What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Check out new footage. view!
DragonAge.BioWare.com - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
467 Comments
- TheTaoOfBill, on 02/20/2009, -12/+83They don't have a nuke.
- Troika37, on 02/19/2009, -36/+106We'd better act more nicely and talk more...
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -17/+85More fearmongering to scare the plebs into accepting another war
- smartj, on 02/20/2009, -16/+81So what? Pakistan already has the bomb and they're basically a terrorist state already. At least Iran is stable...
- ciaran036, on 02/20/2009, -12/+72Not this again. The amount of uranium Iran have is irrelevant. Iran have been consistently enriching uranium at a low level consistent with nuclear power development - 5% compared to the 95% needed for nuclear weapons.
This is old news - they have been constantly re-printing stories like these as a scare tactic to make it easier to get public support behind even more sanctions.
Problem-Reaction-Solution:
Problem: Create the problem by alleging that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Or at least when that doesn't work claim that they *could* be developing nuclear weapons.
Reaction: The public reacts by calling for war and strikes and sanctions against Iran.
Solution: Those who created the problem unravel the solution, which in this case is to go to war with Iran.... - inactive, on 02/19/2009, -15/+71I think the ***** just hit the fan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYxvVe9y5NQ&fea ...
OK, everyone assume the crash position. - ARTLUKM, on 02/20/2009, -16/+71One nuclear bomb. Wow, how terrifying.
So let's get this straight. Iran is going to "nuke" American or Isreal with its single small bomb. Then, somehow, Iran isn't going to get blown off the face of the Earth by America, Isreal, or any of the allies.
Yeah, Iran is really stupid enough to do this. /s - inactive, on 02/20/2009, -26/+81Holy *****, what a right-wing circle jerk in here.
Did we forget the last NIE already? - inactive, on 02/20/2009, -15/+66I don't care. Iran is absolutely zero threat to America ***** yeah so it doesn't matter. ***** you Israel
- m0n0kr0m3, on 02/20/2009, -10/+56To all the Iran haters, When was the last time Iran preemptively attacked another country? I think mountains are being made of molehills here.
- emmettgolf, on 02/20/2009, -10/+53Do we really know that this is true?
What we do know is that Iran is not cooperating with the World Bank or pricing their oil in dollars.
The Eisenhower carrier strike force is on the way there. - thecoolestguy, on 02/20/2009, -8/+49You need uranium for nuclear energy generation.
- DankNugzPlz, on 02/20/2009, -9/+48Oh no! One bomb! We better go to war with Iran fast!
/s
Remember the Cold War, when we stood up to the Soviets, who had 40,000 nukes? No military action was necessary. It's not necessary for Iran either. - inactive, on 02/19/2009, -12/+49Ok, I couldn't resist...
There is nothing to worry about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilGGP9BDZs&fea ... - mfc5200, on 02/20/2009, -10/+41I agree. Iran has never attacked a country in its history. I don't really see the big deal here. The only problem is that Iran simply has the power now not to get bullied around.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -9/+39I love it when idiots bandy around the word "Appeasement". Yes, diplomacy is weakness! Talking makes you a coward!
Are there any daddy issues you'd like to talk about? - poidh, on 02/20/2009, -12/+40Hilary just asked them to unclench their fists. I'm sure everything will be fine.
- BigJStudd, on 02/20/2009, -14/+42UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site.
-------------------------------------
I love how you right wingnuts come onto the site and twist the news whichever way you can.
The stockpile is available for UN inspection, and it's not as if they can hide an entire nuclear plant with the eyes of the world on them.
Get a clue. - TheTaoOfBill, on 02/20/2009, -4/+31Exactly!
Oh no Iran has nuclear material! They have a fraction of a nuke! Oooh so scary!
Oh wait. We have 10s of thousands of them and Israel has a couple hundred. And if Iran were to launch their country would be invaded from all sides from militaries all over the globe and will be completely destroyed within a week.
Iran isn't retarded. They aren't going to fire a nuke at anyone. And if they do the country will be entering the rebuilding stage and learning how to speak English within a year. - hauntedchippy, on 02/20/2009, -3/+30THEY DON'T HAVE A NUCLEAR BOMB READ THE ARTICLE
They have lowly enriched uranium hexaflouride, not weapons grade uranium.
"UN officials emphasise that to produce fissile material Iran would have to reconfigure its Natanz plant to produce high enriched uranium rather than low enriched uranium – a highly visible step that would take months – or to shift its stockpile to a clandestine site." - cheefulton, on 02/19/2009, -12/+38Will we raise, call or pass?
- stox, on 02/20/2009, -5/+31Going from lowly enriched to highly enriched enough to build a warhead is quite a task.
- hauntedchippy, on 02/20/2009, -4/+28They don't have nuclear capability.
They uranium hexaflouride, which if they enrich further COULD possibly make enough fissile material for a bomb.
There's probably enough uranium under your house for a nuclear bomb, the problem is enriching it. A problem Iran has still to solve. - pintomp3, on 02/20/2009, -8/+31How many nukes do Israel and Pakistan have? Funny how Obama refused to even answer the question about nukes in the region.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -9/+32Shhhh... Don't tell the Republicans - they want us all cowering in terror at the mere mention of Iran. Christ, you'd think they were on Iran's side, the way they seem so hellbent on convincing us that they're such a threat.
- rahamm, on 02/20/2009, -1/+23Jimmy Carter answered it. Israel has at least 200+.
- Hetman, on 02/20/2009, -7/+29Yea lots of country do. Whats the big deal? So does Pakistan.
- PuterPrsn, on 02/20/2009, -21/+41That's amazing, given that the body that is telling us they now have nuclear capability is the same one that said they couldn't possibly have anything ready until, at minimum, 2013, and more likely 2015.
- Phaedryn, on 02/20/2009, -24/+43Is it tme for another strongly worded lettter?
/s - ZenMojo, on 02/20/2009, -12/+31Since when did 2% enrichment become the 90+% enrichment needed for a nuclear weapon? Iran has been mining nuclear material for years, no one doubts that, and they are completely within their rights to do so.
No wonder Republicans are anti-intellectual and anti-education. You need to keep the masses dumb and deaf. - yacinebouatrous, on 02/20/2009, -17/+36yep... so??
Israel has the right to have it, and they're worse than Iran when it comes to human rights.
Pakistan has it for decades already, went through few wars with India and never used anything
On the other hand we do have a record of the U.S using it... - relaxeder, on 04/17/2009, -4/+23What's with all the Drudge idiots here recycling the tired meme that diplomacy is synonymous with appeasement? Obama never said we couldn't -- or wouldn't -- bomb the living ***** out of Tehran if they threatened a nuclear launch, he just doesn't have a raging boner to do it before attempting to establish bilateral channels and seeing if a mutual agreement can be struck first. You know, cause the last pre-emptive military action in the Middle East was such a glowing success and all.
Please people, I know the thought of indiscriminately sending our kids off to die in the desert gets your dicks up but sometimes you got to save some blood for your brains. - iRoy, on 02/20/2009, -7/+26And we should be worried, why?
- Opiate, on 02/20/2009, -2/+20You hit the nail on the head.
- fugazied, on 02/20/2009, -1/+18The US hates the fact they refuse to sell oil for US currency, but with the downward spiral of the dollar (some analysts have been urging investors out of the US dollar for the last 2 years) it's no wonder. This is all about energy reserves. The US was happy to talk with N Korea who had been missile testing and had some major grievances with Japan and S Korea. The US didn't invade there, but the sabre rattling continues for ANY country with energy reserves. Without those energy reserves, the 5% of the worlds population in the US will not be able to continue to consume 25% of the world's energy resources. It's that simple.
- inactive, on 02/20/2009, -4/+20***** on good intel? What are you talking about? The prior intel was from the IAEA and now they are correcting that.
You believe them now, but you didn't back then? I wish I had your secret knowledge of Iran. Do you work at the CIA? - inactive, on 02/19/2009, -35/+51I sure hope somebody globally has learned from history just how well appeasement works...
<please note sarcasm> - rijrunner, on 02/20/2009, -4/+19Did you read the article, or just jump through the headline?
They have low level enriched uranium. It can not make a nuclear weapon any more than 3% hydrogen peroxide can melt human flesh the way 90% concentrations can.
If they don't have the tech to refine this to the necessary levels, then it is useless for them in a military role.. (Or, more to the point, there is no evidence they have enriched anything outside what they claim they need for their power plant reactors, which run on low enriched uranium),
ie, they don;t have nuclear weapon capability, so how is this a knock against the UN? - mediaspree, on 02/20/2009, -12/+27A pre-emptive strike then? What recent world events can we point to where this was a terrible, terrible idea?
- gijoeler, on 02/20/2009, -3/+17The only rational response to this article is that we should go to war immediately.
/s - ARTLUKM, on 02/20/2009, -5/+19So the entire country is going to collectively be a suicide bomber? Basically that's what would happen if they bombed Isreal with a nuke. They're not going to do it.
Just like George Bush and Dick Cheney are willing to send men into wars they would never partake in themselves, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not willing to be a suicide bomber.
Iran is not going to nuke anyone. They have said their only intention is to build nuclear power. It's quite possible this is true, and Ahmadinejad is being difficult about the whole thing simply to stir the pot as he always does. If anything, we shouldn't play into his ego games. - Maddoktor2, on 02/20/2009, -0/+14Enriched, yes.
Weapons grade? No.
Power plant grade? Yes.
Usable in a warhead? No.
Usable in a power plant? Yes.
Any more questions? - trogdor282, on 02/20/2009, -8/+22This isn't huge news. Anybody can mine uranium, and you can get the weapon blueprints off Wikipedia. The hard part is actually ENRICHING the stuff, which it sounds like they haven't done.
- crosquillas, on 02/20/2009, -2/+15How can you hold him responsible for this when he hasn't even been in office for a month? Or do you think that the moment he was sworn in to office they magically were able to progress on their acquisition of enriched uranium?
- MorganMghee, on 02/20/2009, -2/+15250+ years. Well done.
- dtr300, on 02/20/2009, -8/+20Obama stood up to much criticism from many of his liberal supporters when he publicly sided with Israel in the recent attack on Hamas in Gaza. I don't know if you've noticed, but he's not exactly a flower-power pacifist.
- mst3kcrow, on 02/20/2009, -2/+14To flex its power in order to prevent any invasion attempts, just like North Korea's nuke test.
- guyinjapan, on 02/20/2009, -2/+14Good god, do people really not know anything about nuclear bombs? Iran has uranium, but that doesn't mean jack-*****. I can get my hands on uranium. What's difficult is enriching the stuff, because you need U-235 to be present at about 93.7% for a fission reaction to take place (aka a nuke explosion) and it occurs naturally amongst U-238 at a rate of around 3%. This is blatant fearmongering and obvious to anyone who knows basic physics. Iran doesn't have what it needs for a bomb - it needs an efficient, dedicated, large enrichment facility and lots of time. Right now, all they can really do with the stuff is run a harmless nuclear reactor, which is incidentally exactly what they claim to be wanting the uranium for in the first place.
- fugazied, on 02/20/2009, -2/+13Yup Pakistan is a MUCH larger threat than Iran in terms of instable government, number of terrorists within it's borders, long standing intense conflict with India. What was the last country Iran invaded? In this case the US is seeking to snap up Iranian energy reserves, once they have locked that up, the combination of Iraq + Afghanistan + Iran will keep the hummers rolling for an extra few years. Meanwhile they will be pissing off the entire world, especially China and Russia.
- zeitgueist, on 02/20/2009, -6/+17What does that have to do with Iran?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 480 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is