The Iranian Deal: Munich II

Yup.

towermonkey wrote: They can already do dirt bombs. Heck most people could if they knew a little bit about it. Exactly how many dirty bombs have been used to date? For that matter, how many nukes have been used and by who?

You don't think a terrorist would use one if he had one that was portable and efficient? My guess is that nothing has been perfected yet that can be easily moved without detection.

towermonkey wrote: Well, I'll let you guys sit around and be afraid of what they might do. I don't have any control over it and if I did, I would start here. I still think our own nuclear arsenal is the biggest threat to the survival of the human race.

Why is that? Do you think one guy can just push a button at will? If GW Bush was such a loose cannon war monger, why didn't he just launch a few nukes instead of sending troops? I get tired of these accusations that have no basis in reality... and Hiroshima saved lives by instantly ending a war we didn't start. And if you think the rest of the world would follow our lead if we destroyed our nukes, you are very naive.

Apparently there is a problem. Both partys to the agreement do not agree on what they agreed to.

Do we have a scratching my head smilie?

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.as ... 0905001087

Rick wrote:

towermonkey wrote: Well, I'll let you guys sit around and be afraid of what they might do. I don't have any control over it and if I did, I would start here. I still think our own nuclear arsenal is the biggest threat to the survival of the human race.

Why is that? Do you think one guy can just push a button at will? If GW Bush was such a loose cannon war monger, why didn't he just launch a few nukes instead of sending troops? I get tired of these accusations that have no basis in reality... and Hiroshima saved lives by instantly ending a war we didn't start. And if you think the rest of the world would follow our lead if we destroyed our nukes, you are very naïve.

I simply don't think we need the vast number that we have. We have been whittling them down , but still retain enough on an arsenal to end all life on the planet. We should have enough to retaliate in order to keep up the deterrent, but we should not be the deciding factor in whether or not all life on the planet ceases.

Nagasaki didn't instantly end the war, but Hiroshima did. It took two bombs that, by today's standards, were fireworks.

Rick wrote:

bailey bud wrote: Let's assume Iran gets a bomb (a single bomb).

What the heck do you think they'll do with it?????

I wouldn't expect them to launch one unless backed into a corner some day with nothing to lose, but being the biggest backer of terrorism, I would expect them to be working on more portable dirty bombs.

Mexico reports theft of truck with radioactive material

Nothing to worry about, our borders are solid! :Whistle
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/world/ame ... ive-theft/

Yeah, I have to wonder if they even know what they stole. Trucks get hijacked in Mexico all the time.

It's medical waste ---- prolonged exposure could cause cancer - but it's worthless in terms of tactical/weapon use.

My guess

---

unlikely this is a terrorist deal.

Oh, that's not true. That is prime dirty bomb material and was outlined by homeland security as a threat as they explained how to make a dirty bomb out of it for impact. Cobalt 60 is pretty nasty stuff, but cant be enriched into a nuke.

towermonkey wrote: Oh, that's not true. That is prime dirty bomb material and was outlined by homeland security as a threat as they explained how to make a dirty bomb out of it for impact. Cobalt 60 is pretty nasty stuff, but cant be enriched into a nuke.

That's what I've been reading too... more likely materials for a dirty bomb combined with conventional bomb. This is getting world wide press.