Iranian Nuclear Program Rocked Hard By AC/DC Virus

[Gennadios]

Well, if I were an Iranian scientist, I'd much rather be woken up to max volume Thunderstruck in the middle of the night than be assassinated by Mossad. These guys have it easy.

Captcha: gadzooks

 

[JSF01]

Small point. Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists of a extremely nasty bent. They've been repressing and murdering their on population for decades now, fund terrorism overseas and do all kinds of interesting skullduggery. Do you honestly think if the rest of the world just said "hey ya go, all the nuclear know how you could ever want." They'll just have a change of heart and stop all the nasty stuff they've been doing? Or would they get even nastier knwoing that they have nuclear weapons to fall back on if things get to bad?

Just replace the word "Islamic" with "Christian" and you could say nearly the same thing about the U.S. (except we haven't gotten to the point of massacring our own citizens yet...just the citizens of other countries).

Besides, I'm not talking about weapons. I'm talking about nuclear reactors for energy. A reactor doesn't suddenly become a weapon just because a dictator is in charge.

You do know that a by-product of the nuclear reactors that they are trying/have to build can be used to make nuclear weapons; on top of that they have on multiple occasions shown they want to build nuclear weapons. Once you have the nuclear material it is very simple to build a nuclear weapon. There is no good reason for to use nuclear energy. They are an oil rich country, so they already to have easy access to a safe energy source. If they want a clean energy alternative to oil, solar is a great alternative considering they are a desert country.

 

[Ashannon Blackthorn]

Small point. Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists of a extremely nasty bent. They've been repressing and murdering their on population for decades now, fund terrorism overseas and do all kinds of interesting skullduggery. Do you honestly think if the rest of the world just said "hey ya go, all the nuclear know how you could ever want." They'll just have a change of heart and stop all the nasty stuff they've been doing? Or would they get even nastier knwoing that they have nuclear weapons to fall back on if things get to bad?

Just replace the word "Islamic" with "Christian" and you could say nearly the same thing about the U.S. (except we haven't gotten to the point of massacring our own citizens yet...just the citizens of other countries).

Besides, I'm not talking about weapons. I'm talking about nuclear reactors for energy. A reactor doesn't suddenly become a weapon just because a dictator is in charge.

Lot more likely to under a dictator... and I don't even wanna think about how religion could factor into this. People can do some incredibly crazy things when gripped with fanaticism.

 

[Rule Britannia]

I saw this on Ultimate Guitar a couple of days ago (not written as well though).

OT:
When i saw this I laughed but it's disturbing that it's even speculated thast the CIA were involved with this, whether they were or not.

 

[Somebloke]

Fun until the cyberjacking is turned your way? :7

 

[Albino Boo]

...Then the AC/DC will be playing from the cockpits of Apache's and F-15's, where it can actually be enjoyed. I look forward to the gunsight video footage.

Charming. It's just as well that the forum rules discourage us from making personal remarks.

We should be actively engaged in assisting other countries to develop their nuclear energy plants that way they gain access to the knowledge and wisdom we've gained over the years and they end up with a much more safe and stable system.

That's a good idea, but not for the reasons you provide. Iran is probably capable of stable, safe power plants, if it weren't for the US continually sending them faulty components or saboteurs. No, the reason why it would be good for the US to assist other countries in adopting nuclear power, is that it gains more influence in how those countries should use it. So far, America's tactic has been to continuously threaten Iran over teh construction of nuclear weapons, which essentially incentivises the Iranians to make nuclear weapons (what better way to hold off a threatened US assault?). If America facilitated Iran's power program, providing experts, materials and raw fuel, Iran ends up indebted to the US, and more likely to listen to the super power's demands.

Small but rather important point YOU DON'T NEED ENRICHED URANIUM TO RUN A NUCLEAR REACTOR. Even with using old soviet technology you there are designs available that don't use enriched uranium. Designs that don't use enriched uranium are safer and cheaper than their enriched counter parts. The only reason the chose to the design that they did so they could get cover for their nuclear weapons program

Kuala BangoDango the Iranians have been offered western pwr designs not just by the American but by the French and the Germans as long a go as Bill Clinton's time in office. They have also been offered deals were the enrichment takes place in 3rd country to ensure that it never reaches weapons grade. All these deals have been rejected.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

They probably had to stone everyone to death that was in earshot for being corrupted by the infidels.
I would just like to remind everyone that Iran is one of those countries that stone gay people to death. Not the kinda country that should have a nuclear powered everything.

Yes I have been to Iran, and I did get to experience the police state at its finest. It was a great time.

Not to say that I sympathise with the Iranian regime, because I don't, but I think we're coming at this from all the wrong angles.

Firstly, why do Iran's social issues matter in the context of whether or not they should be allowed Nuclear power? Are they suddenly going to start stoning gay people with radioactive stones? I doubt it.

Secondly, look at any industrial revolution of any country in the world, and you will see that is is technological advancement that eventually fuels social advancement coming in behind it. Who's to say that it's not us, restricting Iran's own ability to improve itself technologically, that's keeping a large amount of their society in the dark ages when it comes to attitudes towards other things? Western countries have hardly the best track record throughout history when it comes to social equality and fairness. However, as technology made our lives easier, we gradually became more open and accepting of our fellow man. The same thing could happen in Iran, but only if we allow it to happen.

Thirdly, why is it that the nation who has set itself up as the moral authority on who in this world does or doesn't 'deserve' the capacity to make nuclear weapons, is so far the only country on Earth to have actually used nuclear weapons in anger. Am I the only one who sees the aching hypocrisy of such a claim? America wipes out two Japanese cities, most of the casualties being civilians, and then turns around to everyone else and tries to claim that America is the only one responsible enough to control such power... what the fuck?! Would I like the idea of the current regime in Iran having a nuclear weapon? No (I think the whole world should be pushing for fewer nukes, not more). However, at this point I'd rather that than let this disgraceful and blatant double-standard continue.

Finally, even if Iran does start building nuclear weapons off the back of a nuclear power program (which is all we've been able to prove that they want in all this time btw), then what do you think the chances are that they will actually use them aggressively? The regime is evil, but it's not stupid. They know that if they attacked anyone, especially Israel, then it would be seen as an act of war on the entire western world, and there's no way they could build enough nukes to match that combined force. If they went to war, even with nuclear arms, they would get slaughtered and they know it, so I highly doubt that they're going to. They will use nuclear weapons for what everyone else uses them for, a deterrent, a defensive measure in case anyone wants to attack them, and (putting aside my own distaste for nuclear weapons in general and speaking purely in the interests of fairness) I don't see what's so horrifying about that possibility.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Should have been a rickroll.

that would be gold

 

[RicoADF]

Iran has done pretty much everything but actually declare war. So what better way to get them to attack than to drive them insane with AC/DC. Once they make a move, then public support will be available for a war. Then the AC/DC will be playing from the cockpits of Apache's and F-15's, where it can actually be enjoyed. I look forward to the gunsight video footage.

Yes, Iran wants and has basically declared war on the US.... thats it... when it's US aircraft flying into Iranian airspace trying to bait them into crossing over the boarder. When its US UAVs flying into their airspace (technically the US has declared war on Iran from an international law's point of view). But no, lets say its Iran because the US can't be in the wrong, oh no thats not possible....

*looks at sarcasm detector* wow that things gone off the chart XD

CAPTCHA: "signal your turns".... umm, charge!?

EDIT:

*snip*

This man (and the others saying the same thing) has hit the nail on the head, and ended this thread.

 

[maninahat]

snip

snip

snip

snip

Small point. Iran is run by Islamic fundamentalists of a extremely nasty bent. They've been repressing and murdering their on population for decades now, fund terrorism overseas and do all kinds of interesting skullduggery. Do you honestly think if the rest of the world just said "hey ya go, all the nuclear know how you could ever want." They'll just have a change of heart and stop all the nasty stuff they've been doing? Or would they get even nastier knwoing that they have nuclear weapons to fall back on if things get to bad?

I've been receiving a lot of these "small points" about my post.

Iran is a fundamentalist theocracy, regardless of what the US does. It will also have a nuclear program, with or without the US's help. Helping a country with its nuclear ambitions won't necessarily change its outlook, but it does incentivise complacency and cooperation. If a country becomes dependant on another for resources, that country has a good reason to avoid conflict with its benefactor. One of the reasons for why the major first world and developing nations don't go to war with each other anymore, is because they have become so economically reliant upon one another. I think getting Iran into globalism would serve as major factor in calming it down.

Of course, you can't do that with multiple embargoes and sabotage. Crippling Iran's economy might force Iran into cooperating, but it also carries a much bigger risk of simply enforcing the anti-western sentiment, and encouraging them to take military action. Iran is not suicidal; it knows it can't use nukes without being annihilated. But if it feels like it has no other choice, and that Israel and America are about to invade anyway...

 

[Deadyawn]

Mr Chalk, you should be ashamed of yourself. Look at the comments, see what you have done. ARE YOU HAPPY? ARE SATISFIED?!

*cries in corner*

 

[uttaku]

Presumably Israel is up to its usual shenanigans again. Surely this is illegal?

Iran has done pretty much everything but actually declare war. So what better way to get them to attack than to drive them insane with AC/DC. Once they make a move, then public support will be available for a war. Then the AC/DC will be playing from the cockpits of Apache's and F-15's, where it can actually be enjoyed. I look forward to the gunsight video footage.

Spoiler

Trying to harness nuclear power is not a declaration of war.

While I do agree that the US attitude towards Iran is overly and needlessly aggressive, and that Iran actually poesses no threat at all to the western world. It must be noted that the iranian nuclear program is attempting to enrich fuel to 35% enrichment. To put that into context even PWR (the most widely used nuclear power plants and te highest in terms of enrichment needed) only need a 5-6% enrichment. Nuclear weapons however require a 90% enrichment BUT that it piss easy to achieve compared to the first 35% enrichment.
(I'm from the UK btw)

 

[NightHawk21]

They probably had to stone everyone to death that was in earshot for being corrupted by the infidels.
I would just like to remind everyone that Iran is one of those countries that stone gay people to death. Not the kinda country that should have a nuclear powered everything.

Yes I have been to Iran, and I did get to experience the police state at its finest. It was a great time.

Not to say that I sympathise with the Iranian regime, because I don't, but I think we're coming at this from all the wrong angles.

Firstly, why do Iran's social issues matter in the context of whether or not they should be allowed Nuclear power? Are they suddenly going to start stoning gay people with radioactive stones? I doubt it.

Secondly, look at any industrial revolution of any country in the world, and you will see that is is technological advancement that eventually fuels social advancement coming in behind it. Who's to say that it's not us, restricting Iran's own ability to improve itself technologically, that's keeping a large amount of their society in the dark ages when it comes to attitudes towards other things? Western countries have hardly the best track record throughout history when it comes to social equality and fairness. However, as technology made our lives easier, we gradually became more open and accepting of our fellow man. The same thing could happen in Iran, but only if we allow it to happen.

Thirdly, why is it that the nation who has set itself up as the moral authority on who in this world does or doesn't 'deserve' the capacity to make nuclear weapons, is so far the only country on Earth to have actually used nuclear weapons in anger. Am I the only one who sees the aching hypocrisy of such a claim? America wipes out two Japanese cities, most of the casualties being civilians, and then turns around to everyone else and tries to claim that America is the only one responsible enough to control such power... what the fuck?! Would I like the idea of the current regime in Iran having a nuclear weapon? No (I think the whole world should be pushing for fewer nukes, not more). However, at this point I'd rather that than let this disgraceful and blatant double-standard continue.

Finally, even if Iran does start building nuclear weapons off the back of a nuclear power program (which is all we've been able to prove that they want in all this time btw), then what do you think the chances are that they will actually use them aggressively? The regime is evil, but it's not stupid. They know that if they attacked anyone, especially Israel, then it would be seen as an act of war on the entire western world, and there's no way they could build enough nukes to match that combined force. If they went to war, even with nuclear arms, they would get slaughtered and they know it, so I highly doubt that they're going to. They will use nuclear weapons for what everyone else uses them for, a deterrent, a defensive measure in case anyone wants to attack them, and (putting aside my own distaste for nuclear weapons in general and speaking purely in the interests of fairness) I don't see what's so horrifying about that possibility.

Well to address your points in order.
1) I personally am not in favour of giving any country that is not particularly stable access to nuclear weapons (something that even if tested half the globe away can have impact in the Western world).

2) If other posters are to be believed (which from their posts seems reasonable enough, but I have not researched the topic myself), designs have been offered for nuclear power plants that don't provide access to weapon grade uranium and all have been rejected. So unless nuclear bombs and missles are these technological advancement it seems unlikely they're doing this just to advance their country. I would also point out that well informed countries are much harder to control, and probably against what a country based on Islamic fundamentalist beliefs wants.

3)I think I'd personally let the double standard continue (even though USA isn't the only country with nukes), rather than give apocalyptic power to some, quite frankly, very unstable extremist who might very will with all possibility shoot off their supply is cornered. Also I agree with the sentiment towards less nukes (never good will ever come of these weapons), but as for the Japan situation I will say that the only bright side to that is that nukes were essentially restricted after seeing what a relatively weak one could do. Imagine that situation, but now many many times worse.

4)What's the odds of them waking up at one point in the morning and using a nuke on some random point in the globe? Probably small. What's the odds of them using that nuke when they sense that their regime is ending (and it will) either through internal revolution or militaristic conquest? Probably really high. That's the problem with giving a weapon to an animal you backed into a corner. As for the rest, the problem isn't that we could out-nuke them (least not in my eyes), the problem is that no single man should have the power to potentially destroy large portions of the globe for centuries to come.

 

[DRes82]

Charming. It's just as well that the forum rules discourage us from making personal remarks.

It certainly is.

If America facilitated Iran's power program....

Then a radical religious dictatorship would have access to enriched uranium. For fuck's sake, why are there people here supporting the Iranian government? It's own people tried to revolt and they were brutally slapped down.

Iran is not suicidal; it knows it can't use nukes without being annihilated.

I think that you have no idea what you're talking about. That, or you are underestimating their resolve.

 

[Frankster]

And whilst EVERYONE is saying its an american attack involving the cia, somewhere a 17 yr old swedish teen is laughing his/her head off.

 

[Prince Regent]

This is likely from the one bored guy at mussad HQ who has a sense of humor. ^^

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Then a radical religious dictatorship would have access to enriched uranium. For fuck's sake, why are there people here supporting the Iranian government? It's own people tried to revolt and they were brutally slapped down.

I think it's less about actively supporting the Iranian regime, and more pointing out that, when it comes to nuclear matters, we (and by that I mean most of the western world, not just the US) are far from being in the position of moral authority that we like to think we're in, and that constantly flexing our muscles towards Iran whenever they express an interest in enriching Uranium is far from the most pragmatic way to avoid conflict.

I no more support the current regime in Iran than I supported Saddam's regime in Iraq (i.e. not even a little bit), but look at what a mess we made when we went to war with him over suspected WMD. The Iraqi people couldn't wait to see Saddam gone either at first, until they realised that all we'd done was make everything worse for them on the basis of looking for weapons that didn't exist. Maybe the current situation with Iran would be the perfect opportunity for us all to calm down, take a step back, and start learning from our mistakes.

 

[Wicky_42]

Presumably Israel is up to its usual shenanigans again. Surely this is illegal?

Iran has done pretty much everything but actually declare war. So what better way to get them to attack than to drive them insane with AC/DC. Once they make a move, then public support will be available for a war. Then the AC/DC will be playing from the cockpits of Apache's and F-15's, where it can actually be enjoyed. I look forward to the gunsight video footage.

Spoiler

Trying to harness nuclear power is not a declaration of war.

They have done one hell of a lot more than just start a nuclear power program over the years. If you kept up with events a little more closely than headlines you'd know that.

What, you mean how they've been pounded by American missile drones, how their scientists have been assassinated by American weapons, how their facilities have been repeatedly sabotaged by Israelis and Americans? Or were you talking about all the times Iran has fired weapons at American soil and supported insurgencies against the States whilst surrounding them with military bases and demanding trade embargoes?

 

[Wicky_42]

Then a radical religious dictatorship would have access to enriched uranium. For fuck's sake, why are there people here supporting the Iranian government? It's own people tried to revolt and they were brutally slapped down.

I think it's less about actively supporting the Iranian regime, and more pointing out that, when it comes to nuclear matters, we (and by that I mean most of the western world, not just the US) are far from being in the position of moral authority that we like to think we're in, and that constantly flexing our muscles towards Iran whenever they express an interest in enriching Uranium is far from the most pragmatic way to avoid conflict.

Thank you - the Iranian government may be sucky, but that doesn't give the US carte blanch to blow them up at their leisure. All the lies, sabotage and assassinations - aren't these things illegal?!

I know more support the current regime in Iran than I supported Saddam's regime in Iraq (i.e. not even a little bit), but look at what a mess we made when we went to war with him over suspected WMD. The Iraqi people couldn't wait to see Saddam gone either at first, until they realised that all we'd done was make everything worse for them on the basis of looking for weapons that didn't exist. Maybe the current situation with Iran would be the perfect opportunity for us all to calm down, take a step back, and start learning from our mistakes.

No! No time to think - no time to even come up with a new line, just go with the one that worked last time - "It's an evil dictatorship that has WMDs, so we need to invade them NOW. For their own good. (Also, I hear they have some oil... maybe we could, erm, "invest in their infrastructure"?)

 

[Antari]

Presumably Israel is up to its usual shenanigans again. Surely this is illegal?

Iran has done pretty much everything but actually declare war. So what better way to get them to attack than to drive them insane with AC/DC. Once they make a move, then public support will be available for a war. Then the AC/DC will be playing from the cockpits of Apache's and F-15's, where it can actually be enjoyed. I look forward to the gunsight video footage.

Spoiler

Trying to harness nuclear power is not a declaration of war.

They have done one hell of a lot more than just start a nuclear power program over the years. If you kept up with events a little more closely than headlines you'd know that.

What, you mean how they've been pounded by American missile drones, how their scientists have been assassinated by American weapons, how their facilities have been repeatedly sabotaged by Israelis and Americans? Or were you talking about all the times Iran has fired weapons at American soil and supported insurgencies against the States whilst surrounding them with military bases and demanding trade embargoes?

Thinking more along the lines of the support they give to terrorist organizations. All the weaponry that was made in or for Iran that showed up in Iraq and Afghanistan. The attempts they continue to make to blockade the persian gulf. The US doesn't automatically detain Iranian citizens just because they are Iranian, however if your American/Europian and go anywhere near Iran you've got a good chance of seeing prison, especially if you haven't done anything. There is always the Iran Contra issue. There are many other examples but thats just what I can list at 7am while I'm still half asleep. Neither side is perfect, but I'd rather be an American dealing with a barely functioning government than a Iranian bowing down to a Supreme Leader with ideals on the level with most dictatorships on the planet.