Iran may have acquired Nuclear War Heads.

[seedload]

Without the US (and Israel) as a common hate target for their imams, they would go back to killing each other, as they used to do. Then all we have to do is go in and collect the loot (oil) thats left over and be the laughing 3rd and call it "foreign aid".

Was this a joke?

[rjaypeters]

Hey! Isn't "power and control" MSimon's tag line?

Are you implying that he is an Ayatollah in disguise?... interesting point

No, but I'm wondering about the relationship between engineering and religion. Perhaps MSimon has some thoughts...

[Giorgio]

Religion is based on faith, Engineering is mainly based on verified knowledge.
I always considered the two as being on diverging roads.
I have never been able to understand how some engineers can reconcile both. Maybe someone can share his experience, it could be an interesting discussion.

[Diogenes]

We keep giving them MONEY.

Among other things, which is why I am so interested in alternative energy sources.

We definitely need to stop that

Absolutely.
The thing is that the less we do business with them the more we isolate them, the less of a problem they will be.

People dont understand how this really works. They think that it is the religion that unites them. It is not! It is political goals and money that unites them! The leaders there (and they all claim to be religious one way of the other), they all give a darn about religion. They are fracking politicians! What they want is power and control. Religions (and ideologies) are a means to control the common stupid people and to get them to do whatever you want.
Do you really think the ayatollahs, Führers, even popes really believe the crap they keep telling their people?
I am 100% convinced that not even Kim Jong believes his own crap and he is an imbecile.
They say what they say in order to keep the people under control, to make them do their bidding.

Let me put it differently and I am 100% sure that this is the way it really is:
When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says shit like "I want to destroy Israel" and says all sorts of crap about Israel and the west, then he know that this is bullshit. He says that because he knows that the stupid people in his country that have been indoctrincated by the imams and teachers and their own media to believe this crap, he knows that this will get him cheers from this crowd. He knows that pointing fingers at the "evil Israel" or the "evil US" will distract from the problems in his own country. The hatred that he and his minions are firing up in the general population is what keeps his nation somewhat united. As we have all seen not to long ago, even that is not so certain. Anyway, he may be aspiring to become a nuclear power, but IMHO that is more in order to put more pressure behind whatever demands he has from the UN or business partners, etc.
I would be really, really, really suprised if he actually attacked israel.
IMHO, all he is interested in is to stay in power and to grow the influence of his country in the region.
It is power and control, not religion.

On the other hand, he could really be a religiously fanatical nut. I have met my share of nuts, religious and otherwise. (Some might say I'm a nut. ) They DO exist, and they think all sorts of kooky stuff. I have known people who believe the rapture is coming and that the righteous will simply disappear! (To Heaven or some such) I know people who believe there is a centuries old cabal of influential people who manipulate everything and conspire to rule the world, (like influential people don't already do that overtly. ) I know people who believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy rather than a lone socialist nut. (Are there really any other kind of socialist?)

Maybe I'madinnerjacket isn't crazy, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of nuttery. My experience is that most people have some form of nuttery. You just have to find the right subject and they will sound like they are in the twilight zone.

[bcglorf]

Religion is based on faith, Engineering is mainly based on verified knowledge.
I always considered the two as being on diverging roads.
I have never been able to understand how some engineers can reconcile both. Maybe someone can share his experience, it could be an interesting discussion.

I'll share what I think was the most concise and articulate response I've heard, forget who to attribute it to though.

Generally it's considered rational to accept a story, idea or theory when it explains more than it can not, and isn't in contradiction with known evidence. If a religious belief gives an explanation to a large part of what would otherwise be chalked up to 'coincidence', and only leaves a small part of ones experience without explanation, what is the rational course?

[bcglorf]

We keep giving them MONEY.

Among other things, which is why I am so interested in alternative energy sources.

We definitely need to stop that

Absolutely.
The thing is that the less we do business with them the more we isolate them, the less of a problem they will be.

People dont understand how this really works. They think that it is the religion that unites them. It is not! It is political goals and money that unites them! The leaders there (and they all claim to be religious one way of the other), they all give a darn about religion. They are fracking politicians! What they want is power and control. Religions (and ideologies) are a means to control the common stupid people and to get them to do whatever you want.
Do you really think the ayatollahs, Führers, even popes really believe the crap they keep telling their people?
I am 100% convinced that not even Kim Jong believes his own crap and he is an imbecile.
They say what they say in order to keep the people under control, to make them do their bidding.

Let me put it differently and I am 100% sure that this is the way it really is:
When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says shit like "I want to destroy Israel" and says all sorts of crap about Israel and the west, then he know that this is bullshit. He says that because he knows that the stupid people in his country that have been indoctrincated by the imams and teachers and their own media to believe this crap, he knows that this will get him cheers from this crowd. He knows that pointing fingers at the "evil Israel" or the "evil US" will distract from the problems in his own country. The hatred that he and his minions are firing up in the general population is what keeps his nation somewhat united. As we have all seen not to long ago, even that is not so certain. Anyway, he may be aspiring to become a nuclear power, but IMHO that is more in order to put more pressure behind whatever demands he has from the UN or business partners, etc.
I would be really, really, really suprised if he actually attacked israel.
IMHO, all he is interested in is to stay in power and to grow the influence of his country in the region.
It is power and control, not religion.

On the other hand, he could really be a religiously fanatical nut. I have met my share of nuts, religious and otherwise. (Some might say I'm a nut. ) They DO exist, and they think all sorts of kooky stuff. I have known people who believe the rapture is coming and that the righteous will simply disappear! (To Heaven or some such) I know people who believe there is a centuries old cabal of influential people who manipulate everything and conspire to rule the world, (like influential people don't already do that overtly. ) I know people who believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy rather than a lone socialist nut. (Are there really any other kind of socialist?)

Maybe I'madinnerjacket isn't crazy, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of nuttery. My experience is that most people have some form of nuttery. You just have to find the right subject and they will sound like they are in the twilight zone.

I personally follow the other take on this. If the guy is willing to pander to the religious extremists, why in the world would one advocate for that as a reason to trust him to stop doing so if he acquires nuclear weapons?

Surely his apparent desire to do and say what the fanatics want him to say is an argument AGAINST trusting his better judgment and nature.

[Diogenes]

Isn't that what the Associated Press is for?

Well, yes and no. But you should keep those with a grain of salt as well.
Generally just do your research on things. If only one is saying it, it is most likely BS though.

The Associated Press Ran a story in the early 2000s saying Barack was born in Kenya. (Shows how reliable THEY are.) I used to have a link, but the machine that link is on needs it's operating system reloaded. I ran across a particularly nasty piece of Malware (a rootkit) and I haven't reloaded it's operating system yet. Malware gets vicious nowadays.

[Diogenes]

I would say the hard part is making a nuke small enough to be a missile payload.

I Found one of my old books a few days ago. (The Curve of Binding Energy) Started re-reading it again. If I recall correctly, the scientist of which the book is about, (Theodore B. Taylor) was the first guy to think of using a beryllium reflector to make a sub-critical mass into a critical mass. If I remember correctly, the bomb thus developed was called the "Scorpion", and was one of if not THE smallest fission bomb ever built. Were I the Iranians, I would experiment with this approach. I think neutron readings from small samples could be scaled up enough to give them an idea how small a mass would be required to make such a bomb.

Yes, and small enough to cap a missile, and still have a decent yield remains not easy for a beginner.

Ted Taylor was a big name back in the day. But then he went "hippy".

Oppenheimer started out "hippy." My favorite Nuke Bomb scientist was Edward Teller. (Nothing like a close Encounter with Socialism to make you a Die Hard Anti-Socialist. ) Among other things, while all the Liberal Scientists were telling Reagan that SDI was impossible, Edward Teller said: " Sure, it's possible, and we should do it!"

[Diogenes]

Religion is based on faith, Engineering is mainly based on verified knowledge.
I always considered the two as being on diverging roads.
I have never been able to understand how some engineers can reconcile both. Maybe someone can share his experience, it could be an interesting discussion.

I'll share what I think was the most concise and articulate response I've heard, forget who to attribute it to though.

Generally it's considered rational to accept a story, idea or theory when it explains more than it can not, and isn't in contradiction with known evidence. If a religious belief gives an explanation to a large part of what would otherwise be chalked up to 'coincidence', and only leaves a small part of ones experience without explanation, what is the rational course?

It is my current opinion that Religion works in a similar manner to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of economics. The Belief system helps to reinforce the effects of the "invisible hand."

[Diogenes]

On the other hand, he could really be a religiously fanatical nut. I have met my share of nuts, religious and otherwise. (Some might say I'm a nut. ) They DO exist, and they think all sorts of kooky stuff. I have known people who believe the rapture is coming and that the righteous will simply disappear! (To Heaven or some such) I know people who believe there is a centuries old cabal of influential people who manipulate everything and conspire to rule the world, (like influential people don't already do that overtly. ) I know people who believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy rather than a lone socialist nut. (Are there really any other kind of socialist?)

Maybe I'madinnerjacket isn't crazy, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of nuttery. My experience is that most people have some form of nuttery. You just have to find the right subject and they will sound like they are in the twilight zone.

I personally follow the other take on this. If the guy is willing to pander to the religious extremists, why in the world would one advocate for that as a reason to trust him to stop doing so if he acquires nuclear weapons?

Surely his apparent desire to do and say what the fanatics want him to say is an argument AGAINST trusting his better judgment and nature.

It is an axiomatic principle among military planners that you don't pay much attention to what people say they will or will not do. You pay attention to what they are CAPABLE of doing, and assume the worst. I think that if we allow Iran to obtain the CAPABILITY to nuke Israel, we will have committed the worst possible folly, and we will have condemned millions of people to death.
It is my opinion that we should have kicked Iran's @ss years ago. (Thank you Jimmy Carter.) I think the Iranian Fanatics are a far greater threat than Saddam ever was.

[bcglorf]

On the other hand, he could really be a religiously fanatical nut. I have met my share of nuts, religious and otherwise. (Some might say I'm a nut. ) They DO exist, and they think all sorts of kooky stuff. I have known people who believe the rapture is coming and that the righteous will simply disappear! (To Heaven or some such) I know people who believe there is a centuries old cabal of influential people who manipulate everything and conspire to rule the world, (like influential people don't already do that overtly. ) I know people who believe that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy rather than a lone socialist nut. (Are there really any other kind of socialist?)

Maybe I'madinnerjacket isn't crazy, but I wouldn't underestimate the power of nuttery. My experience is that most people have some form of nuttery. You just have to find the right subject and they will sound like they are in the twilight zone.

I personally follow the other take on this. If the guy is willing to pander to the religious extremists, why in the world would one advocate for that as a reason to trust him to stop doing so if he acquires nuclear weapons?

Surely his apparent desire to do and say what the fanatics want him to say is an argument AGAINST trusting his better judgment and nature.

It is an axiomatic principle among military planners that you don't pay much attention to what people say they will or will not do. You pay attention to what they are CAPABLE of doing, and assume the worst. I think that if we allow Iran to obtain the CAPABILITY to nuke Israel, we will have committed the worst possible folly, and we will have condemned millions of people to death.
It is my opinion that we should have kicked Iran's @ss years ago. (Thank you Jimmy Carter.) I think the Iranian Fanatics are a far greater threat than Saddam ever was.

So far the Iranian green movement and overall national liberties still make Iran less a threat than Saddam was, in my view. There are still allowed large swaths of Iran where they openly condemn the Ayatollahs and wearing a beard as the conservatives do will get you spit on. In Saddam's Iraq that kind of behaviour was unheard of, and Saddam repeatedly killed hundreds of thousands to put an end to it.

Iran's internal dissent and moderates are still a very positive factor, and about the only really hopeful part of the equation.

I agree entirely on the acquiring nukes part though. No amount of internal or external dissent is gonna matter WHEN they develop nukes. Once that happens Iran immediately becomes another North Korea, and everyone loses. Far, far better to deal with the problem now while it's still manageable.

The only question that is unsettled to me is when do you abandon any hope of the green movement achieving an Egypt or even Libyan like solution before resorting to the much uglier solutions.

[Giorgio]

If a religious belief gives an explanation to a large part of what would otherwise be chalked up to 'coincidence', and only leaves a small part of ones experience without explanation, what is the rational course?

I have always met people that got involved deeply into religion only after some big mishap in their lives, and believing was helping them to remove a part of the pressure or of the guilty feeling they was experiencing.
I guess for them it was like a safety valve. When you cannot come to terms with destiny blame a superior will.

What I still cannot understand is how rational beings (especially Engineers) do come to terms with religious rules and beliefs.

The ones I met while working in Islamic countries used to say to me:
"You forget to be an Engineer 5 minutes before the pray and you become again one 5 minutes after".
I always found it to be an excuse not to have to face reality. Than again, maybe they have the right attitude while I do not.

[Skipjack]

I think that if we allow Iran to obtain the CAPABILITY to nuke Israel, we will have committed the worst possible folly, and we will have condemned millions of people to death.

By your principle, the world would have been destroyed in WW3 a long time ago. It was not. There were some nuts in the Soviet hierarchy as well (communism is a sort of religion as well), but they never made a nuclear strike.

Also, I am not willing to send my son into a war over this, I am really not. Let them sort it out among themelves! Why do we always have to bother with other peoples problems especially SINCE NOBODY LIKES US FOR DOING SO? In case you have not noticed...
If you, we keep interfering, all we will do is generate more hatred against us.
If they go an kill lots of people, then they will attract the hatred of others. If we go and kill lots of people as a preemptive strike, we are the ones who will most likely attract the hatred of others. So if we (as the west) do a preemptive strike we have to make darn sure that we really had no other choice! My scoop is that the mossad would figure out if Iran was about to launch an attack probably long before their generals even know and then it is time to react. This is what intelligence is for.
Besides, right now Iran still has no capability whatsoever. All they have done is talk big words and as I said, all dicators do that, because it helps them control their people. The moment they appear weak, their heads come off.

[Skipjack]

Was this a joke?

I thought the sarkasm was obvious enough
Yes, it was tongue in cheek...

[Diogenes]

I personally follow the other take on this. If the guy is willing to pander to the religious extremists, why in the world would one advocate for that as a reason to trust him to stop doing so if he acquires nuclear weapons?

Surely his apparent desire to do and say what the fanatics want him to say is an argument AGAINST trusting his better judgment and nature.

It is an axiomatic principle among military planners that you don't pay much attention to what people say they will or will not do. You pay attention to what they are CAPABLE of doing, and assume the worst. I think that if we allow Iran to obtain the CAPABILITY to nuke Israel, we will have committed the worst possible folly, and we will have condemned millions of people to death.
It is my opinion that we should have kicked Iran's @ss years ago. (Thank you Jimmy Carter.) I think the Iranian Fanatics are a far greater threat than Saddam ever was.

So far the Iranian green movement and overall national liberties still make Iran less a threat than Saddam was, in my view. There are still allowed large swaths of Iran where they openly condemn the Ayatollahs and wearing a beard as the conservatives do will get you spit on. In Saddam's Iraq that kind of behaviour was unheard of, and Saddam repeatedly killed hundreds of thousands to put an end to it.

Iran's internal dissent and moderates are still a very positive factor, and about the only really hopeful part of the equation.

I have very great hopes for Iranian dissidents. It would be wonderful if the Theocrats could be dislodged without bloodshed. Given enough time it is a foregone conclusion, but is there enough time?

I agree entirely on the acquiring nukes part though. No amount of internal or external dissent is gonna matter WHEN they develop nukes. Once that happens Iran immediately becomes another North Korea, and everyone loses. Far, far better to deal with the problem now while it's still manageable.

The only question that is unsettled to me is when do you abandon any hope of the green movement achieving an Egypt or even Libyan like solution before resorting to the much uglier solutions.

Me too. If only we had some intelligent fellow with access to the best intelligence information in some strong position of authority that could act on such information, and who's judgement we could trust.