-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What is the ultimate French toast topping?
Iran - The War Begins (article)
- Thread starter LoneGunman
- Start date
Nanfeishen
Executive Member
After reading all the posts, in this thread, the only mention, of any threat by Iran, seems to be the supposed nuclear threat.
The one thing that most people seem to ignore, is that nuclear doesnt always include bombs. One can use radiated material, to poison water supplies and food suppllies, you drop a radiactive substance into the major water supply for a large city, you have a problem.
Then there are also the threats of chemical substances, and the worst of all, biological substances.
Most people forget the terminology for Weapons of mass destruction, cover Nuclear plus Chemical, plus Biological.
The one thing that most people seem to ignore, is that nuclear doesnt always include bombs. One can use radiated material, to poison water supplies and food suppllies, you drop a radiactive substance into the major water supply for a large city, you have a problem.
Then there are also the threats of chemical substances, and the worst of all, biological substances.
Most people forget the terminology for Weapons of mass destruction, cover Nuclear plus Chemical, plus Biological.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
The west doesn't care about that, as seen in the offer to *sell* Iran nuclear fuel for their reactors.
But I mean, Iran could have gotten and used that stuff any time in the last 30 years. So why haven't they if they're all suicidal maniacs? Maybe it's because they aren't really maniacs like the war propaganda is making them sound like.
Wrong. Weapons of mass destruction are weapons that actually cause massive destruction - i.e. flatten a ton of buildings. Chemical and Biological weapons do not do this and are thus not WMD.
You're thinking of the term NBC (nuclear biological and chemical weapons).
killadoob
Honorary Master
well for one thing North Korea hate the west
IRAN owes the russians a ton of money
I think alot of countries are sick and tired of the US
is a nuclear blast not biological, doesnt the radiation from that blast last up to tens years?
Is radidation not as bad as a chemical weapon
i think radiation is very bad thus is a biological weapon
IRAN owes the russians a ton of money
I think alot of countries are sick and tired of the US
is a nuclear blast not biological, doesnt the radiation from that blast last up to tens years?
Is radidation not as bad as a chemical weapon
i think radiation is very bad thus is a biological weapon
Skeptik
Banned
well for one thing North Korea hate the west
IRAN owes the russians a ton of money
I think alot of countries are sick and tired of the US
is a nuclear blast not biological, doesnt the radiation from that blast last up to tens years?
Is radidation not as bad as a chemical weapon
i think radiation is very bad thus is a biological weapon
Radiation is technically a chemical weapon, but the fallout can last for 50 years or more, depending on whether they use something more toxic. It creates huge problems for generations - deformed children, all the cancers etc.. It is ghastly.
Natas
Expert Member
The only thing that would save eth world from real cr@p if America decided to invade Iran would be if China and/or Russia and/or North Korea took a stance and said that if America invaded Iran, then they would consider it a declaration of war on them as well....
If America does decide to go into Iran...I sincerely hope this happens..an Invasion of Iran would be extremely serious and could send many third world countries incuding our own into a recession. Countries like ours, whose economy are effected quite drastically by the price of oil, would suffer greatly.
In deciding to attack Iran, the US will not for one muite stop to think about the impact that htis would have on other countries. An invasion of Iran would be based purely on acquiring access to natural resources and will not be based on any perceived threat posed by Iran.
If America were to invade Iran, Iran would in addition to internal fighting most proabbaly launch an international guerilla warfare campaign. Attacking America within and without!! America will win the war, but casualties will be great.....
My concern in this regard is based purely on the fact that I would like to be able to keep the lifestyle to which I have grown accustom. I dont really care who kills who and who invades who.....I just want to be able to carry on living my life
@ Killadoob: A biological weapon is one which is "biological" such as a weaponised virus, a bacteria or a toxin found in nature. While a nuclear weapon will ahve a biological action, in that people will suffer deseases and be born deformed, a nuclear bomb is in itself not a biological weapon in a true sense of the word.
Depending on the material used in the nuclear device, the detonation of a nuclear bomb will have long lasting effects. The nuclear material from the charge will be spread across an area and will continue for a long period to be radioactive. The half life of radioactive material can be substantial.
Chemical weapons are different in that they use chemicals to do damage. Most chemicals biodegrade and react with other compounds present and become harmless. All chemical weapons are rated according to theior persistency...with some being a perpetual biological toxin. IE one that despite having been ingested will not be metabolised, when the victim dies and biodegrades, the chemical will still be there, DDT is an example of a persistant biological toxin, although it is not a weapon. Also, most chemical weapons are gasses which have short lived effects and then diffuse. While a nuclear weapon can kill in the blink of an eye, it can also kill over a sustained period of time. People outside of teh blast radius are usually exposed to radio active material and die die slow horrible deaths.
Chemical weapons on the other can kill in a number of ways. Some will kill you in a horrible way, such as sarin gas....and others can kill quick and painlessly
it must also be remembered that chemical weapons are different to biological weapons
If America does decide to go into Iran...I sincerely hope this happens..an Invasion of Iran would be extremely serious and could send many third world countries incuding our own into a recession. Countries like ours, whose economy are effected quite drastically by the price of oil, would suffer greatly.
In deciding to attack Iran, the US will not for one muite stop to think about the impact that htis would have on other countries. An invasion of Iran would be based purely on acquiring access to natural resources and will not be based on any perceived threat posed by Iran.
If America were to invade Iran, Iran would in addition to internal fighting most proabbaly launch an international guerilla warfare campaign. Attacking America within and without!! America will win the war, but casualties will be great.....
My concern in this regard is based purely on the fact that I would like to be able to keep the lifestyle to which I have grown accustom. I dont really care who kills who and who invades who.....I just want to be able to carry on living my life
@ Killadoob: A biological weapon is one which is "biological" such as a weaponised virus, a bacteria or a toxin found in nature. While a nuclear weapon will ahve a biological action, in that people will suffer deseases and be born deformed, a nuclear bomb is in itself not a biological weapon in a true sense of the word.
Depending on the material used in the nuclear device, the detonation of a nuclear bomb will have long lasting effects. The nuclear material from the charge will be spread across an area and will continue for a long period to be radioactive. The half life of radioactive material can be substantial.
Chemical weapons are different in that they use chemicals to do damage. Most chemicals biodegrade and react with other compounds present and become harmless. All chemical weapons are rated according to theior persistency...with some being a perpetual biological toxin. IE one that despite having been ingested will not be metabolised, when the victim dies and biodegrades, the chemical will still be there, DDT is an example of a persistant biological toxin, although it is not a weapon. Also, most chemical weapons are gasses which have short lived effects and then diffuse. While a nuclear weapon can kill in the blink of an eye, it can also kill over a sustained period of time. People outside of teh blast radius are usually exposed to radio active material and die die slow horrible deaths.
Chemical weapons on the other can kill in a number of ways. Some will kill you in a horrible way, such as sarin gas....and others can kill quick and painlessly
it must also be remembered that chemical weapons are different to biological weapons
Last edited:
Is that right? 600 000+ dead civilians, 3000+ dead troops (but I'm being childish?) What then are you being? BLIND?!
I need neither your approval nor your acceptance.
Now let's see "Project for a New World Order." Produced by a think tank (but I'm being childish?) Maybe you just need to open your eyes.
The blueprint, [sic], for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
[source]
Who has the preponderance of the above tech? If an 'event' happens the first people I will look to is GB and crew: warmongers and liars all.
Um, I wonder what happened about those Anthrax attacks in america (quietly forgotten.) I wonder what happened to all those false flag operations highlighted by bush in his State of the Nation (and all proven to be lies!!)
When a million plus people have stopped dying due to america's wars (made up note) then you can call me childish. Not before. Until that time I call you an idiot.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Why don't you ask them? There's still no evidence to suggest it's not a civilian program as far as I'm aware.
Ever seen one of the Iranian elite make a suicidal act? Seems to be Bush's forte to be honest.
Do you generally hand over weapons to your rivals that your rivals could use against you?
Let's say they do hand over a nuke to some mad terrorists. What's to stop those terrorists turning around and saying "Give us the rulership of Iran or we nuke Tehran"? Short answer : absolutely nothing.
So every country who is sick and tired of the US is ruled by a tyrant?
I'm pretty sure that the "countries" referred to in the original quote refers to the PEOPLE inside those countries, not the ruling party/dictator/whatever.
killadoob
Honorary Master
ok ok chill okes the war has not begun YET
when it does you can all start acting like this teehee
Iran war is imminent
the end of the world will start in middle east
they said it would start in 2006 but i think the guy who predicted this was slightly out with his times or their way of timing and ours is off
but one thing is certain, IRAN will be attacked and very soon
The more statements they make about their program the more hostile the US is becoming and IRAN is pocking a beast just like the japs did with pearl harbour
the US has dropped nukes before and wont hesitate to drop more if needed, the question is who else would drop nukes and who else has nukes
does IRAN have nukes, nobody knows for sure, they can speculate as much as want but they have no clue whether North Korea has supplied information or actual bombs to IRAN
PPL dont see the north korea is as bad as IRAN and just waiting for time to show it
my predition is 2010 wont happen not because of our country but because of massive death and a very different world
when it does you can all start acting like this teehee
Iran war is imminent
the end of the world will start in middle east
they said it would start in 2006 but i think the guy who predicted this was slightly out with his times or their way of timing and ours is off
but one thing is certain, IRAN will be attacked and very soon
The more statements they make about their program the more hostile the US is becoming and IRAN is pocking a beast just like the japs did with pearl harbour
the US has dropped nukes before and wont hesitate to drop more if needed, the question is who else would drop nukes and who else has nukes
does IRAN have nukes, nobody knows for sure, they can speculate as much as want but they have no clue whether North Korea has supplied information or actual bombs to IRAN
PPL dont see the north korea is as bad as IRAN and just waiting for time to show it
my predition is 2010 wont happen not because of our country but because of massive death and a very different world
So who has killed the vast majority of them? What are your thoughts about these people?
Neither do I or anybody else need yours.
Let me guess... they are all middle aged Christian white men.
:
Nothing new there.
What about it?
Hmmm why do you compliment him .
And
Your ilk called Churchill that so no worries there either then.
Last edited:
Maybe so but they were clearly holding back for whatever reason. If they really wanted to and really were threatened they could level the whole country.
More peaceful than e.g. the UAE or Qatar? Just because they haven't been directly involved in a war doesn't make them peaceful anyway.
Maybe because Israel is a recognised sovereign state whereas Hezbollah is at best a militia group, at worst a terrorist organisation?
Saying a country should disappear doesn't carry any threat at all?
Yeah I'm sure we'd get a straight answer. Unfortunately nothing short of them actualy detonating one would be considered proof for you. Even then I'm not sure you'd accept it.
So. They don't have nukes yet. No use becoming a martyr for nothing is there.
Since when are they rivals? Why would the terrorists turn on their backers rather than their indoctrinated enemies. That would leave them without a support base. They might be a manic but they aren't completely stupid.
So every country who is sick and tired of the US is ruled by a tyrant?
True. France is a democracy
Well then they should change there leaders. They can't tell the U.S how to defend themselves or even worse not to defend themselves
. It's not like they liked the U.S at anytime anyway.Well it's up to glowing Ahemi and his gang really.
Maybe, maybe not.
Who are "they" and aren't their timings always off .
The more statements they make about their program the more hostile the US is becoming and IRAN is pocking a beast just like the japs did with pearl harbour
Oh really. I guess Japan were the innocent good guys then too. Well at least you're not calling Pearl Harbour an American conspiracy to attack the poor Japs
. If it is justified then no they won't hesitate.
I don't think so.
Maybe you should relax a little. You'll see 2010. If Iran gets nukes then you can start worrying a bit about maybe not seeing 2015 or somewhere around then.
Last edited:
killadoob
Honorary Master
ummm all i said was japan poked a monster, i never said they were good
they where actually really stupid
i think you should relax hahaha you seem very tense
i dont think dropping a nuke on innocent ppl is justified, if you do then im glad you dont have nukes
the reason israel didnt finish hezbollah off is because the currect government is not a very bad one and they dont have it in for Israel, they just made a statement
time will tell and that time is coming soon
they where actually really stupid
i think you should relax hahaha you seem very tense
i dont think dropping a nuke on innocent ppl is justified, if you do then im glad you dont have nukes
the reason israel didnt finish hezbollah off is because the currect government is not a very bad one and they dont have it in for Israel, they just made a statement
time will tell
and that time is coming soonWell that clears that up. For a moment there I thought you just might think along those lines.
I don't think they were stupid.
Don't worry about me. I may come accross tense but i assure you I'm actually relaxed. Kilo on the otherhand I'm not so sure about. It seems he gets
and often on this forum. Well it depends. Do you think Hiroshima was justified?
As always.
I highly doubt it.
End of the world? I think not.
Crackpots normally are "slightly out".
I highly doubt it.
That was a different time and the effects of the weapons were not fully known or understood.
It is almost certain that they don't. And the nuclear weapons north korea supposedly has are primitive.
There is no need to worry about world wars or the end of the world. That is just alarmist ravings.
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
Ok fair enough. "Most peaceful" was taking it a bit far.Syndyre said:
Yet Israel uses those weapons to bomb other foreign states. That's what do you when you're a rogue nation, not so?
And at best Hezbollah is defending Lebanon, trying to secure prisoners captured by Israel and trying to end Israel's occupation of the Shebaa farms.
Of course it doesn't. "I wish you would die" isn't a threat wheras "I'm going to kill you" is.
There is absolutely no evidence that suggests that Iran is even building nuclear weapons or that they intend to use nuclear weapons offensively.Alanf85 said:
The palestinians have nukes, then?
If you can take control of a country you hardly need backers anymore, now do you?
By that standard you can't tell me how I can and can't defend myself and my property, even if that means driving around at night with the lights off killing anyone and everyone I happen to see.
No it isn't. The USA isn't going to suddenly back down.
And exactly what counts as justification?
No it wasn't. Japan tried to surrender before bombs were dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki(sp). America refused to listen to any diplomatic messages sent by Japan and so the Japanese tried to send the message via the dutch who still have the communications on record iirc.
I bit like "Who on earth thinks Iran is a democracy"
Um no.
So turning it into a warzone and causing civil strife is "defending it". Why five years down the line attack Israel? Do you honesly think that Hezbollah attacked Israel thinking that would free the prisoners. Every other muslim nation or orginisation around Israel has attacked them and what have they got out of it? Why is Israel holding onto these prisoners if they are so obviously innocent?
If you had the means to kill me then yes I would take it as a threat.
We are talking about Ayatollahs here not some foot soldiers. They would need an event large enough to reflect their status.
Who is gonna back you in your attempt to overthrow your ally. Even then it will probably result in a nation in disarray with no support from anyone.
Yeah America's killing anyone and everyone they see.
Really. How do you know that?
When the alternative would result in far more loss of life.
.
Bwahahaha
Where did you pull that out from then
You really are a troll. Did your parents or family fight in the 2nd WW? I at least got the story and the sentiment straight from the people who were there and put their lives on the line for your freedom.
And your constant jibes to churchill are truly putrid. There is/was no evidence of genocide until well into the war. Further as somebody who got the first hand tale you have no clue of the sentiment or wishes of the british people. And it was a democracy. Churchill made a special study of hitler and was a hawk. He was less inclined to believe liars which hitler turned out to be. But here you are believing in liars even though their lies are so plain to see. And here you are prattling on about getting it wrong but once again you have no solutions and wish to live in a world of gulags & radiation. Why can't you recognise the lies?! Why when the invasion of Iraq was plainly/proven/over and over again do you still insist on your broken image of the world?! LIES. Which letters don't you see?
Regarding Iran and the nuke threat: yes the timeline has got shorter the more GB has agitated. WhoTF wants to hear from him anyway?!
Which part of high technology don't you people understand? Whole industries have to be put in place to support a nuclear weapon. Basically impossible to hide. But ya, the bombs going to explode imminently?! What fantasy universe do you lot live in?!
ROFLOL
Last edited:
Xarog
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 19,038
- Reaction score
- 175
So rogue nations don't bomb foreign states? What do they do then - look unfriendly?
You'll notice that they took two prisoners hostage in the original attack. It was not the first attack of its kind since Israel withdrew in 2000, infact Hezbollah had made several other attacks before then which resulted in successful prisoner exchanges between the two sides.
Hezbollah did not turn Lebanon into a warzone, Israel turned Lebanon into a warzone. Nasrallah himself said that had he known in advance how Israel would respond he would not have given the go-ahead for the original skirmish. Since such attacks had happened before, Hezbollah had no reason to believe that the results would be any different this time than the last times.
So you're telling me that they're suicidal even though there is absolutely no evidence of them being suicidal. Riiiiight. Next thing you'll be telling me that Bush is really the second coming of Christ.
All those fundamentalists who think the current guys aren't fundamentalist enough.
Irrelevant to the analogy. Though I'll change it for your liking : I shoot everyone I see with something looking like a gun and shout out loudly to everyone else who can hear : "They're a threat to the neighbourhood's peace!"
Because the US isn't after Iran because of its supposed nuclear weapons.
Note how the US isn't gearing up to attack North Korea which does have nuclear weapons, despite the fact that North Korea was added to the "axis of evil" list.