- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Just some Uranium enrichment info for everyone
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:32 am to LARancher1991
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:32 am to LARancher1991
They also have more oil and gas than they can use. Why futz around with the expense, complexity and headache of nuclear power, if you don't want nuclear weapons?
Folks who deny this are doing so from a place of abject ignorance, potentially fatal naivete, or "other".
Having said that, I'm not sure of the correct way forward but passively accepting a post-revolution Iran with nuclear warheads ain't it.
Folks who deny this are doing so from a place of abject ignorance, potentially fatal naivete, or "other".
Having said that, I'm not sure of the correct way forward but passively accepting a post-revolution Iran with nuclear warheads ain't it.
This post was edited on 6/17/25 at 10:33 am
0
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:34 am to Pettifogger
Easy answer our intelligence community even after Trump took office is Bidens fricking people and democrat dei sky screamers that either don’t know what they are doing or gave the wrong intel to make Trump look bad that’s my take
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:35 am to Lynxrufus2012
quote:
I don’t want us to be shills for Israel or get involved in endless wars either but the tone of this board has become increasingly anti-Semitic. We have people here that are hard to differentiate from Hamas supporters.
Alt-media (eg YouTube personalities), which relies on contrarianism to survive and thus welcomes bad actors such as Daryl Cooper and Candace Owens is responsible for this.
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:35 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Why did the DNI say a couple of months ago Iran wasn't seeking a weapon then
None of us knows, but I'll counter with:
1. We have new intelligence
2. They've made moves un the last 3 months. Not like things have been static over there
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:38 am to jrobic4
I just question what's more likely -
- the threat really changed that drastically in the last 2 weeks
or
- the threat was increasing but not truly imminent, and Israel has teed it up such that Trump has no practical choice but to seize the moment
- the threat really changed that drastically in the last 2 weeks
or
- the threat was increasing but not truly imminent, and Israel has teed it up such that Trump has no practical choice but to seize the moment
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:39 am to Pettifogger
quote:
You're very obsessed with JB retweeting that guy
No, I am 1000% against the direction of the board with new posters and alters who continually post from those sources or repeat them.
JB isn't the only one. There were people today posting David Duke's old lines.
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:40 am to jrobic4
quote:
1. We have new intelligence 2. They've made moves un the last 3 months. Not like things have been static over there
Both true, plus they failed nonproliferation obligations recently on Thursday
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:42 am to Pettifogger
quote:perform some anti-nuclear weapon screed in Japan recently hinting that the US made the wrong decision back in 1945?
Why did the DNI...
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:43 am to BCreed1
quote:
There were people today posting David Duke's old lines.
That’s crazy stuff!
Links?
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:44 am to BCreed1
quote:
You mean you don't know what repeating a self described ethno-nationalist and antisemtite has to do with his stance on Jews?
That he's batting 1.000 in regards to foreign policy?
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:48 am to Proximo
quote:The OP's 'evidence' is about things that happened last year.
3 months ago she stated the info in OP in her testimony. She stated not ACTIVELY pursuing.
So, despite all of the shite in the OP, 3 months ago, they weren't pursuing a nuke. Thanks.
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:49 am to SirWinston
quote:
That he's batting 1.000 in regards to foreign policy?
But he isn't. He's just an opportunist who is looking for ways to spread his trash.
All the way back on his feed is nothing more than propaganda against Jews. Period.
"Hamas was given STRICT orders to not bomb churches when they attacked. But ISRAEL... they didn't care!"
That's a tweet from this POS 1 day! ONE DAY after Oct 7th took place.
3 days after Oct 7th, he tweeted out "we are witnessing the creation of atrocity"
This post was edited on 6/17/25 at 10:59 am
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:51 am to blueboy
quote:
The OP's 'evidence' is about things that happened last year.
So, despite all of the shite in the OP, 3 months ago, they weren't pursuing a nuke. Thanks.
Iran getting a nuke is the right-wing, Israel-first equivalent of climate change lunacy. Seriously, these people are little Greta Thunbergs when it comes to their emotional hysteria.
"Iran will have a nuke in a year or two!" 20 years later, it's "just another 3 months"!
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:55 am to blueboy
You can argue all day long if Iran was telling the truth about if they were pursuing a nuke or not that's up to you to believe what the regime said or not. What can't be argued with is the science that shows they have the capabilities of creating one if they wanted. That's what has been lost in all this. It's never been about if they were actively in the process of pursuing one it's always been about them having the capabilities to make one. Also the evidence is from last year because that was the last time these agencies were allowed to conduct inspections.
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:56 am to LARancher1991
For medical and clean energy use only, am I right
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:56 am to LARancher1991
My question is what happens when 60% enriched uranium get dispersed after a bomb attack?
Posted on 6/17/25 at 10:59 am to LARancher1991
quote:
Linked multiple sources in a response
Ty lad
Posted on 6/17/25 at 11:03 am to LARancher1991
quote:Tulsi's statement was based on our intelligence reports, not the word of 'the regime.'
You can argue all day long if Iran was telling the truth about if they were pursuing a nuke or not that's up to you to believe what the regime said or not.
Posted on 6/17/25 at 11:03 am to Bamafig
Nothing mainly because at 60% enriched u-235 doesn't have the fission capabilities to make a nuclear explosion. That doesn't happen until it is enriched to 90%. The reason that the 60% enrichment is interesting is because you only have to enrich uranium to 3.5% in order to produce nuclear power. Also the technical capabilities it takes to enrich uranium from 60% to 90% is fairly simple.
Posted on 6/17/25 at 11:19 am to jimmy the leg
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News