By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Obama's Veep, who do you think it will be?

kenzomatic said:
1 your acting sheepish ;)

2 Not including nukes, russia sell all sorts of crap on the blackmarket.

3 I was reffering to urainium enrichment which russia is doing for them.

 Not being sheepish, I just don't get into wild speculation, sure Russia could sell them nukes its opossible, it could also be possible that Osama bin laden is a CIA operative, but its not too likely and sounds like a conspiracy theory



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Yeah they are pushing for sanctions, sanctions which are being pressed mostly due to the bush administration, in spite of the fact that intel reports state that they are wrong, but you know that the bush admin and the GOP doesn't care about intelligence

Staying in iraq is doing the same thing, you are stating that we risk our own country to try and maintain a false sense of security in the country, that is crazy, yes the US screwed up by going in, but that doesn't mean we should continue to waste our own resources trying to keep order in a country when the people of that country aren't willing to take the steps needed to keep their contry together

 

You really don't think they aren't trying? Yeah, i'm sure they love their country being an uneasy war torn country. Split up the country or give it to the UN. Those options are fine too if you perfer.

Just pulling out to leave them to themselves to kill each other though.

That's even more disgraceful then what got us into Iraq in the first place. 



Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Have you been paying attention at all?

ran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

Sorry but that is years away from just enriching uranium, Nukes are even further

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Unlikely =/= Impossible.

2010 = within the next presidents term.


That's at the earliest, and that is probably not even going to happen, and its not impossible, but its not something we need to concern ourselves with at this point in time, when bigger issues are at stake and that's something the GOP and McCain don't realize


Yeah.  We've had expierements done on ESP... do you know why?  Because to be a government leader you need to plan for everything, and be ready for even the most unlikely of circumstances.

 



Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Yeah they are pushing for sanctions, sanctions which are being pressed mostly due to the bush administration, in spite of the fact that intel reports state that they are wrong, but you know that the bush admin and the GOP doesn't care about intelligence

Staying in iraq is doing the same thing, you are stating that we risk our own country to try and maintain a false sense of security in the country, that is crazy, yes the US screwed up by going in, but that doesn't mean we should continue to waste our own resources trying to keep order in a country when the people of that country aren't willing to take the steps needed to keep their contry together

 

You really don't think they aren't trying? Yeah, i'm sure they love their country being an uneasy war torn country.  Split up the country or give it to the UN.  Those options are fine too. 

Just pulling out to leave them to themselves to kill each other though. 

That's even more disgraceful then what got us into Iraq in the first place.


 Yeah they aren't doing it, they have been given goals to reach and have failed consistently to achieve them, even petraeus admitted that.  Bush doesn't want to make the decision to divide the nation, and other nations won't pick up the slack so we have to face facts and withdraw and le the chips fall as they may

 

No its more accepting of the reality, America is not the power it once was and trying to maintain that image will result in our downfall



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Have you been paying attention at all?

ran halted work toward a nuclear weapon under international scrutiny in 2003 and is unlikely to be able to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb until 2010 to 2015, a U.S. intelligence report says.

Sorry but that is years away from just enriching uranium, Nukes are even further

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Unlikely =/= Impossible.

2010 = within the next presidents term.


That's at the earliest, and that is probably not even going to happen, and its not impossible, but its not something we need to concern ourselves with at this point in time, when bigger issues are at stake and that's something the GOP and McCain don't realize


Yeah.  We've had expierements done on ESP... do you know why?  Because to be a government leader you need to plan for everything, and be ready for even the most unlikely of circumstances.

 


 More likely is that our economy is going to face a crisis, now given a choice between our economy and Iraq and Iran I choose our economy as the more pressing concern



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Kasz216 said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Yeah they are pushing for sanctions, sanctions which are being pressed mostly due to the bush administration, in spite of the fact that intel reports state that they are wrong, but you know that the bush admin and the GOP doesn't care about intelligence

Staying in iraq is doing the same thing, you are stating that we risk our own country to try and maintain a false sense of security in the country, that is crazy, yes the US screwed up by going in, but that doesn't mean we should continue to waste our own resources trying to keep order in a country when the people of that country aren't willing to take the steps needed to keep their contry together

 

You really don't think they aren't trying? Yeah, i'm sure they love their country being an uneasy war torn country. Split up the country or give it to the UN. Those options are fine too.

Just pulling out to leave them to themselves to kill each other though.

That's even more disgraceful then what got us into Iraq in the first place.


Yeah they aren't doing it, they have been given goals to reach and have failed consistently to achieve them, even petraeus admitted that. Bush doesn't want to make the decision to divide the nation, and other nations won't pick up the slack so we have to face facts and withdraw and le the chips fall as they may

 

No its more accepting of the reality, America is not the power it once was and trying to maintain that image will result in our downfall


Does failed to meet them mean they aren't trying? Or does it mean they just haven't met those goals. I could give myself 50 miles today. If I stop after 5 have i not tried?

Screw Bush then. What about Obama. Why doesn't HE want to make that decision. Why does he instead wish to just pull out and let the country destroy itself? Why doesn't he want to fix it if this is such an easy fix instead of letting them kill each other?

I mean he is going to be president right?  Why can't he fix things like that?  Why would bush have anymore imput after Barak is in power? 



Avinash_Tyagi said:
kenzomatic said:
1 your acting sheepish ;)

2 Not including nukes, russia sell all sorts of crap on the blackmarket.

3 I was reffering to urainium enrichment which russia is doing for them.

 Not being sheepish, I just don't get into wild speculation, sure Russia could sell them nukes its opossible, it could also be possible that Osama bin laden is a CIA operative, but its not too likely and sounds like a conspiracy theory


OMG neither one of you can take a joke. The sheepish coment was at your avatar and rusia is doing urainum enrichment for them.



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.


ioi + 1
kenzomatic said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
kenzomatic said:
1 your acting sheepish ;)

2 Not including nukes, russia sell all sorts of crap on the blackmarket.

3 I was reffering to urainium enrichment which russia is doing for them.

Not being sheepish, I just don't get into wild speculation, sure Russia could sell them nukes its opossible, it could also be possible that Osama bin laden is a CIA operative, but its not too likely and sounds like a conspiracy theory


OMG neither one of you can take a joke. The sheepish coment was at your avatar and rusia is doing urainum enrichment for them.


Well they are supposed to do the enrichment for them.

Iran doesn't want to go along with that plan. That's the problem. Iran gets it's uranium from Russia and then they won't have the biproduct from which to make nuclear weapons like they would now with their own enrichment programs.

Not only do they not want this to happen even if they don't have to pay for it, they want the EU to bribe them to take uranium from russia that will cost them less then doing it themselves.



New simulations carried out by European Union experts come to an alarming conclusion: Iran could have enough highly enriched uranium to build an atomic bomb by the end of this year.

Could Iran be building an atomic bomb? When the US released a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) late last year, it seemed as though the danger of a mullah-bomb had passed. The report claimed to have information indicating that Tehran mothballed its nuclear weapons program as early as autumn 2003. The paper also said that it was “very unlikely” that Iran would have enough highly enriched uranium—the primary ingredient in atomic bombs—by 2009 to produce such a weapon. Rather, the NIE indicated “Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough (highly enriched uranium) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 timeframe.”

It didn’t take long for experts to question the report’s conclusion that Tehran was no longer interested in building the bomb. And now, a new computer simulation undertaken by European Union experts indicates that the NIE’s time estimates might be dangerously inaccurate as well—and that Iran might have enough fuel for a bomb much earlier than was previously thought.

As part of a project to improve control of nuclear materials, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) in Ispra, Italy set up a detailed simulation of the centrifuges currently used by Iran in the Natanz nuclear facility to enrich uranium. The results look nothing like those reached by the US intelligence community.

For one scenario, the JRC scientists assumed the centrifuges in Natanz were operating at 100 percent efficiency. Were that the case, Iran could already have the 25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary for an atomic device by the end of this year. Another scenario assumed a much lower efficiency—just 25 percent. But even then, Iran would have produced enough uranium by the end of 2010.

For the purposes of the simulation, the JRC modelled each of the centrifuges individually and then hooked them together to form the kind of cascade necessary to enrich uranium. A number of variables were taken into account, including the assumption by most experts that Iran isn’t even close to operating its centrifuges at 100 percent efficiency. What is known, however, is that the Iranians are operating 18 cascades, each made up of 164 centrifuges. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself said last April that the country had 3,000 centrifuges in operation. At the time, most Western observers discounted the claim as mere propaganda. But the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Ahmadinejad’s assertion in November.

Centrifuges from Pakistan

Another variable is the type of centrifuge Iran is using. For its simulations, the JRC assumed cascades using 2,952 P1 centrifuges --the P stands for Pakistan, where the centrifuges were manufactured. But recent reports indicate that Iran might be in the process of installing so-called “IR2” centrifuges. These centrifuges—the IR stands for Iran—are made out of carbon-fiber instead of aluminium and are an estimated 2.5 times as powerful as the P1 devices.

It remains unclear, however, if the new centrifuges can be used in the same way as the old ones. Independent experts doubt whether Iran is able to produce the old-style aluminium centrifuges themselves. Given the strict embargo currently in place against Iran, it is possible that the centrifuges currently in use are still from the stock delivered to Iran by Pakistan. The Pakistani government admitted in March, 2005 that Abdul Qadir Khan, the scientist responsible for the Pakistani bomb, sold centrifuges to Iran.

Despite the uncertainties, however, the scientists at the Joint Research Centre are confident that their simulations are realistic. But, the group is quick to point out, they are theoretical. They don’t make any claim to know whether Tehran is currently working toward the production of an atomic bomb.

Just why the new simulations came to such a different result than the National Intelligence Estimate issued by Washington is “a good question,” a JRC expert told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The American government, he points out, wasn’t clear about the technical details upon which its report was based.

Thin Line between Military and Civilian

Another possible reason for the differences could be the fact that the US intelligence report focused solely on uranium enrichment done in secret and on possible steps taken toward the production of a bomb—but not on Tehran’s claimed civilian nuclear power program. But the line between civilian and military nuclear programs is a thin one, as a number of states have demonstrated. The atomic weapons programs in Israel, South Africa, Pakistan and China all grew out of civilian nuclear programs.

There are a number of indications that Iran isn’t just interested in civilian nuclear technology. Just on Wednesday, an exiled Iranian opposition group published satellite images it claims shows an Iranian atomic bomb-making facility. In January, physicist Richard Garwin, who is also a US government adviser, calculated that the Natanz facility—even were it to reach its maximum capacity of 54,000 centrifuges—could not produce enough low-enriched uranium for a nuclear power facility. But, he said, the 3,000 centrifuges currently in operation could be sufficient to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon.



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.


ioi + 1

I did fail to relize just how much more enrichment was required. So sorry for the Russia comment.



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.


ioi + 1