• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Launches War On Iran

Sure they are. But so far Trump has not indicated that and is giving them a chance to stay but change course.


suspecting the worst about trump pans out often


"It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!" the president wrote.​


Trump's squirting delusional hubris into his Depends
 
By that logic, the 1979 hostage crisis was payback for the Carter administration granting asylum to Shah Reza Pahlavi, the brutal American-backed dictator who oppressed the Iranian people for over a quarter of a century as well as payback for the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddegh, the elected president of Iran who was overthrown by the Eisenhower administration and the CIA and replaced by the Shah.
We played a huge role in the '53 coup. And the resulting government along with American control fueled the eventual revolution against our monkeying in their government.
How much payback should the US get for imposing a dictator on Iran that used US trained secret police to murder, torture, and oppress Iranians?

The above-quoted posts are all factually incorrect. The 1953 coup in Iran was organized and carried out by the same Ayatollahs who rule Iran today. Foreign backing for the coup was not a significant factor.

And even among the foreign backers the US only played a minor part. The primary foreign backers of the coup were the British, who were justifiably aggrieved over Iran's theft of British oil.

And the US put lots of pressure on the Shah of Iran to not oppress the Iranian people. We were hardly to blame when he defied us.

So Iran has never had any legitimate grievance against the United States. All the atrocities that the post-1979 Iranian government has committed, were committed solely because that Iranian government is evil.
 
The French didn't think accepting the offer was a wise move and neither do I.

I remember the offer from a 1975 documentary called "Hearts and Minds. I found the script and here's what French foreign minister Georges Bidault said about the 1954 offer in a still lingering shocked voice.

We were at the Quai d'Orsay and Dulles was on his way to Geneva. He took me aside... in the corner of winat the Quai d'Orsay... and he said to me:

"AND IF WE WERE TO GIVE YOU TWO ATOMIC BOMBS?"

I am the only witness, there were just the two of us.

I affirm that Senator... secretary Dulles offered me two atomic bombs.

Two, uh...

Neither one. Neither three. Two.

The French were all for it.

It was Eisenhower and Churchill who didn't think it was a wise move.
 
Well, that becomes an entirely different and a much messier proposition. Poor JD gets left holding the bag after saying on Meet the Press that the administration position was they don't want regime change. Now as for Donnie Boy's social media post, did I miss the memo on "regime change" not being politically correct?
:unsure:

GuE48OXXIAEtvi3.jpg:large
Trump will always throw everyone under the bus
 
suspecting the worst about trump pans out often


"It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change' but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!" the president wrote.​


Trump's squirting delusional hubris into his Depends

So there we go. Trump's actively involving us in military forced nation building, no different than Iraq or Afghanistan.
 

A day after President Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and totally obliterated” by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles, the actual state of the program seemed far more murky, with senior officials conceding they did not know the whereabouts of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

“We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel and that’s one of the things that we’re going to have conversations with the Iranians about,” Vice President JD Vance told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, referring to a batch of uranium sufficient to make nine or ten atomic weapons. Nonetheless, he contended that the country’s potential to build a weapon had been set back substantially because it no longer had the equipment to turn that fuel into operative weapons.

In a briefing for reporters on Sunday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, Dan Caine, avoided Mr. Trump’s maximalist claims of success. They said an initial battle-damage assessment of all three sites struck by Air Force B-2 bombers and Navy Tomahawk missiles showed “severe damage and destruction.”

Satellite photographs of the primary target, the Fordo uranium enrichment plant that Iran built under a mountain, showed several holes where a dozen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators — one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal — punched deep holes in the rock. The Israeli military’s initial analysis concluded that the site, the target of American and Israeli military planners for more than 26 years, sustained serious damage from the strike but had not been completely destroyed....
 
That's what I'm getting at.

He seems to be saying the Plutonium byproduct of nuclear power generation is what he's after, if I understand him correctly?
I really dont care what he is after.
They dont know where things are.
Iran maybe moved them
The complex is 300 feet deep.
No radiation
Now we are talking regime change.
These fake on and off again neocons are terrible.
 
I formulate my own opinions based on reading originally sourced material. Not secondhand opinions from celebrity tweets.
On second thought, just so you can be a little bit witty, you should follow Stephen Miller.
 
A day after President Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear program had been “completely and totally obliterated” by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles, the actual state of the program seemed far more murky, with senior officials conceding they did not know the whereabouts of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.

“We are going to work in the coming weeks to ensure that we do something with that fuel and that’s one of the things that we’re going to have conversations with the Iranians about,” Vice President JD Vance told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, referring to a batch of uranium sufficient to make nine or ten atomic weapons. Nonetheless, he contended that the country’s potential to build a weapon had been set back substantially because it no longer had the equipment to turn that fuel into operative weapons.

In a briefing for reporters on Sunday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, Dan Caine, avoided Mr. Trump’s maximalist claims of success. They said an initial battle-damage assessment of all three sites struck by Air Force B-2 bombers and Navy Tomahawk missiles showed “severe damage and destruction.”

Satellite photographs of the primary target, the Fordo uranium enrichment plant that Iran built under a mountain, showed several holes where a dozen 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators — one of the largest conventional bombs in the U.S. arsenal — punched deep holes in the rock. The Israeli military’s initial analysis concluded that the site, the target of American and Israeli military planners for more than 26 years, sustained serious damage from the strike but had not been completely destroyed....

The real question - as with Saddam's supposed "Chemical Weapons" - is:

"Is there really the stuff claimed, and if so - where the hey is it?"

They just bombed a foreign nation, and they don't freaking know?
 
That is incorrect. The nuclear arsenals of Israel, India, and Pakistan are 100% legal.

Fair enough - they and South Sudan are the only four countries that have never signed the NPT... but if Iran withdraws from the Treaty in advance of acquiring a nuclear weapon, wouldn't that put them on the same level?
 
So there we go. He's actively involving us in military forced nation building, no different than Iraq or Afghanistan.

arguably much, much worse

this is a bigger AND more difficult project being executed with even less forethought


Iran has as many people as Iraq and Afghanistan combined,​
Iranians are more "attached" to their govt than Iraqis were to Hussein [that's not saying much, but still],
Iran has more resources than Iraq or Afghanistan had.​
Iran has more "friends" than Iraq or Afghanistan had.​
The GWB Admin's Iraq war plans were poorly conceived and then subsequently underdeveloped, the plans at least existed.
The GWB Admin spent years making preparations and shoring up support.
Trumpco decided to go to war last week.
 
They just bombed a foreign nation, and they don't freaking know?

wanton negligence callous disregard

wanton negligence callous disregard for America

wanton negligence callous disregard for Americans

wanton negligence callous disregard for humans
 
Alright, I suspect you know more about this stuff than I, but I'd like to get some resolution.



My understanding is highly enriched uranium (90%+) is bomb material. Is it not?

And is the highly enriched stuff not detectable?




Why are we assuming Iran is producing a Plutonium bomb? When not the seemingly easier Uranium bomb? The latter has been my assumption, as their first try. Plutonium wasn't even on my radar.



If this is the case, then we would have to completely suspend Iran's (or anyone else's legit nuclear power program). Is this what you're saying?
So, there are a couple of choices to go about acquiring the material for a nuclear weapon. Option A is a uranium bomb. It’s an easier, more efficient, process but an obvious one and very difficult to miniaturize a weapon with. The later is not desirable in modern warfare because it amounts to a giant clunky bomb you need a specialized aircraft to deliver. But, for that, all you have to do is continuously enrich uranium until you get weapons-grade material.

Would we detect the radiation of that material in this attack if it was produced or kept at Fordow? No. As mentioned, Fordow is a subterranean facility deep below a mountain and shielded by its solid granite core and layers of igneous rock. There’s no chance a conventional kinetic bomb like a MOP could penetrate that deep into the mountain or cause sufficient damage to the facility to eject radioactive material. But I don’t think Iran is doing that anyway.

Option B is a plutonium bomb. It’s more difficult and time consuming to produce, but it is easier to hide and miniaturize for all of the ballistic missiles Iran has designed and produced for the purpose of carrying a nuclear warhead. It also makes sense as Iran’s nuclear weapons program is modeled after and aided by North Korea and their first test detonation was a plutonium bomb. To make one of these, you enrich uranium to reactor grade (which we know Fordow and the other facilities are doing and looks innocent enough on the surface) and harvest the plutonium byproduct from the reactor.

But here’s the rub: plutonium bombs iz hard because not just any plutonium will do. One of the things you get when you put enriched uranium in a reactor is Plutonium-239. That is good. That’s what you want. But after awhile, it starts creating Plutonium-240 and 241. Those are bad. They are highly unstable and if you build a bomb with those it could spontaneously detonate at any moment. Problem is, there’s no rule that says when that happens. It depends on the fuel and the reactor.

The relevance of Israel’s assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists is not that they’re nuclear scientists. It’s that those individuals know things. Any fool with a physics degree can make a uranium bomb, but it requires time sensitive processes and a great deal of specialized expertise and precision to make a plutonium bomb. You need standardization, you have to know the enrichment process end to end, and you have to know every beep, boop, and quirk of the reactor you’re putting it in. Or else you’ll blow yourself to the moon.
 
Last edited:
My God.

In the Fox News online comment section in regards to this Tweet, they're literally chanting "Make Iran Great Again!", and posting "MIGA! MIGA!".

It's literally shocking.
hopefully a portion are bots

Did you stand in the waves to foolishness twenty years ago during the run up the invasion of Iraq?

it's unnerving watching humans be obviously irrational
it's even worse when there are so many of them doing it at once
 
I really dont care what he is after.
They dont know where things are.
Iran maybe moved them
The complex is 300 feet deep.
No radiation
Now we are talking regime change.
These fake on and off again neocons are terrible.

I don't think this is going to end very well.

In the Fox News comment section, they're now shouting (MIGA! MIGA!) in response to Trump's regime change claim in "Making Iran Great Again".

This is some seriously sideways stuff.
 
So, there are a couple of choices to go about acquiring the material for a nuclear weapon. Option A is a uranium bomb. It’s an easier, more efficient, process but an obvious one and very difficult to miniaturize a weapon with. The later is not desirable in modern warfare because it amounts to a giant clunky bomb you need a specialized aircraft to deliver. But, for that, all you have to do is continuously enrich uranium until you get weapons-grade material.

Would we detect the radiation of that material in this attack if it was produced or kept at Fordow? No. As mentioned, Fordow is a subterranean facility deep below a mountain and shielded by its solid granite core and layers of igneous rock. There’s no chance a conventional kinetic bomb like a MOP could penetrate that deep into the mountain or cause sufficient damage to the facility to eject radioactive material. But I don’t think Iran is doing that anyway.

Option B is a plutonium bomb. It’s more difficult and time consuming to produce, but it is easier to hide and miniaturize for all of the ballistic missiles Iran has designed and produced for the purpose of carrying a nuclear warhead. It also makes sense as Iran’s nuclear weapons program is modeled after and aided by North Korea and their first test detonation was a plutonium bomb. To make one of these, you enrich uranium to reactor grade (which we know Fordow and the other facilities are doing and looks innocent enough on the surface) and harvest the plutonium byproduct from the reactor.

But here’s the rub: plutonium bombs iz hard because not just any plutonium will do. One of the things you get when you put enriched uranium in a reactor is Plutonium-239. That is good. That’s what you want. But after awhile, it starts creating Plutonium-240 and 241. Those are bad. They are highly unstable and if you build a bomb with those it could spontaneously detonate at any moment. Problem is, there’s no rule that says when that happens. It depends on the fuel and the reactor.

The relevance of Israel’s assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists is not that they’re nuclear scientists. It’s that those individuals know things. Any fool with a physics degree can make a uranium bomb, but it requires time sensitive processes and a great deal of specialized expertise to make a plutonium bomb. You need standardization, you have to know the enrichment process end to end, and you have to know every beep, boop, and quirk of the reactor you’re putting it in. Or else you’ll blow yourself to the moon.

Isn't it true that the technology to make a bomb is 80 years old and getting older every day?

Hell, in another couple of hundred years, kids will probably making them for science fair....
 
Back
Top Bottom