The Iran Nuclear Program thread
-
wrote 22 days ago last edited by Mik
If you'll recall, this was exactly my objection to our involvement - possible failure to destroy Fordow.
Now, it is absolutely true that some powers will try very hard to portray that as true, whether it is or not. Finding the truth might be difficult, but we'll be keeping an eye on the sites.
-
wrote 22 days ago last edited by
In all likelihood it’s somewhere in between. What do they mean by months? 3? Or 120?
-
wrote 22 days ago last edited by
6 said the report.
While the question of who/what to believe is ever present, before the Defense Intelligence Agency report was leaked congressmen were already publicly complaining that the Administration canceled a planned briefing.
-
wrote 22 days ago last edited by
I thought they were years away from a bomb, according to Tulsi?
-
wrote 22 days ago last edited by
Trump has spent the last couple of hours making multiple posts how the bombs obliterated everything.... which probably means they didn't... sigh...
-
wrote 22 days ago last edited by
Our problem is no believable source.
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
Iranian government have arrested 700 people to suppress dissent.
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Our problem is no believable source.
Do you miss the day when Obama announced "we got Bin Laden" on TV and the world just believed him?
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Our problem is no believable source.
That's the problem, we don't have a clue who's telling the truth. Or even if anyone knows what the truth is. Every news station trots out their retired 3 or 4 star general (I don't even listen to colonels) or atomic energy PhD and no two has the same opinion about anything.
I am somewhat partial to Rebecca Grant PhD over at Fox, though. She gets all excited and squeaky when she's talking about Tomahawk missiles being fired off.
-
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Our problem is no believable source.
That's the problem, we don't have a clue who's telling the truth. Or even if anyone knows what the truth is. Every news station trots out their retired 3 or 4 star general (I don't even listen to colonels) or atomic energy PhD and no two has the same opinion about anything.
I am somewhat partial to Rebecca Grant PhD over at Fox, though. She gets all excited and squeaky when she's talking about Tomahawk missiles being fired off.
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@Tom-K said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
She gets all excited and squeaky when she's talking about Tomahawk missiles being fired off.
Now we finally get to learn what the dash means in your name! "AHAW"
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
Well, missiles are rather phallic.
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
-
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Our problem is no believable source.
Do you miss the day when Obama announced "we got Bin Laden" on TV and the world just believed him?
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@Axtremus said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Our problem is no believable source.
Do you miss the day when Obama announced "we got Bin Laden" on TV and the world just believed him?
I didn't really believe it until it was verified by DNA. I feel similarly here, but no DNA applies.
-
@Axtremus said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Our problem is no believable source.
Do you miss the day when Obama announced "we got Bin Laden" on TV and the world just believed him?
I didn't really believe it until it was verified by DNA. I feel similarly here, but no DNA applies.
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
@Axtremus said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
@Mik said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Our problem is no believable source.
Do you miss the day when Obama announced "we got Bin Laden" on TV and the world just believed him?
I didn't really believe it until it was verified by DNA. I feel similarly here, but no DNA applies.
Hard comparison. There was no doubt in my mind when Obama said we got Bin Laden. If Trump said the same, I would believe him too since it's pretty clear whether we got an individual. But in this case about destroying a nuclear facility 80 meters under ground, I very much do not trust what Trump says based on his very consistent track record of lying and exaggerating. I think we made that point a few weeks ago here, that Trump will be hard to trust on war matters, and we're seeing it here. I know one thing... it would be awkward as shit if footage is released of Fordow still operating.
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
That being said, if we dropped 14 MOPs on the target, I'd have to imagine most of the internal infrastructure is a pile of collapsed rock now.
-
@Axtremus said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
@jon-nyc said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
Why do I feel like Trump is about to get rolled?
Rolled in what way(s)?
I purposefully wasn't specific. In all the ways one can get rolled.
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@jon-nyc said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
In all the ways one can get rolled.
Reminds me of Jack Dawson, who saved Rose in all the ways a person can be saved.
Link to video -
That being said, if we dropped 14 MOPs on the target, I'd have to imagine most of the internal infrastructure is a pile of collapsed rock now.
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@89th said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
That being said, if we dropped 14 MOPs on the target, I'd have to imagine most of the internal infrastructure is a pile of collapsed rock now.
It seems possible that we dropped the bombs into rock, and that the explosions were mostly contained by rock.
-
wrote 21 days ago last edited by
I think this thread presents a good opportunity to reflect on Titanic, the movie, not the real event, which was comparatively boring. It is good to remind ourselves of the power of love, and that rich white males are such douchebags. Carry that thought with you always and you will be saved.
-
@89th said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
That being said, if we dropped 14 MOPs on the target, I'd have to imagine most of the internal infrastructure is a pile of collapsed rock now.
It seems possible that we dropped the bombs into rock, and that the explosions were mostly contained by rock.
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@Horace said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
@89th said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
That being said, if we dropped 14 MOPs on the target, I'd have to imagine most of the internal infrastructure is a pile of collapsed rock now.
It seems possible that we dropped the bombs into rock, and that the explosions were mostly contained by rock.
There are also questions about that new ultradense concrete, though how much could have been poured between levels in the few years since it was developed is questionable.
-
I think this thread presents a good opportunity to reflect on Titanic, the movie, not the real event, which was comparatively boring. It is good to remind ourselves of the power of love, and that rich white males are such douchebags. Carry that thought with you always and you will be saved.
wrote 21 days ago last edited by@Horace said in The Iran Nuclear Program thread:
I think this thread presents a good opportunity to reflect on Titanic, the movie, not the real event, which was comparatively boring. It is good to remind ourselves of the power of love, and that rich white males are such douchebags. Carry that thought with you always and you will be saved.
You know, it's this type of Titanic movie analysis that really keeps me coming back to the internet.