance the topic a little; I gather the issue revolves around whether Iran (Persia) should have a nuclear facility. On a personal basis, given the rise of irresponsible fundamentalism over the last thirty years, I would prefer them not to have nuclear capability but I am at a loss to think of a just or moral reason why they should not.

Nor, I think, do we have the ability to deprive them of it especially given the farce that Iraq is developing into.


You do not appear to distinguish between a nuclear facility (power generation for example) and a nuclear capability, which is usually assumed to mean weapons.

anastrophe wrote: i would normally recommend google. but to satisfy your curiousity, it was conducted against iraq.



last i checked, iraq was not iran, notwithstanding the one letter difference in the names. nor are iraqis persians.


I beg youir pardon. It was of course Iraq and not Iran. Time for bed, d'win meddol

Bryn Mawr wrote: I would ask, does any country have a "right" to stop another country from owning them if that "right" is contingent on invading said country to enforce your view?


i believe that nuclear weapons should all be eliminated, along with other WMD's. they pose direct and indirect threats to health, safety, security, and peace. therefore, i would support nearly any means to prevent yet another country from becoming armed with them. i'd like to see india and pakistan and china and the US and the UK and france all voluntarily disarming of nukes. north korea's ambitions should be stopped, most assuredly, since if ever any ruler was borderline psychotic, it's kim jung il. generally speaking, you don't let the mentally ill play with weapons, for their own safety, and the safety of others.



iran's representatives have made enough threatening comments regarding israel that i consider them a real threat to use nukes on same. waiting for the missiles to launch is too cautious a path. shooting down a nuke-laden missile creates the potential for massive casualties from the indirect fallout.

anastrophe wrote: i believe that nuclear weapons should all be eliminated, along with other WMD's. they pose direct and indirect threats to health, safety, security, and peace. therefore, i would support nearly any means to prevent yet another country from becoming armed with them. i'd like to see india and pakistan and china and the US and the UK and france all voluntarily disarming of nukes. north korea's ambitions should be stopped, most assuredly, since if ever any ruler was borderline psychotic, it's kim jung il. generally speaking, you don't let the mentally ill play with weapons, for their own safety, and the safety of others.



iran's representatives have made enough threatening comments regarding israel that i consider them a real threat to use nukes on same. waiting for the missiles to launch is too cautious a path. shooting down a nuke-laden missile creates the potential for massive casualties from the indirect fallout.


OK, you've answered the what but not the how. How far would you go to stop North Korea and Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability?

Bryn Mawr wrote: OK, you've answered the what but not the how. How far would you go to stop North Korea and Iran achieving a nuclear weapons capability?


we're talking hypotheticals. i don't support 'nuking iran before they nuke us'. i support diplomatic action, and if necessary, military action.



i hope it doesn't come to that. i hope both iran and north korea voluntarily abandon the path. and yes, i work on the assumption that both are intent on developing nuclear weapons. in the former case, it seems likely. in the latter case it seems obvious.

Total disarmament needs someone to start. Who would you suggest?



I'm certainly not in favor of dropping ours first.

anastrophe wrote: we're talking hypotheticals. i don't support 'nuking iran before they nuke us'. i support diplomatic action, and if necessary, military action.



i hope it doesn't come to that. i hope both iran and north korea voluntarily abandon the path. and yes, i work on the assumption that both are intent on developing nuclear weapons. in the former case, it seems likely. in the latter case it seems obvious.


So if they don't give in to the current US demands that they scrap their nuclear programs then you would support pre-emptive millitary action?

Accountable wrote: Total disarmament needs someone to start. Who would you suggest?



I'm certainly not in favor of dropping ours first.


during the cold war, the united states stockpile of nuclear weapons was about 70,000. production of new nuclear weapons was phased out between 1989 and 1992. in 2001, there were 9,600 nuclear weapons stockpiled. as of 2004, only about 6,600 are in 'active service' (the remainder not yet dismantled).



i'd say we're doing a great job of getting rid of these weapons. do we still have thousands of them? yes. is it still many times what most other nations have? yes. the former soviets and russians have also been dismantling stockpiles, theirs being approximately the same size as ours.



yes, total disarmament is a long way off. hopefully someday the last one will be dismantled.

Bryn Mawr wrote: So if they don't give in to the current US demands that they scrap their nuclear programs then you would support pre-emptive millitary action?


it depends upon how far along they are, and what evidence of same is uncovered.

Bryn Mawr wrote: So if they don't give in to the current US demands that they scrap their nuclear programs then you would support pre-emptive millitary action?


to put a finer point on it, i'm not going to commit to an absolute statement of my position on a hypothetical.

anastrophe wrote: to put a finer point on it, i'm not going to commit to an absolute statement of my position on a hypothetical.


You don't need to - it's implicit in your statement :-

"i don't support 'nuking iran before they nuke us'. i support diplomatic action, and if necessary, military action."

Bryn Mawr wrote: You don't need to - it's implicit in your statement :-



"i don't support 'nuking iran before they nuke us'. i support diplomatic action, and if necessary, military action."


okay.



i'm not a Pacifist, so i'm not against the use of military action when necessary.

anastrophe wrote: during the cold war, the united states stockpile of nuclear weapons was about 70,000. production of new nuclear weapons was phased out between 1989 and 1992. in 2001, there were 9,600 nuclear weapons stockpiled. as of 2004, only about 6,600 are in 'active service' (the remainder not yet dismantled).



i'd say we're doing a great job of getting rid of these weapons. do we still have thousands of them? yes. is it still many times what most other nations have? yes. the former soviets and russians have also been dismantling stockpiles, theirs being approximately the same size as ours.



yes, total disarmament is a long way off. hopefully someday the last one will be dismantled.I'd estimate it to be about one week after the last illegal handgun is confiscated.

anastrophe wrote: okay.



i'm not a Pacifist, so i'm not against the use of military action when necessary.


Then why the "largely fictional" in :-

Originally Posted by anastrophe

care to name some of these [likely fictional] forumgarden members who support "nuking iran before they nuke us"? bearing in mind the modifier "many" in that sentence. naming one simply won't do justice to the request.

Accountable wrote: I'd estimate it to be about one week after the last illegal handgun is confiscated.


apples v apples, please. this is certainly apples v oranges.

Bryn Mawr wrote: Then why the "largely fictional" in :-



Originally Posted by anastrophe

care to name some of these [likely fictional] forumgarden members who support "nuking iran before they nuke us"? bearing in mind the modifier "many" in that sentence. naming one simply won't do justice to the request.


i don't understand how your question flows from the post you followed up to.



nevertheless, i'm surprised at the number of votes in favor of nuking iran. and disappointed.



however, i must take pains to point out that the comments you quote above were in reply to your assertion (via rhetorical inquiry) "Why are so many [members] showing their support for "nuking Iran before they nuke us"



you can take the poll results however you like. whether you characterize them as "many" is entirely up to you. there's more that profess to support it than i'd thought, but 'many' doesn't come to mind.

anastrophe wrote: there's more that profess to support it than i'd thought, but 'many' doesn't come to mind.What a strange dictionary you must use, then. I thought the traditional use of words scaled from "some" through "many" to "most". We do seem to have upgraded from 'care to name some of these [likely fictional] forumgarden members who support "nuking iran before they nuke us"? bearing in mind the modifier "many" in that sentence. naming one simply won't do justice to the request.' though, don't we.

As a happy mathematical coincidence, adding Bronwen, BR, Captain Ray and golem to the "yes" US vote (me having earlier in this thread quoted their desire to "nuke" Iran, in their absence) balances the vote at a tie. Midway between "many" and "most", would you say?

Naming one simply won't do justice to the request? I should think not.

anastrophe wrote: i believe that nuclear weapons should all be eliminated, along with other WMD's. they pose direct and indirect threats to health, safety, security, and peace. therefore, i would support nearly any means to prevent yet another country from becoming armed with them. i'd like to see india and pakistan and china and the US and the UK and france all voluntarily disarming of nukes. north korea's ambitions should be stopped, most assuredly, since if ever any ruler was borderline psychotic, it's kim jung il. generally speaking, you don't let the mentally ill play with weapons, for their own safety, and the safety of others.



iran's representatives have made enough threatening comments regarding israel that i consider them a real threat to use nukes on same. waiting for the missiles to launch is too cautious a path. shooting down a nuke-laden missile creates the potential for massive casualties from the indirect fallout.


It cannot be done. Even if you could scrap every nuclear weapon on the world tomorrow, the knowledge of how to build a bomb remains.

As for borderline psychotics, we have the American President reinventing Vietnam by launching a war against a pair countries with whom America has no especial grievance - and you think Kim jung il is unsound.

anastrophe wrote: apples v apples, please. this is certainly apples v oranges.It's still fruit. The only difference is scale.

William Ess wrote: It cannot be done. Even if you could scrap every nuclear weapon on the world tomorrow, the knowledge of how to build a bomb remains.

As for borderline psychotics, we have the American President reinventing Vietnam by launching a war against a pair countries with whom America has no especial grievance - and you think Kim jung il is unsound.


Indeed Kim is unsound and I suspect anyone who serioulsy compares Bush to him maybe as well..I never voted for the man, he made a huge mistake in Iraq but he is not a porn addicted pyschotic starving his people..

William Ess wrote: It cannot be done. Even if you could scrap every nuclear weapon on the world tomorrow, the knowledge of how to build a bomb remains.


that may be. but it is not trivial to make a nuclear bomb. not by even the wildest stretch. if it were, we would not be having this discussion about iran's technological buildup to being able to make them. it takes millions of dollars and exquisitely complex technology. this is why there are but a handful of nuclear-able nations. half of the currently nuclear nations would not - could not - have become nuclear nations without the help of the US, the UK, and france. period.

Accountable wrote: It's still fruit. The only difference is scale.


no, it is not. firearms are mass produced. it takes no special knowledge, no special equipment, to make a firearm. prisoners have fashioned them from junk lying around.



nuclear weapons are intensely complex technological devices. acquiring the materials to build them and arm them is not trivial. further, concealing them is far more difficult than concealing firearms.



i have yet to hear of a homemade nuclear bomb being used. ever. it's far too complex. at best, there is the 'dirty bomb', which is not a nuclear device, it is a bomb that's radioactive - big difference. there are only a few nuclear powers on earth, and it's not because of arms control, it's because it's bitchedly difficult to build a nuke.

anastrophe wrote: that may be. but it is not trivial to make a nuclear bomb. not by even the wildest stretch. if it were, we would not be having this discussion about iran's technological buildup to being able to make them. it takes millions of dollars and exquisitely complex technology. this is why there are but a handful of nuclear-able nations. half of the currently nuclear nations would not - could not - have become nuclear nations without the help of the US, the UK, and france. period.


It may have been the case in the past but will it be in the short-term future? The knowledge is there and the method will be streamlined as time passes. Pandora's box has been opened and I cannot see a way of closing it.

William Ess wrote: It may have been the case in the past but will it be in the short-term future? The knowledge is there and the method will be streamlined as time passes. Pandora's box has been opened and I cannot see a way of closing it.


no, it won't come to pass. i would recommend reading up on what's involved in making a nuclear bomb. the explanations of how, the schematics, the diagrams, are all simple enough to understand. the actual production is extremely difficult. imagine trying to build a driveable car - from the ground up - with only raw metal and a milling machine. oh - and the most critical part - the fuel - you have to drill for it yourself.

anastrophe wrote: no, it won't come to pass. i would recommend reading up on what's involved in making a nuclear bomb. the explanations of how, the schematics, the diagrams, are all simple enough to understand. the actual production is extremely difficult. imagine trying to build a driveable car - from the ground up - with only raw metal and a milling machine. oh - and the most critical part - the fuel - you have to drill for it yourself.


Not only that, without the capability to miniaturize the weapon would be the size of 18 an wheeler. Take a look at pictures of the first A-Bombs the US constructed.

It requires the resources of a nation to constuct deliverable nuclear weapons, which is why terrorists will require assistance. This is why it is important that country's which proclaim other country's should be wiped from the face of the Earth should not be permitted to develop the weapons if possible.

anastrophe wrote: no, it won't come to pass. i would recommend reading up on what's involved in making a nuclear bomb. the explanations of how, the schematics, the diagrams, are all simple enough to understand. the actual production is extremely difficult. imagine trying to build a driveable car - from the ground up - with only raw metal and a milling machine. oh - and the most critical part - the fuel - you have to drill for it yourself.


And are you quite confident that will be the case in twenty or forty years time?

William Ess wrote: And are you quite confident that will be the case in twenty or forty years time?


yes.