possible nuke test in Iran

[Deff Gordon]

i have absolutely no idea about the credibility of the source but saw this:

http://israelinsider.ning.com/profil...BlogPost:11698

Israel Insider exclusively reports that a seismic event this weekend in southern Iran may in fact have been a massive underground nuclear bomb test. According to the USGS, the tremor measuring 5.0 on the Richter scale took place Saturday night, October 25 just before midnight Iran time, with its epicenter at 26.70°N, 55.02°E, just north of the strategic straits of Hormuz, opposite Abu Dhabi.

The claim that the tremor was in fact a nuclear test came from an Iranian nuclear scientist who claims to be working in uranium enrichment for the project. A report published by Israel Insider on Friday, October 24 included a captionless map that portrayed the area of the seismic event that occurred the following night, based on location information previously provided by the Iranian source.

Israel Insider's source reports that the test is in fact the second in a series. A 4.8 Richter scale event occurred on October 21 with an epicenter (26.70N, 54.96E) within 5 km (3 miles) of the October 25 tremor.

Israeli and foreign sources have long speculated that Iran has been in possession of ready nuclear bombs but would only begin testing them when a full production line for nuclear weapons is in place.

The source indicated that Iran is being assisted by China and North Korea. Israel Insider's Iranian source reports that two "nuclear rockets" have been completed and are intended for use against the Jewish State in the coming months.

The site of the test and the development facility are believed to be in close proximity. The location appears to have been carefully selected. The area is exposed to significant seismic activity, which could serve to mask nuclear tests, although the recent spike in activity in that specific area significantly deviates from historical trends. A tremor measuring 6.2 struck the area on September 10, 2008 (its epicenter was 80km or 50 miles due west), the largest seismic event in the area in more than 33 years.

[img]http://api.ning.com/files/D8jmwdohG*Wgcoe0PrhKdUcKHQO2OzobRT3nFzWACVkgMZ7*14 aSnIDEgtkwfatSSejUvUOsjHksn06QD6Y-AtQ8q1h*fyEo/USGSdata.jpg[/img]

Source & Additional Data: USGS

The location on the Persian Gulf near the straits of Hormuz would also facilitate delivery and transport of material and personnel. the strategic importance of the immediate area may also be intended to deter potential strikes against the facilities, which could close down the flow of a substantial percentage of the world's oil.

[J. Fees]

there's gonna be a heavy tilt against anything Iran, when the source is Israel Insider. but who knows they maybe testing nukes, which in turn will test Obama. This should get interesting. maybe biden knew something after all.

[Deff Gordon]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

there's gonna be a heavy tilt against anything Iran, when the source is Israel Insider. but who knows they maybe testing nukes, which in turn will test Obama. This should get interesting. maybe biden knew something after all.

bin laden might know something too:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD210908

On November 9, 2008, the London daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported, citing "a source close to the Al-Qaeda leadership in Yemen," that Osama bin Laden had ordered a new attack on the U.S. which will be "far greater than the 9/11 attacks."

The paper said the source was "a former Al-Qaeda commander who is still in touch with... the organization leadership, and who asked to remain anonymous for security reasons."

According to the source, the attack is meant "to change the world [both] politically and economically," and is planned for the near future.

The source also claimed that…

To read the full report, visit http://www.memriiwmp.org/content/en/...tm?report=2901

[PETA]

Its a tiny country that poses no serious threat

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Its a tiny country that poses no serious threat

/Sarah Palin

[J. Fees]

is that what she really said? i know there has to be some irony in xians statement.

[PETA]

No, its what Obama said taken only slightly out of context.. full quote below

"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. "

Interesting note about Kennedy and Kruschev who met in Vienna... Kennedy admitted that Kruschev beat the hell out of him. I can't recall if that's exactly whay JFK said or not but that's close. Further, Kruschev's sizing up of JFK as weak at Vienna is easily argued to have directly lead to the Cuban missile crisis. The good news was that JFK grew a pair fast. But recall he was a war hero - not so of Obama. I hope the man already has a pair and we needn't go through the testing his VP guaranteed us will happen.

[J. Fees]

oh yeah, i remember that, and it is accurate, iran is tiny compared to the fmr Soviet Union.

and it makes no sense not to talk to your enemies.

[Latham]

we pose more of a threat to ourselves then they do to us.

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by Latham

we pose more of a threat to ourselves then they do to us.

how's that?

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

oh yeah, i remember that, and it is accurate, iran is tiny compared to the fmr Soviet Union.

and it makes no sense not to talk to your enemies.

Well, yes and no. Iran is smaller than the Soviet Union yes. But the Soviets were rational actors who respected deterrance. Iran's leadership have specifically pointed out that they were willing to suffer millions of casualties in exchange for destroying Israel.... thus not a rational actor who respects deterrence. So they are smaller but they are much more likely to actually use their nukes. You pick which you'd prefer to deal with. Not good choices but certain regarding the latter as no threat is remarkably niave.

It makes sense not to speak to your enemies if you cede position to them. Reagan did not meet w/Gorbachev until it was clear we had the upper hand. Obama seemed to miss that key point as well as the negative results of going in as JFK did in Vienna.

[J. Fees]

Originally Posted by St. Stalin the Apathetic

Well, yes and no. Iran is smaller than the Soviet Union yes. But the Soviets were rational actors who respected deterrance. Iran's leadership have specifically pointed out that they were willing to suffer millions of casualties in exchange for destroying Israel.... thus not a rational actor who respects deterrence.

It makes sense not to speak to your enemies if you cede position to them. Reagan did not meet w/Gorbachev until it was clear we had the upper hand. Obama seemed to miss that key point as well as the negative results of going in as JFK did in Vienna.

jfk went to meet kruschev, obama is meeting a_______dad(not gonna look it up). I would think that there is a huge difference.

[PETA]

there is as I noted... Kruschev was a rational actor and we know the Soviets respected deterrence because they never launched. We know we did a well because we never launched. We can say that of every nuclear power so far. Newer entrants into the club and those with despotic governments with much less certainty.

Iranian leaders on the other hand have said that they were willing to accept nclear retaliation as long as they got off the first strike against Israel.

Iran is not as great a threat in so far as they cannot wreck the entire world. They are a greater threat in so far as they are much more likely to wreck a small chuck of it entirely and suffer wreckage to their own territory and people.

The principle still applies. Obama looks weak if he goes to Teheran. Or Zurich or wherever to meet Ahmendinajad. And recall it doesn't matter that you don't think he'll look weak... what matters is what Ahmendinajad, Putin, who ever is running NK, Assad, OBL etc think. And my bet is that they'll think he looked weak because he was willing to bargain (those holding the cards have no need to do so - only those who know they've got no chance when matching them)

Edit: It important to keep in mind that Obama said that this spring and his position on this as with most things is amorphous and subject to change. As much as I don't like the fact that he got to pick the chief of staff instead of McCain there is some small comfort in Emmanuel. Emmanuel served in the IDF he'll have a moderating and pro-Israeli impact on Obama. And frankly that was one of my chief foreign policy worries about Obama.... so it has been somewhat assuaged.

[Latham]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

how's that?

We...not as me and you. But do you really believe everything you hear? Terrorists Terrorist Terrorists... Link me to pictures of a commercial airline in the pentagon.

Iran may have a nuke. Don't think it will ever touch us though, unless we "let it."

Middle-East has been in constant conflict since the first civilizations...but with each other. They'll destroy each other before they make it across the ocean to us.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Latham

We...not as me and you. But do you really believe everything you hear? Terrorists Terrorist Terrorists... Link me to pictures of a commercial airline in the pentagon.

Iran may have a nuke. Don't think it will ever touch us though, unless we "let it."

Middle-East has been in constant conflict since the first civilizations...but with each other. They'll destroy each other before they make it across the ocean to us.

You didn't answer his question.