Khamenei says Iran may enrich uranium to 60% purity if needed

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah well we will have to wait and see.

The way I see it is sanctions play into the hands of the Mullah leaders and make the Iranian population hate the west.

 

 

There's that, and then there were numerous instances of public unrest, some related to the economic situation seen as the regime's fault. Support for Iranian military adventures in the region is also a matter often raised. I think it's kinda hard to say sanctions do only this or that.

[Kwasaki]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

regardless of your personal outstanding dislike for the country.

Get things straight without assumptions I like all people from whatever country it's the govts I dislike.

[sirineou]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Where do you come with me coming with the "Iran is not a peace loving nation"? I don't think I've actually said that. Iran's people, as a nation, are like all people. Iran's leadership does tend to hold belligerent aspirations and views as far as the region goes.

 

The 'heretic past' comment was a reference to your own reliance on a supposedly 3000 thousand continuous political line applied to 'Persian'. The current regime in Iran does not, I think, embrace the heritage of pre-Muslims times quite as strongly. Nothing to do with the quote presented above.

 

 

Persian is not a religious designation but rather an ethic one. Though religious practices have changed in Persia , (modern name Iran. ) as it has for every country in the world, I don't think their Ethnic identity has changed, so the "heretic" comment does not apply. 

 

In the post that I original replied too you said "Good post but expect to receive couple of negative comments from some of the members here who are thinks that Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only... "

in other words you agree with the post you are replying too, but there would be others who might not mistakenly thinking " Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only"  

 

 

[onebir]

10 hours ago, Morch said:

There's no finger on no button. No one's going to 'destroy' Iran. As far as negative consequences go there are basically only two scenarios, both unlikely to actually materialize - sanctions or a limited strike. Nothing more severe than that on the cards, actually making it a good time for Iran to play chicken. The Biden administration may not be a pushover, but is committed to diplomacy and negotiations, so wouldn't take steps to fan flames or such that are irrevocable.

Or more covert action: more fires, explosions etc &/ assassinations of nuclear scientists, IRGC honchos, or even politicians. Good idea? IDK...

 

There may also be an intermediate stage between a 'conventional limited' and 'nuclear' these days: multiple large thermobaric weapons like "MAOB". (IIRC there was a conventional blast in Syria that may have been a larger version of one of these.)

[Morch]

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

Persian is not a religious designation but rather an ethic one. Though religious practices have changed in Persia , (modern name Iran. ) as it has for every country in the world, I don't think their Ethnic identity has changed, so the "heretic" comment does not apply. 

 

In the post that I original replied too you said "Good post but expect to receive couple of negative comments from some of the members here who are thinks that Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only... "

in other words you agree with the post you are replying too, but there would be others who might not mistakenly thinking " Iran is a peace loving nation who develops nukes for peaceful purposes only"  

 

 

 

Thanks for the unnecessary lecture, I'll stand by my comment that the suggested continuity is more abused for PR purposes, rather than represents a contemporary sentiment.

 

And no, I haven't said that, you're quoting (again) a post by @ezzra.

[Morch]

16 minutes ago, onebir said:

Or more covert action: more fires, explosions etc &/ assassinations of nuclear scientists, IRGC honchos, or even politicians. Good idea? IDK...

 

There may also be an intermediate stage between a 'conventional limited' and 'nuclear' these days: multiple large thermobaric weapons like "MAOB". (IIRC there was a conventional blast in Syria that may have been a larger version of one of these.)

 

The first part, yes. More of the same, if perhaps on a smaller scale, can be expected. But such actions will not, ultimately, stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

 

The second part is irrelevant as far as destroying some of Iran's major nuclear sites (read the link provided), was not sold to other countries, and requires a rather tricky delivery.

[sirineou]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Thanks for the unnecessary lecture, I'll stand by my comment that the suggested continuity is more abused for PR purposes, rather than represents a contemporary sentiment.

 

And no, I haven't said that, you're quoting (again) a post by @ezzra.

Not an "unnecassery lecture, but a nessacery response to your reply.

You did not say it, you implied it . ,it is the  same thing. and I explained how you implies it, 

 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Not an "unnecassery lecture, but a nessacery response to your reply.

You did not say it, you implied it . ,it is the  same thing. and I explained how you implies it, 

 

 

Your lecture had little to do with my comment, it's just a deflection.

 

And you clearly stated I said it, which I did not. Now you're making up that I 'implied it'. How all this nonsense adds up to 'the same thing'? You've explained nothing pertaining to my comment. And you apparently can't even own up to making a simple mistake.

 

 

[sirineou]

10 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Your lecture had little to do with my comment, it's just a deflection.

 

And you clearly stated I said it, which I did not. Now you're making up that I 'implied it'. How all this nonsense adds up to 'the same thing'? You've explained nothing pertaining to my comment. And you apparently can't even own up to making a simple mistake.

 

 

Yea , you are right, Sorry to waste your time.

[onebir]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

The second part is irrelevant as far as destroying some of Iran's major nuclear sites (read the link provided), was not sold to other countries, and requires a rather tricky delivery.

The link (obviously) wasn't intended to be exhaustive.

 

"MOAB was recently used in Afghanistan against a series of cave complexes used by ISIS forces"; the Iranian nuclear facilities seem, in essence to be artificial cave complexes. & Russia developed a larger thermobaric bomb which was reportedly used in Syria in 2017. I guess the stork delivered that?.

 

 

 

[ezzra]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Your lecture had little to do with my comment, it's just a deflection.

 

And you clearly stated I said it, which I did not. Now you're making up that I 'implied it'. How all this nonsense adds up to 'the same thing'? You've explained nothing pertaining to my comment. And you apparently can't even own up to making a simple mistake.

 

 

Morch,  you have made 17 replies to this thread, you must feel very strongly about this subject, still, not sure what is you bottom line premise, you are trying to make a point/s somewhere in your many posts, so what are they if you'd be asked so some it all up in 2-3 sentences?

Also,Iran has vowed on many occasions to 'destroy Israel' and the Israelis on their part,has reiterated over and over again that it will not tolerate or allow nuclear Iran, and when Israel climes up such a tall tree, it will have to keep their words, Israel has the capacity and the means to deliver a very hurtful message on Iran should the world community will not succeeded in stopping Iran...

[Morch]

8 hours ago, onebir said:

The link (obviously) wasn't intended to be exhaustive.

 

"MOAB was recently used in Afghanistan against a series of cave complexes used by ISIS forces"; the Iranian nuclear facilities seem, in essence to be artificial cave complexes. & Russia developed a larger thermobaric bomb which was reportedly used in Syria in 2017. I guess the stork delivered that?.

 

 

 

 

It was used against people (and other soft targets) within. It's  not a perpetrator weapon. Plus Iran's sites are much better fortified than the ISIS stronghold was. The Russian bomb was delivered by a Russian bomber, not sure what was the point?

[Morch]

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

Morch,  you have made 17 replies to this thread, you must feel very strongly about this subject, still, not sure what is you bottom line premise, you are trying to make a point/s somewhere in your many posts, so what are they if you'd be asked so some it all up in 2-3 sentences?

Also,Iran has vowed on many occasions to 'destroy Israel' and the Israelis on their part,has reiterated over and over again that it will not tolerate or allow nuclear Iran, and when Israel climes up such a tall tree, it will have to keep their words, Israel has the capacity and the means to deliver a very hurtful message on Iran should the world community will not succeeded in stopping Iran...

 

"...you must feel very strongly about this subject..."

 

You must be projecting. Being interested is not the same as feeling strongly. All the more so when "feeling strongly" implies blind hyper-partisanship, ranting and over the top comments. I don't feel the need to call countries "evil" etc.

 

The points I make on this matter are pretty constant.

 

Nuclear proliferation is bad news. Once out of the bag, the cat is nearly impossible to control. That's one reason Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

 

Iran's leadership is religious. While they are neither stupid, nor beyond making compromises and concessions, there's always the lingering suspicion that at some point, zealotry might overcome common sense. One more reason for Iran being denied nuclear weapons.

 

Iran's regional stance shifted after the Iraq-Iran war, the two US-led wars vs. Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's demise. If prior  to this it was more hesitant, more defensive, the shift saw Iran proactively vying for regional dominance, often cleverly using proxy outfits. As far as the Middle East goes, Iran is a destabilizing force, and there's little to recommend strengthening its power with the addition of nuclear weapons.

 

Now...

 

It can be said Iran's policies are a reaction to other countries' (US, Israel, Saudi Arabia), and to a degree that is correct. One can appreciate and understand Iran's point of view, without condoning or supporting it. Same for the arguments that other involved nations are "bad". Maybe so, but on the balance of things, I'd go with what's less "bad", or more at least, more stable.

 

The JCPOA was not a perfect agreement, but it was way better than no agreement at all. Pulling out of it was one of Trump's daftest foreign policy moves.

 

Leaderships (in the Middle East, at least) often engage in fiery rhetoric, threats, and big statements. Much of it never goes anywhere much, and is aimed for public consumption. It should not be ignored, but at the same time not hyped. As far as Israel and Iran, it's been going on for a long long time - doubt the "keep the word" applies. Israel does not have the capability to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. It can, at most, make a limited strike, with limited effects.

[Kwasaki]

12 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Decide which argument you're making then. I replied to your original comment, which included communicating the message that concessions were made for the benefit of the Iranian people, rather than a gesture to their leadership. Since the negotiations and relations between the countries are conducted through governments and leaderships it does matter.

 

Slogans are not an argument.

I thought I made it clear in my hand fisted way earlier I would argue both sides of the story. 

I am also saying lift sanctions and have said whether or not whatever the Iranian people think I don't care, if they think it's there Muslim leaders so be it but I don't think all the Iranian people are that ignorant.

Whether I demonstrate in a slogan way again what does it matter, can l not voice my views just because I don't agree with others and the way others see the situation.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

I thought I made it clear in my hand fisted way earlier I would argue both sides of the story. 

I am also saying lift sanctions and have said whether or not whatever the Iranian people think I don't care, if they think it's there Muslim leaders so be it but I don't think all the Iranian people are that ignorant.

Whether I demonstrate in a slogan way again what does it matter, can l not voice my views just because I don't agree with others and the way others see the situation.

 

If you expect a reasonable reply, then you need to make a reasonable argument. Shifting the goalposts, or even contradicting your own points is bound to make responding troublesome. Slogans are great, and if that's your thing, sure. They are, however, rarely a substitute for informed discussion.

[Kwasaki]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you expect a reasonable reply, then you need to make a reasonable argument. Shifting the goalposts, or even contradicting your own points is bound to make responding troublesome. Slogans are great, and if that's your thing, sure. They are, however, rarely a substitute for informed discussion.

I reply the best way I know I don't have a degree in English.

If you can't see where I'm trying to come from I can't help you with that.  

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Kwasaki said:

I reply the best way I know I don't have a degree in English.

If you can't see where I'm trying to come from I can't help you with that.  

 

You don't need a degree in English (I don't got one either), just keeping things fairly consistent would be fine.

I think, based on your previous posts here and on similar topics, that your stance is essentially anti-Western (as far as governments go). Sometimes this comes to the level of ignoring, or putting aside, issues related to the other side discussed.

 

Saying that sanctions aren't nice is not saying much. They are supposed to be a bother. They directly effect the people, and supposedly, in turn/indirectly effect the leadership. It's all very well to point out the US/Western responsibility in this regard, but shouldn't be ignored that it's also the Iranian leadership's choice to prolong the situation. Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first, while their opponents get a free pass on that.

 

Countries routinely use respective advantages, difference in power and circumstances to advance their goals.

[Kwasaki]

15 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You don't need a degree in English (I don't got one either), just keeping things fairly consistent would be fine.

I think, based on your previous posts here and on similar topics, that your stance is essentially anti-Western (as far as governments go). Sometimes this comes to the level of ignoring, or putting aside, issues related to the other side discussed.

 

Saying that sanctions aren't nice is not saying much. They are supposed to be a bother. They directly effect the people, and supposedly, in turn/indirectly effect the leadership. It's all very well to point out the US/Western responsibility in this regard, but shouldn't be ignored that it's also the Iranian leadership's choice to prolong the situation. Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first, while their opponents get a free pass on that.

 

Countries routinely use respective advantages, difference in power and circumstances to advance their goals.

My stance is what I see as reasonable it's hard to be consistent and easier to be drawn into what I consider to be positive thoughts of an outcome to deal with something.

 

There's a great lack of understanding here as seen in the past, western powers behaviour towards other countries just causes erratic behavior making them unpredictable.

 

Instead of taking a different approach and act in another way to make progress, the west see's that as a weakness.

It may well be considered as irregular or illogical for the situation, or not keeping within their usual standards of behavior but worth a try.

 

As for   " Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first ".  what's wrong with that if it gets results.

As for  "Countries routinely using their respective advantages" you mean bullying is OK I take it.

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

My stance is what I see as reasonable it's hard to be consistent and easier to be drawn into what I consider to be positive thoughts of an outcome to deal with something.

 

There's a great lack of understanding here as seen in the past, western powers behaviour towards other countries just causes erratic behavior making them unpredictable.

 

Instead of taking a different approach and act in another way to make progress, the west see's that as a weakness.

It may well be considered as irregular or illogical for the situation, or not keeping within their usual standards of behavior but worth a try.

 

As for   " Somehow, it's expected that the US/West will fold first ".  what's wrong with that if it gets results.

As for  "Countries routinely using their respective advantages" you mean bullying is OK I take it.

 

 

 

I don't know that Western powers behavior toward other countries makes them other countries 'unpredictable'. That's a claim that needs a wee bit more meat to it. For example, can't really say Iran's actions are 'unpredictable', even.

 

Not quite sure what general 'different approach' is suggested.

 

Why do you think that the US/West folding first would get 'results'? Why ignore that there are drawbacks to such a move? Why is the onus to act in constructive manner solely rests with the US/West?

 

No, bullying is not ok. Nor is using a country's advantage always 'bullying'. It's a fact that's how international relations work. I'm acknowledging it, not celebrating it. Iran, for example, does the same on a regional level, and even, currently, vs. the US. All the moves, threats and deadlines are in place to exert pressure and get the result it wants. Each plays the cards they got.

[onebir]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

1> It was used against people (and other soft targets) within. It's  not a perpetrator weapon. Plus Iran's sites are much better fortified than the ISIS stronghold was.

2>The Russian bomb was delivered by a Russian bomber, not sure what was the point?

1> Regardless of the designation ('perpetrator') it seems to have worked.

2> You didn't notice it had much bigger yield?

1 + 2 => similar weapons might be effective against better fortified (Iranian) sites.

(I didn't think this needed to be spelled out like this...)

[Kwasaki]

4 hours ago, Morch said:

I don't know that Western powers behavior toward other countries makes them other countries 'unpredictable'.

Ever heard of North Korea, never mind China at this point in time.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Not quite sure what general 'different approach' is suggested.

A better one than say Iraq.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Why do you think that the US/West folding first would get 'results'?

Don't let US/West think that's dangerous try a different approach.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Why ignore that there are drawbacks to such a move?

What drawbacks it hasn't been tried.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Why is the onus to act in constructive manner solely rests with the US/West?

You tell me, they don't have to be the world police because they don't like the idea of someone having the same as they have.

4 hours ago, Morch said:

Iran, for example, does the same on a regional level, and even, currently, vs. the US. All the moves, threats and deadlines are in place to exert pressure and get the result it wants. Each plays the cards they got.

Well engage negotiations by dropping sanctions, shovel the cards and re-deal em.

[Morch]

4 hours ago, onebir said:

1> Regardless of the designation ('perpetrator') it seems to have worked.

2> You didn't notice it had much bigger yield?

1 + 2 => similar weapons might be effective against better fortified (Iranian) sites.

(I didn't think this needed to be spelled out like this...)

 

It worked in a specific scenario and against a specific set of targets. I have no idea why you assume that the ISIS compound and the Iranian nuclear sights are same-same. They are not.

 

Larger yield does not necessarily imply a munition would be very effective against a target it wasn't designed for.

 

As far as I understand, the Iranian facilities are dug deeper and are massively fortified. For a non-perpetrator weapon to do his "thing", another needs to punch a whole through first. I don't think that there an conventional, effective, 2-in-1 solution available.

[onebir]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

For a non-perpetrator weapon to do his "thing", another needs to punch a whole through first.

Penetrator??

[Morch]

 

@Kwasaki

 

I'd appreciate if you don't cut my post like that while replying, as it makes quoting back problematic.

 

China is 'unpredictable'? How so? North Korea is more of a one-man show, hardly comparable with Iran. Again, it's not enough to say 'unpredictable' without actually supporting this with something. Same goes for Iraq - how does that apply? Or rather which set of actions are you referring to? And, of course, you fail to actually describe the desired approach.

 

Simply folding would imply weakness. It would broadcast that the US administration is soft, and fears confrontation (not necessarily military, but in a broader sense). It would be cast as a major achievement by Iran's leadership, bolster hardliners and probably set a precedent for future disagreements. You do not really provide any reasoning which counters these points. As for 'it' never being tried - not so. Negotiations with Iran on the issue of its nuclear program have been going on for years. There's ample reason for Iran not being trusted and for the general reluctance to give it a free pass on things. 

 

I tell you what? You're the one who comes up with these notions, I'm not required to justify your reasoning for you. China and Russia are signatories to the JCPOA as well, are they too 'the West' now? Are they some kind of World Police? Proliferation of nuclear arms is bad. The logic of if-this-country-got-it-why-can't-that-one is a slippery slope.

 

The issue of simply dropping sanctions was addressed above. As for shoveling the cards and re-dealing them - I suspect you didn't get the point. Countries possess different kinds and levels of power. There's no easy changing that short of remaking the World. A bit out of the scope of the current issue and discussion.

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, onebir said:

Penetrator??

 

Yeah, auto spell checker fail.

[onebir]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah, auto spell checker fail.

Ok, np!

Quote

I don't think that there an conventional, effective, 2-in-1 solution available.

That we "know" about.

 

I saw liveleak video of a huge explosion in Syria a few years ago. I wasn't able to find it just now, but IIRC the light-vs-sound delay indicated it was ~2km from the camera, and the shockwave still did significant damage. I think that's close to 100 kiloton yield. So it seems like very high yield non-nuclear bombs are out there.

 

Whether they're amenable to bunker busting duty IDK, but certain parties have a huge interest in developing that capability, are no sluggards when it comes to weapons design, and have no interest in leaking details of that capability. A year ago, who would have guessed a nuclear scientist would get assassinated by a remote controlled machine gun?

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, onebir said:

Ok, np!

That we "know" about.

 

I saw liveleak video of a huge explosion in Syria a few years ago. I wasn't able to find it just now, but IIRC the light-vs-sound delay indicated it was ~2km from the camera, and the shockwave still did significant damage. I think that's close to 100 kiloton yield. So it seems like very high yield non-nuclear bombs are out there.

 

Whether they're amenable to bunker busting duty IDK, but certain parties have a huge interest in developing that capability, are no sluggards when it comes to weapons design, and have no interest in leaking details of that capability. A year ago, who would have guessed a nuclear scientist would get assassinated by a remote controlled machine gun?

 

I kinda doubt, what with surveillance in the region being what it is, that an explosion of such magnitude could be kept secret. And then not all stuff on the internet is what it seems to be....Of course, there could be secret weapons developed. I'm commenting on what's known. As for the assassination, such technologies were demonstrated for several years now. More in the context of urban warfare, though. I'm pretty sure that there were operatives on site as well anyway.

 

 

 

 

[onebir]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

1>I kinda doubt, what with surveillance in the region being what it is, that an explosion of such magnitude could be kept secret. And then not all stuff on the internet is what it seems to be....Of course, there could be secret weapons developed. I'm commenting on what's known.

 

2>As for the assassination, such technologies were demonstrated for several years now. More in the context of urban warfare, though. I'm pretty sure that there were operatives on site as well anyway.

1> This may be exactly why that weapons ended up being used in a live war. There were videos of the same event from several angles, much like the Beirut event; it seemed convincing to me (but my munitions expertise runs out around pea-shooter caliber).

 

2> True, but constructing and deploying such a weapon in a very hostile environment took some doing. About the operatives on site, didn't the Iranians retract that part of the story? (Not that that means much...)

[Rimmer]

A post has been removed, easier for everyone if you don't snip a quoted reply and or multi quote, both of which can lead to confusion further down the topic.

 

5. Please do not quote multiple nested quotes. Quote only the relevant section that you are discussing. Moderators will snip excessively long nested quotes. 

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.