Iran's Smart Concrete Can Cope With Earthquakes and Bombs 609
PolygamousRanchKid writes "Iran is an earthquake zone, so its engineers have developed some of the toughest building materials in the world. Ultra-high performance concrete (UHPC) could also be used to protect hidden nuclear installations from the artificial equivalent of small earthquakes, namely bunker-busting bombs. UHPC is based—like its quotidian cousins—on sand and cement. In addition, though, it is doped with powdered quartz (the pure stuff, rather than the tainted variety that makes up most sand) and various reinforcing metals and fibers. UHPC can withstand more compression than other forms of concrete. UHPC is also more flexible and durable than conventional concrete. It can therefore be used to make lighter and more slender structures. All of which is fine and dandy for safer dams and better sewers, which threaten no one. But UHPC's potential military applications are more intriguing—and for many, more worrying. Deep bunkers can be tackled in other ways. America's Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) has looked at what is known in the jargon as functional defeat, in other words bombing their entrances shut or destroying their electrical systems with electromagnetic pulses. They are also working on active penetrators—bombs which can tunnel through hundreds of meters of earth, rock and concrete. Development work is also under way on esoteric devices such as robot snakes, carrying warheads, which can infiltrate via air ducts and cable runs."
Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
...brought to you by "the department of give-us-more-tax-dollars."
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
In breaking news, man confronted with baseball bat puts his hands up to fend himself. This is a clear indicator that proves the man was intent on violence.
Seriously? these old wankers feeding us this bullshit don't understand that the internet never forgets their lies and many of us have clued into wtf is going on?
Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in 2003, an Iranian student, with the help of a professor from Iran, won the first prize in a competition organized by the American Concrete Institute
For more info, look into this page ---> http://www.concrete.org/STUDENTS/st_concreteprojects03_winners.htm [concrete.org]
About the prize winning concrete ?
It has been used for building Iran's underground bunkers, which house Iran's nuclear facilities
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Informative)
...allegedly.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Funny)
just like Isreali installations were shown to be clean of weapons making.
must be a regional thing to be so peacuful.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Funny)
Israel has always been considered a "friendly" nation; Iran, not so much. No-one's looking the other way when they inspect Iran's facilities!
Iran: we want to generate nuclear power
World: use oil instead.
Iran: no no no, you don't understand: you pay us lots of money for oil, so we want to keep selling it to you, and using cheap nuclear domestically.
World: but you're making weapons!
Iran: no we're not.
IAEA: they're telling the truth.
US, UK, Isreal: are you telling me you atomic energy experts know more about atomic energy than our paranoid military intelligence people? They're obviously making bombs.
World:...
Iran: have you seen our nice concrete? It stops our nuclear facilities from collapsing in the event of a geological disaster.
US: earthquake-proof nuclear facilities, in an earthquake zone? Hah! A likely story! They're bomb-proof weapons plants. Even Japan doesn't make its nuclear facilities proof against geological events....
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, those are the facts. The U.S. didn't put NORAD under Cheyenne Mountain, inside 2,000 feet of granite, because they were worried about earthquakes. They did that because they were worried about getting hit by a nuclear bomb. Similarly the design of the Fordow site indicates that the Iranians are worried about airstrikes. In particular, the design of the Fordow site seems specifically aimed at hardening the target against a U.S. airstrike using advanced bunker-busters.
So the question is, why would Iran do this for a peaceful nuclear program? If Iran's real aim is nuclear power, it would be a lot easier to just do everything out in the open, and let the U.N. weapons inspectors have free reign and allay everybody's fears. On the other hand, if you want the capability to build a nuclear bomb, and don't want the Israelis or the U.S. to stop you, then you do precisely what the Iranians are currently doing: build multiple enrichment facilities (so they can't be taken out by a single airstrike), build them deep underground, and harden them with advanced concrete and blast doors. Watching Ahmadinejad you could be forgiven for thinking that the Iranian government is run by irrational idiots, but this is really a very clever, well-thought-out approach to developing a nuclear bomb.
And the thing is, developing a nuclear bomb is not an irrational move here. Saddam Hussein's mistake wasn't pursuing WMD, it was that he didn't go far enough. If he'd had the ability to inflict mass civilian casualties with WMD, nobody would have bothered him. North Korea has two deterrent weapons- a nuclear bomb, and heavy artillery and missiles that can hit Seoul, causing large scale civilian casualties. There's a reason that Bush never screwed with Kim Jong Il. This isn't lost on the mullahs who run Iran. They realize that without any allies, they are vulnerable to regime change. But with a nuclear bomb, they will have a deterrent weapon.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know why people keep parroting this, it's simply not true. It had some validity to it a few years back, but even then the IAEA has always had some concerns.
In recent years though the IAEA's stance if that they've found some evidence that Iran did continue a nuclear weapons programme, and has made it quite clear that Iran is not giving it the access and information it needs to confirm that it is in compliance. Whilst this doesn't mean Iran is not in compliance, it is certainly not the case that it is in compliance - Iran wont let the IAEA confirm that it's compliant, make of that what you will, but I suspect if a country was in compliance there'd be absolutely no reason to not let the IAEA confirm that to be the case. The fact they wont let the IAEA confirm whether they are or are not compliant is a cause for concern in itself and is in itself a breach of the NPT.
A bit of America/Israel bashing is all well and good, god only knows they've done enough to deserve it, but this attitude of defending Iran as an extreme anti-Israeli/US stance is even more absurd. A lot of people here go on about how Iran is an innocent peaceful nation that's never attacked anyone and so forth, but that's also complete rubbish, sure they may not directly declare war but they absolutely do carry out war by proxy (where the proxy is usually groups like Hamas, Hezbollah) and they do carry out clandestine ops. When you point this out people jump in and say "but the US does that too!", sure they do, but that doesn't somehow make it right. Keep in mind that even the staunchly anti-US Russia has in recent years refused to make itself some money selling Iran new military hardware - this is because Russia is concerned that Iran has links to groups in Chechnya and so forth too. The fact is, even if Iran doesn't declare war directly, everyone knows what it gets up to.
So hate Israel/America all you want, god only knows I've had enough of their actions, but to then jump to the extreme of defending Iran is just fucking idiotic. Iran is as much of a problem as Israel is that's for sure, and I'd argue with Iran's destabilisation of Lebanon so they can have their own proxy army on Israel's doorstep, they're worse. The only flip side to it all is that Iran is largely incompetent at this sort of thing, so when their bombers succeed in little more than blowing their own legs off in Asia, it's almost comical, Mossad in contrast gets the job done which, depending on your viewpoint on things either makes them better, worse, or just as bad.
Really, the fundamental reality of the situation is that Iran, Israel, the US and so forth are all as bad as each other. My personal view is that if Israel/US attack Iran then I have little sympathy for Iran, it's a game they chose to play, and when you choose to play a game, you can't really cry when you lose. They still have every opportunity to bow out gracefully.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Iran wont let the IAEA confirm that it's compliant, make of that what you will, but I suspect if a country was in compliance there'd be absolutely no reason to not let the IAEA confirm that to be the case.
Not defending Iran... but...
If you're doing nothing wrong- you wouldn't mind the police routinely searching your home without a warrant. Or you Sig Other going through your cell phone call list/web history routinely.
Iran may or may not be doing anything wrong- but not letting inspectors have full access is not a sign of guilt. I wouldn't want the police randomly searching my house- I'm not breaking any laws (that I know of) but it's the kind of violation that you don't want occurring without necessity.
Again, I'm not defending Iran- they're clearly not "squeaky clean"- but the fact that they do have so many enemies may make them less wanting to endure being investigated and spied on. You say you're going to make sure we're not making nukes- they say, you're coming to spy on our infrastructure to build an attack plan on how to disable us.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
"IAEA don't have the right to go anywhere they want anytime they want"
Of course they don't, but similarly if they aren't given access to what they need access to to determine compliance then they can't determine compliance.
The effects of that can be quite wide ranging, and that's the choice Iran has to deal with - whether any supposed fears of spying are outweighed by the benefits of being deemed not compliant.
It's unlikely spying is a real rational concern for Iran, their nuclear programme has been fed by the Russians and long before that, the Germans anyway, so none of their technology is really top secret home grown stuff - it's stuff the rest of the world already long figured out.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah to an extent it is, there are differences though but even if there weren't it's false logic to assume that they were wrong last time, so they must be wrong this time.
In terms of the differences the inspectors on the ground for the most part were given a lot more access than is granted in Iran, and many, as well as people like Hans Blix were saying "There just aren't any WMDs here". It was somewhat hard for their voices to be heard because WMDs can be quite wide ranging in features, things like chlorine factories can be pretty dual purpose for example.
In the case of Iran inspectors have much less freedom, but they're fairly unanimous in the view that they don't have access to confirm that there isn't a nuclear weapons programme. Because the focus is much smaller than the broad nature of WMDs in general there's also far less ambiguity as to what they are looking for - features of a nuclear weapons programme stand out from the rest of a civilian programme and when elements of such a programme have been spotted by the IAEA or Iran can't or wont give a reason for their existence then the IAEAs claim that they can't determine that such elements are not for a weapons programme is quite valid, and obviously not in dispute.
Again, this doesn't mean Iran does have a nuclear weapons programme, but whilst there are parallels with Iraq it's still quite different. An underground fortified militiarised nuclear site that was kept secret until exposed by foreign nations and which has a number of pieces of evidence suggesting at least some kind of weapons research at some point has gone on is a lot more suspicious than an unguarded chlorine factory that has a comprehensive paper trail demonstrating legitimate customers with legitimate uses. Whether that suspicion alone is enough for varying types of action is a fair question, and precisely what the international community is at odds over. Much of the world felt Iraq didn't have WMDs based on the evidence but America and Britain went ahead as if it did anyway, in contrast the number of nations who believe Iran probably has a nuclear weapons programme is much larger and sanctions over the issue have been agreed by such classically Western opponents as Russia and China to boot - countries that wont even agree to a response over Syria despite it's blatant murder of civilians right now.
Re:Back in 2003 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, making earthquake surviving concrete is obviously an offensive move, whereas making weapons designed to destroy such concrete is merely self-defense.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, making earthquake surviving concrete is obviously an offensive move, whereas making weapons designed to destroy such concrete is merely self-defense.
Just like the missile defense system was merely for defense, one could argue that the bomb itself was a very good deterrent, as long as both sides fear MAD. Iran's real problem is that with it's fanatical rhetoric MAD appears not to be a deterrent, then again they could be acting that way because they feel cornered. Iran's true intentions are very hard to read, there have been signs that they are trying to build a nuclear weapons but no concrete evidence. New intelligence has shown they have paused their
Re: (Score:3)
Hush. We need to resell the DoD on the SDI program, then give them a mutually exclusive choice between a giant fr*cking laser in the sky, or more drones / the continued support & maintenance thereof.
It will give them something constructive to do (what superpower doesn't need an orbiting weapons platform?), and buy us a few more years without fleets of drones patrolling the homeland (yay liberty). If we point out that the giant laser will probably never be built, but will keep their R&D / jobs progra
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Vs. a Country which is trying to become a Theocracy which already has hundreds of nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them at a distance.. how could that be bad?
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Every time I read an article about Israel/Iran "diplomacy", I just switch names of both countries.
Sadly, what comes out is equally scary and batshit insane.
It doesn't make sense whatsoever, it is rooted in bigotry and hatred, and both sides are positive that it's about good/evil.
I suppose it's impossible for non-involved people to really understand what's going on, to take side or to influence what's going to happen.
The problem is that the rest of the world might get involved anyway.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually they never did. What you heard was the MEMRI 'translation' provided to western media. MEMRI is run by an Israeli.
Iran has invaded exactly 0 neighbours. Israel has done it fairly consistently.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Isreal does.
Israel is the single state with the most UN Security Council actions against it.
I understand why you don't know that - the owners of the media you watch, listen or read want you to believe that's the truth.
Then there's the megaphonies - 'useful idiots' that propagate Israeli government propaganda.
Hope that'll give you a start in your quest to understand why you're being lied to. Cheers :)
MEMRI again? (Score:3, Informative)
If you're not familiar with MEMRI, this article puts it in context:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/12/worlddispatch.brianwhitaker
They've an Israeli run translation 'Research Institute' that translates selective news stories from Israels enemies, designed to emphasize the worst aspects of those countries in western media.
So a typical example will translate some extremist religious nuts comments, but not the people calling him a fringe crazy. Thus you get the impression of Israels enemies as all extr
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Informative)
Lebanon, 1982?
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
And Iraq, 1981, when they destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor, and then did the same in Syria in 2007. You can argue those aren't "invasions", I suppose, since they were targeted attacks rather than ground forces moving in and leading to occupation, but they were unprovoked military attacks that would be considered casus belli by the victims.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
And then there was the invasion of Lebanon again in 2006.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Funny)
Man, they really got somethin' against Lebanon, don't they? Was it Jamie Farr's portrayal of Klinger on M*A*S*H?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why Iran needs cruise missiles that can hit Israel, and why Israel will have to think twice about hitting Iranian reactors. Previously they could try strike missions against other countries with impunity, but faced with the possibility of retaliatory missiles that are very difficult to defend against they might just be put off.
People keep blaming Iran for escalating the situation in that part of the world, but actually Israel and the US already did and everyone else is just playing catch-up.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lebanon, 1982?
and 2006 [wikipedia.org]? You might argue that it was retaliation, but there aren't too many people who can honestly they don't think it was a massive over-retalliation. Lebanon was doing very well in terms of economy and was quite stable. The last thing that Israel needed was another much larger state in nearby proximity that was starting to have solid relation with the west, a growing economy and starting to weild some clout at the international table. It is much more convenient to have the surrounding states clawing to fix the most basic of infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They've been occupying more and more of Palestine over the past 50 years while implementing ever more strict apartheid policies towards the Palestinian population but I guess that doesn't count. Neither does the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 or 2006, invasion of Gaza and subsequent blockade of even humanitarian aid, or the current buildup towards an invasion of Iran?
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Informative)
Egypt, 1956.in response to the nationalisation of the Suez canal. Yes, this set the Israeli standard for what is considered offensive action by its neighbours,
Egypt, Syria and Jordan 1967. Although it is widely alleged that this was in response to a joint plan by these countries to attack Israel, the military offense was all Israeli and without warning or any actual attack.
Egypt and Syria, 1973. Note that while Egypt and Syria had attacked Israeli positions, these were to reoccupy land occupied by Israel in 1966 and Israel's borders were never threatened; the Syrians even stopped on the Golan when they could have carried on.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
You are dishonestly minimizing the action of the Suez Canal nationalization. It wasn't "just" nationalization, as in nothing changed but the revenue recipient. From wikipedia:
Nasser's response was the nationalization of the Suez Canal. On 26 July, in a speech in Alexandria, Nasser gave a riposte to Dulles. During his speech he deliberately pronounced the name of Ferdinand de Lesseps, the builder of the canal, a code-word for Egyptian forces to seize control of the canal and implement its nationalization.[53] He announced that the Nationalization Law had been published, that all assets of the Suez Canal Company had been frozen, and that stockholders would be paid the price of their shares according to the day's closing price on the Paris Stock Exchange.[54] That same day, Egypt closed the canal to Israeli shipping.[55] Egypt also closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, and blockaded the Gulf of Aqaba, in contravention of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. Many argued that this was also a violation of the 1949 Armistice Agreements.[56][57]
Yeah, breaking treaties and cutting off waterways to another country IS an act of war. Israel wasn't just mad that revenue was going to a new government, or transit rates were increasing.. they were being directly attacked by Egypt.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
As someone dealt with 1956 already I'll handle 1973:
Syria and Egypt had begun massing forces on the border with Israel, Egypt had already implemented a Naval Blockade of their port (an internationally recognized act of war) and at the time everyone and their dog knew that these nations intended to strike Israel. Rather than waiting for the hammer to fall they expertly initiated the fighting before perpetrations were finalized thus taking the surprise attack away from their enemies. It should also be noted that in the '73 conflict the Egyptian tank forces were widely considered the victors by inflicting severe Israeli casualties (10,000+) and that the US intervention in the form of the camp David accords was to prevent the Israeli's from nuking Cairo as US intelligence had reported that the Israeli's were preparing Nuclear weapons for delivery because had the Egyptians continued they likely could have seized much of Israel proper. This is also why the camp David accords contain a provision that Egypt isn't allowed to station troops in the Sinai (to prevent just this scenario, it's also why Israel refused to hand the Golan back to Syria (it was used as a staging ground).
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it's just a simple translation which you are welcome to verify
The literal translation was to wipe the nation of Israel off the map. You can interpret that in several ways. One is to believe that it means killing everyone there. This is the spin that you are reporting. The other is to realise that Iran has never accepted the legitimacy of Israel as a state and wishes to see the state of Israel eliminated as a legal entity. This is the interpretation promoted by Iran.
It's also important to consider the context of the speech. Iran is a Persian country surrounded by Arabic countries. There is a couple of thousand years of history of conflict between the two groups (and not just distant history - remember Iraq invading Iran?). The only way Iran survives in the region is by reminding everyone else that Israel is a more important enemy than them, and that they're on everyone else's side. Picture the scrawny kid that hangs around with the bullies and shouts insults at other people to show how much they are a part of the group. That's Iran's international political status, but what about internally? They have a complex political structure, where the fundamentalist muslims are not a majority, but are influential. The leadership has to, at least publicly, appear to be acceptable to this group or lose power, in much the same way that the US President has to pander to the Christian right in America.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4)
Yeah, a country run by a theocracy that has announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors and is busy getting nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong?
Yet, they haven't shot at anyone.
Unlike certain free country which is pillaging and burning things around the world, both militarily and politically.
Stop that fucking nonsense, ok?
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to add that Israel contains the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, two very sacred Islamic sites. How likely do you think a religious fundamentalist government would nuke their own sacred sites? We can argue about nut cases etc. but seriously its very unlikely. I think all people that have seriously looked into the events happening in the middle east realize that many nations, including Iran, want to return the lands occupied by Israel to the Palestinians. . Israel has nukes, tons of UN resolutions it regularly ignores, chemical and possibly biological weapons. When will it be hit with sanctions, inspections, etc.? Israel has used banned weapons on opponents, most recently of which were the phosphorous bombs it dropped on people in Lebanon. Israel even acknowledged it used them. Why no outrage? Where was all the media?
I definitely agree about the hypocrisy part. Its foolish that people either can't see it or are wrapped in denial.
Iran is NOT an Arab nation (Score:4, Informative)
Iran is not an Arab nation. Its population is Caucasian, and is non Arab,
although it is a Moslem country.
It is the cradle of civilization, a beautiful country despite the US Propaganda that
makes it look like a pile of rubble, stones and mud huts. It has a high degree of
education, many fine universities and research institutes and takes foreingn aid
from no one.
Iran has never invaded any other country, and as far as I know they have never
lifted a finger at the USA. Other than shooting down our million-dollar drones
that violate their airspace.
Re: (Score:3)
It should be mentioned that none of the countries in Western Europe recognize the Palestinian state, nor does Canada or Mexico.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_recognition_of_the_State_ [wikipedia.org]
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Interesting)
2- Iran has not announced it wants to annihilate Israel. It wished for Israeli government to lack existence.
3- Israel has at least 200-300 nukes and can defend itself. No need for crying wolf. Iran will never use nukes against Israel. A single nuke on Tehran will kill 15 million.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, a country run by a theocracy that has announced it wants to annihilate one of its neighbors and is busy getting nuclear weapons, what could possibly go wrong?
Wait, are we talking about Israel or the US?
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Israel truly believes that it's existence is threatened then they can do something about it themselves.
...themselves being a US ground invasion.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Funny)
wow, did I miss that. I thought he was talking about the united states. My next thought was, shit, we make oil, and we are a US neighbour, maybe we need some nukes to keep them at bay.
After all, the US only attacks defenceless countries...
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Israel does not need absurd casus belli. Unlike many other countries out there, it is perfectly straightforward in how it goes about war. It's not shy about calling it "war", either.
If and when they will believe that Iran's nuclear capability is approaching the point where it's a threat to Israel, they will just strike - same as what they did about Osirak.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Informative)
Take a look at this to see what Israel's leaders really think. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/07/netanyahu_america_is_a_thing_y.html [washingtonpost.com]
Netenyahu, when he thinks he's in private, says that America "is easily moved" and that he can get America to do what he wants easily. Then he proceeds to brag about how he successfully sabotaged the peace process.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, much of the American military technology has been developed in Israel.
Israeli technology keeps American soldiers safe.
Moreover, the 'gifts' to which you refer had to be spent on American companies. So the Israelis can't go and buy better equipment elsewhere much as they might like.
The state of Israel is perfectly viable given its massive contribution to global technology, agriculture and health. Have a look at how their GDP went during the GFC.
I very much doubt I'll change your obviously closed mi
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
SOME has, but let's not go overboard. No matter how advanced you may think they are, we're talking about a very small population here. They CAN'T possibly have a very big impact.
The total is actually estimated at 75%. And it's not as if that makes it cease to exist. These are still very real gifts to support Israel.
Try this one:
"There has been [US] economic aid to Israel every year since 1949"
For the past several years, these grants have totaled about 2.5 billion. That's not an insignificant percentage of their GDP. They can't just up and do without it. They've got significant debt and trade deficits already. And that's just the obvious, most overt aid the US provides.
Your statement means absolutely nothing. It doesn't change the fact that they'd be bankrupt without US aid. And it's not as if this is MY personal opinion... This fact has been stated by a large number of analysts and officials.
The fact that you don't like the facts I've listed, doesn't make me closed-minded. In fact all indications are that I am vastly better informed about the subject than you are.
First of all, our support of Israel is the #1 reason there are so many Arabs that hate the US, so your claim is incredibly empty.
Additionally, Palestine is in Israel. I'm sure there's plenty of people there who hate the US. Worst of all, I can't say they're reasons are invalid, unlike most.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet you get to rot for years for carry a bit of weed.
Say, we can play you get to go to jail for stupid shit game too!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Can't remember the last time someone in the US was executed for converting religions, or arrested for carrying Bibles into the airport.
It's all relative, in Europe execution is a human rights violation and a very serious crime, as is torture. You may place the bar higher for what type of crime can result in these punishments but it's still wrong.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
it's actually kinda offensive you put Iran in with the rest of the middle east, as if there's no difference between all those countries, and even regions within (and across the borders of) those countries.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Saudi Arabia is not Iran (Score:5, Interesting)
....And what does Saudi Arabia have to do with Iran? They're close allies with the US and enemies with Iran, which happens to have a fair number of native Christians (mostly Armenians and Georgians) as well as Jews and Zoroastrians who actually are allowed to own Bibles and Torahs are allowed exemptions from certain Islamic laws such as the ones on alcohol consumption. Said Christians and Jews and Zoroastrians also have their own guaranteed members of parliament, as set by the Iranian constitution.
I certainly won't sugarcoat the condition of minorities in Iran as paradise, and as an atheist I wouldn't want to live in either country, but Iran is certainly leaps and bounds better than the Saudis in terms of minorities. The Saudis don't even tolerate other sects of Islam, and in fact they destroyed the tomb of Mohammed, as well as other prominent Muslim figures, in the fear that they might turn into objects of worship by Islamic sects that have traditionally venerated at those sites. Bringing up Saudi Arabia as a reason to stop Iran really is a red herring.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Interesting)
Go to the US with a few copies of the Qur'an and see what happens.
The outcome is pretty predictable: Oh, I see you have a Quran. You must be a Muslim? There are millions of them in the US. Have a nice day.
Wow, that is pretty horrible, but not on a par with nations living under Sharia.
Saudi jailed for discussing the Bible [washingtontimes.com]
In Iran, Covert Christian Converts Live With Secrecy and Fear [usnews.com]
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
The United States is not a theocracy, despite attempts by a minority to make us one. The United States most certainly does not "regularly annihilate" countries.
I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated. Now care to name some more examples of this "unending warfare" you claim?
I know its trendy to scream and holler about how the US is some dystopian super-villain, but saying something boldly and loudly does not make it true.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
here's one. name a few days since 1945 where the USA has not been at war.
and yes, the war on drugs counts - look at what happened to a big chunk of central america.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm no fan of the Iraq War, but the country was certainly not annihilated.
Okay, he exaggerated, but let's look at Iraq. Went in on a lie and against the wishes of our own citizens (at least in the UK) and a significant proportion of Iraqis. 200,000+ civilians dead, far worse carnage than Saddam caused for the majority of people. Appalling behaviour by our troops, many of whom can't even pronounce "Iraq".
Iran is right next door, the US and Israel are talking openly about an invasion and regime change and waging a cold war of assassinations and overt spying against them.
On top of all that the US's democracy leaves a lot to be desired, being apparently based on money and corporations with only the rich allowed to have any power. Yet the US is convinced that this is the only acceptable system of government and will force it on other countries, even if the result is an absolute joke like it is in Afghanistan.
Re: (Score:3)
And a checkbox is all it is. I would be really surprised if more than a handful of them actually practice christianity, beyond simply going to church (going to church doesn't make someone a christian anymore than going to a football game makes them a football player).
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
A theocracy is one that has a state religion with laws to back it up. Last I checked, the U.S. had laws to allow you to have any religion you like or none at all.
Learn the difference, it might make your arguments more persuasive.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Informative)
The United States is a theocracy that /has/ nuclear weapons, and /regularly/ annihilates foreign countries. Iraq was destroyed on a whim, albeit without nukes.
See: The last fifty years of the United States engaging in constant, unending international warfare, against continually new enemies, without cause or justification.
Now who looks more dangerous?
You, sir, are either engaging in hyperbole or you do not know what a theocracy is.
The US has engaged in far too many military adventures around the planet for the last 60 years, but for all of its negative qualities, we have also come to the aid of the defenseless more than anyone else too.
LK
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
we have also come to the aid of the defenseless more than anyone else too.
How's that kool-aid? Tasty? An empire does not wage war to "aid the defenseless", but to give itself more power (of course in the specific case of the USA there's also the military-industrial complex problem). Why doesn't the USA aid the "defenseless" in friendly regimes like Saudi Arabia, which although a rich country (and by no means the worst one out there) still considers women as second-class citizens? How come the USA is always first in line to criticize Cuba for not being democratic, while the same USA brings down democratically elected governments all around the world? I'll tell you why: the guys who make the rules don't give a shit about helping others, they don't care about freedom or democracy, they just do whatever is necessary to further their goals. They do, however, lie about everything and you, my friend, believe every word of it.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Off the top of my head:
World War I
World War II
Korean War (North Korea invaded South Korea)
Iraq, 1992 (when Saddam invaded Kuwait)
Somalia, 1993
Bosnia, 1995
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Of course that sort of glosses over the assistance the US provided the UK prior to entering the war as well.
You mean assistance like loaning money, loans that were only paid off a few years ago? Or perhaps assistance like allowing British nuclear physicists to work on the Manhattan Project, and then not allowing them to share any of the results with the UK after the war?
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Informative)
Of course that sort of glosses over the assistance the US provided the UK prior to entering the war as well.
It has to be said, assistance that we actually only stopped repaying the US for a couple of years ago - that assistance was most certainly not free, it was infact very costly.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it comes down to nukes Amman, Damascus and Cairo (along with any other Arab city a F-16 with drop tanks and one bomb can reach) will be destroyed, no matter who shoots first.
The chances of those nukes coming out if it means that Israel will also become a glowing ember are much smaller. The only thing that held back nukes during the cold war was mutually assured destruction [wikipedia.org]. At the moment with Israel being surrounded by countries without the bomb it has a big advantage. When it knows that their "big red button" may as well be connected to the opposing sides "big red button" I am sure that there will be even more locks and keys put on it.
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Interesting)
doesn't all add up though.
stuxnet made a big dent in their enrichment activities (ie they had to start again because any material they'd made during the affected time would not be viable).
they are apparently working on a high-explosive lens system - that's what IAEA were worried about, that they were looking into making the critical trick to an implosion device.
only problem - enrichment is for uranium, and high-explosive lenses are for plutonium. their one nuke plant is not of the kind that can be used to make pu 239 (which no doubt is why they were allowed to build it).
maybe they're doing what the yanks did and they're working on 2 bombs at once?
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Today's dose of fearmongering... (Score:4, Informative)
Iran has a Reactor in Tehran University (incidentally US made) which uses 20% enriched Uranium to work and it is being used to produce medical radiation sources.
Iran offered to receive 20% enriched fuel for that reactor in exchange to 5% fuel (it had produced). IAEA and western countries did not wanted to cooperate and Iran started building the fuel itself.
Where of that story is ambiguous for you?
Evidence the Iranians are developing structures (Score:5, Funny)
capable of withstanding repeated ballistic impacts: Many engineers are seen with iPads doing structural-ballistic simulations involving various geometries made of wood, ice and stone, and green "test animals", whose survival indicates the durability of said structures.
Dear americans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dear americans (Score:5, Interesting)
I know the Slashdot leadership and a good majority of their chickenhawk wannabe-military fanboy readership subscribe to Judeo-Christian beliefs about being in the moral right as nation-builders, but if you're gonna tacitly encourage war with Iran, then enlist, pick up a fuckin' gun, and go shoot yerselves some strangers. See your buddies turned into hamburger and shuttled back into the states to live their lives as disfigured vegetable abominations, and you can become a nonfunctional drug-addicted alcoholic having to cope with those horrors for life. There are laws to reward employers for hiring veterans, but all it takes is one flashback flipout to make even the most patriotic employer reexamine their hiring decisions. Kids can't even afford school because that money went to some glorified security guard being paid $300,000 a year.
If you're gonna go big, then at least do it right - indiscriminately carpet-bomb the entire Middle East, including Israel.
Re:Dear americans (Score:5, Insightful)
I got out right after 9/11, but before the wars kicked in. I knew that the rationale for the wars was bullshit(WMD? we sold Saddam that WMD!), but by that time I was happy enough being the fuck out of the military. And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.
So the short answer is, no, I'm not a hypocrite.
Re:Dear americans (Score:5, Insightful)
And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.
I would be more content if the people who wanted to force others to believe what they believe at the end of a rifle or sword were singled out. Peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the problem.
LK
Re: (Score:3)
And yes, the world would be a better place if all of the religious people, or at least the people who subscribe to one or more of the three monotheistic religions of the Middle-East, would drop dead on the spot. That is where the trouble lies.
I would be more content if the people who wanted to force others to believe what they believe at the end of a rifle or sword were singled out. Peaceful Christians, Jews and Muslims are not the problem.
LK
Seconded.
Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
So, just because this "high performance" concrete was developed in Iran, it has dangerous military applications? Dangerous as in able to withstand US bombs? Should we start banning defensive technologies in order to make it easier for the US to invade?
If this was developed in any other nation, "military applications" would never have been mentioned.
Please don't fall for the fearmongering, Iran is not going to attack anyone, they know very well they would be instantly overrun. This is Iraq all over again.
As an aside, while I very much object to anyone including the US having nuclear weapons, I can't really see why Iran having them - if they indeed do - is a problem while Israel having them is not, a country that has constantly refused to sign the non-proliferation treaty and employs an Apartheid-like policy towards Palestinians.
Re: (Score:3)
This is Iraq all over again.
We need to keep saying this over and over again. All I see in the news is Iran, Iran, Newt Gingrich, and then some more Iran followed by a delightful yogurt commercial starring Jamie Lee Curtis.
But seriously, this is the exact sort of build-up they're trying to go for.
They say the military is always fighting the last war. I think the government is the same way. After 9/11, this probably would have worked. The vast majority of us were shaken with fear and about as pliable as a politician's moral code. They'r
McCarthy would be proud of you guys. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran is a very religious country, so is the US. Muslims want to kill Christians, Christians want to kill Muslims. Iran has corrupt leaders, that allow their people to suffer hunger, poor health care and bad education in order to spend millions in armament, this is also true about the US. It's also true that Iran is a fairly small country with few resources, while the US is a huge country and the most resourceful on the planet, and while Iran has failed in most military operations it has attempted, the US has succeeded. Iran is trying to get some nuclear weapons, the US is the only country to have ever used them on a civilian population. Currently Iran has no nuclear weapons, while the US has thousands. Iran is not currently at war, while the US has been consistently starting wars every year for 200 years.
And yet, when the US develops a new weapon, a new fighter, a new bomb, a new droid, or any other military advancement and clearly plans to use it soon at war, it's praised for its technological achievement. But when Iran develops a new construction technology, that has tens of applications, one of them, defense, then it's something we should be worried about and it makes Iran evil, and we should ask the glorious united states of america to destroy them real soon.
Fuck that bullshit, your western christian theocracy is no better than the eastern muslim theocracies, and just as crazy, delusional and violent.
Re:McCarthy would be proud of you guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
I sincerely don't think it's about the oil anymore. I think the war industry is even bigger than the oil industry, and the owners of the US have as much interests in Lockheed as they do in Exxon.
Re: (Score:3)
The last thing we need is ANOTHER country with nuclear weapons. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I suppose we should have thought of that before invading Iraq on a whim -- which we were able to do precisely because Iraq didn't actually have any WMDs. Compare that to how North Korea gets treated with kid gloves, because it does in fact have nukes. There won't be an invasion of North Korea any time soon, no matter how evil its government may be.
If I was the Iranian government watching those two scenarios play out, I know which side of the nuclear fence I'd want to be on.
Re: (Score:3)
The last thing we need is ANOTHER country with nuclear weapons. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yep. We need FEWER. Preferably NONE.
However, Iran has not signed any anti-proliferation treaties, so no one has a right to tell them they can't develop their own - *unless* you subscribe to the idea that the community of nations has a right to tell individual nations what to do. (And I'm guessing that the people most phobic about world government are the same people who are most keen on telling Iran that it isn't allowed to develop nukes. What would the USA do if the UN ordered us to eliminate our own n
Re:McCarthy would be proud of you guys. (Score:4, Informative)
You know what's the best about the uneducated people from the US that thinks the entire world looks like Afghanistan?
a) Their faces when they finally travel a little bit and get to see, for example, the city where I live:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_QRpO2B1C6Xg/TT1yt1_PggI/AAAAAAAAACA/qal-vpr50pI/s1600/buenos-aires.jpg [blogspot.com]
http://buenosairestourism.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Buenos-Aires-Tourism2.jpg [buenosairestourism.net]
http://www.ladygardens.net/storage/buenos_aires03.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1243881190062 [ladygardens.net]
And realize their vision of the world was completely misleading.
b) How many other citizens of the US are so embarrassed of people like you, when they vacation at some of our best touristic destinations, they say they are Canadian (I can always tell by the accent and lack of sophistication)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually the US does allow inspections at their nuclear facilities. So do all western countries that can build nuclear weapons but don't possesses them if they're members of the NPT. Non-NPT are exempt, though sanctioned countries that have abide by agreements like Iran,
And before Iraq don't get the right to disagree in the 'losers side' to what happens. Lets not forget, if Saddam had agreed to the terms of the ceasefire and disarmament fully, none of this would have happened. The world stage of the UN
Smart? (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting aside the obvious political flamebait, are we really now at a point where anything that's been at all updated since the 1950s is considered "smart"? The term makes sense for things that have a microcontroller added to them, but that's not the case here. This concrete isn't any smarter than my toothbrush.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe their smart concrete and our smart bombs can have a battle of wits, maybe settle their differences with a game of chess.
Re: (Score:3)
How can you expect me to trust in a solution that isn't based in the Cloud?!
Stick to the subject of the article. (Score:5, Funny)
Could we stop the comments on abstract issues and just stick to the concrete one.
Good (Score:3)
Iran needs everything it can to defends itself. note that the puppet EU organization has collaborated with the pro-war activists (i.e. criminals responsible for Iraq) again in this issue. the oil and central banking sanctions are a disgrace. we shouldn't be attacking a country like that. fuck that EU which is turning its constituent countries into financial dictatorships. fuck NATO, the umbrella puppet of the US military forces.
I could write something better, but I'm tired and this is slashdot.
UHPC? Hardly... (Score:3)
Pretty much everyone has known for quite awhile how to make super-hard concrete. Both the USA and USSR used it to make missile silo covers in the 1950s, and improvements on that recipe gave us silos able to withstand 2000 psi in the 70s. The recipes aren't difficult for UHPC - it's really a quality-control issue with just a little tinkering to get the recipe and pour right.
The new interesting concretes are not for hardness, but flexibility. Only a moron would use quartz for this kind of application - synthetic fibers in the mix seem to be the way to go, with some change in the types and geometrics of gravel used as the aggregate (including replacing it with funky star-cut composites). To earthquake resistance, you don't want a more rigid (and hard) concrete, you want one which will flex without cracking.
I don't doubt that Iran has been using the super-hard stuff for various military facilities, though I doubt they've got the good quality-control needed to have the 2000 psi stuff done right. Still, 500 psi stuff (5x better than 'average') is Good Enough for most things. I also wouldn't be surprised if they're trying to get into the more advanced flex-crete business, though I seriously doubt they've got the materials science industry to make serious headway on that.
And, the primary problem with Iran having a bomb isn't having them use it on Israel. Or the Saudis, or anyone else. Nope, Iran itself wouldn't actually use it one anyone; rather, it's the decent probability that they might just "loan" or "lose" one to one of the myriad of truly crazy real terrorist organizations they sponsor. Those people will use it on someone. That's been the big issue with the Pakistani nukes for two decades - not so much that Pakistan might nuke someone (even India), but that the lax controls the Pakistanis have on their nukes might result in one or more of them going walkabout. That risk is even bigger with Iran, and something I don't think can be tolerated.
That said, the current path of sanctions and diplomacy to get the Iranian leadership on-board with IAEA inspections again and giving up the weaponization programs (which are in low-gear, not overdrive) seems to be working fine. There's no need to bomb anyone at this point. We're a couple of years away from really having to do that, at the worst-case scenario. So the Israelis need to just shut their mouths again, and recognize that the USA and Israel's best interest (not to mention the Saudis, Turks, and most of the region's) interests are all aligned here with making sure that Iran doesn't actually get the bomb.
-Erik
Re: (Score:3)
"Nope, Iran itself wouldn't actually use it one anyone; rather, it's the decent probability that they might just "loan" or "lose" one to one of the myriad of truly crazy real terrorist organizations they sponsor. Those people will use it on someone."
It is easy to analyze post mortem where the fissile material in a nuclear bomb originates. So countering the "nuclear bomb in terrorist hands" scenario can be as simple as adopting a doctrine of "nuclear material origin responsibility" and retaliate in kind agai
Disturbing (Score:4)
Now cement is dangerous? "experts" are worried!
OK, Iran is an evil sexist country with a lot of political problems being handled poorly. Not a country I'd ever live in.
But guys? Can you really afford another war? You hardly finished in Iraq - you'll be doing it again in twenty years. You're doing worse in Afghanistan!
Let them have the damn cement, it sounds like they could really use it anyway. So could we, actually.
Just let this one go, try to devise a long term plan to improve relations over time - its has to be cheaper and frankly couldn't be worst then ranting about ways you'll kill them even if they do hide in these possible bunkers.
Its a bit insane sounding. Imagine being from Iran reading these paranoid threats?
Canadian for the record, but we are generally loyal to even our loud, obnoxious, untrustworthy friends to the south.
Iran vs. US (Score:5, Insightful)
As some comments above have pointed out, the media as of late (well, probably always) has taken a really bias view of this Iran vs. US thing, to the point that.. I don't really know what to think.
In my quest to find less bias opinions, I turned to al-jazeera and other arab news sources to view comments from those who refer to Isreal as the "evil zionist regime." While many comments were ludicrous (but perhaps no more ludicrous than pro-US comments on CNN or something), there were many who pointed out that the US and Isreal have been known to carry out assassinations in Iran and other countries with basic impunity.
The question posed was, if Iran assassinated a scientist or politician in the United States, what kind of blow-back would there be? Why is the US/Isreal allowed to carry these out events without any world condemnation?
It's a difficult topic, because as much as I believe the US is going about things in the wrong way, if there's going to be someone who is the "world police" and the global power, I would prefer the US to any other country. Yet, it is clearly shielding the public from the double-standards it holds. Why does nobody else (general public) notice this? It's weird.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a difficult topic, because as much as I believe the US is going about things in the wrong way, if there's going to be someone who is the "world police" and the global power, I would prefer the US to any other country. Yet, it is clearly shielding the public from the double-standards it holds. Why does nobody else (general public) notice this? It's weird.
How is it a difficult topic? The US has its incentives (oil, perhaps other/more vague incentives), Israel have theirs (a fight for their very existence), and Iran has theirs (fight for their existence). The US helped create Israel after one of the world wars (IIRC) and, for whatever reason, has managed to keep a decent relationship with Israel across time. The US media are only going to view things from their perspective. Same with Iranian media. The difference is they're in an unwritten law (the two with t
The Onion (Score:3)
The Onion's irreverent piece: Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon [theonion.com].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean they wouldn't be able to put a nuke in a shipping container? Or perhaps hand a few over to Hezbolla and or Hamas? There is more than one way to "touch" America and missiles would probably be the last method used.
Shipping Container? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, they could put a nuke in a train, and drive the train right into the middle of the white house; then detonate it.
Maybe they could get Bruce Lee to drive the train, jump out right before it hit, and rip the pres' heart right out of his chest and show it to him before he dies.
Once you take that little step into insane, there is no point in coming up short.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess you missed the whole 9/11 thing. You don't need ICBMs to attack another country.
Stop, please stop with the rhetoric. What happened on 9/11 were terrorists acts. It was not a declaration of war, it was not an invasion. It was not an attack in any meaningful way.
Otherwise any criminal enterprise is an attack that warrants some kind of military response.
And by the way, using airplanes to carry out a series of terrorist acts in the US is nothing out of the ordinary. They just used the most common means of transportation. Using the airplane in the US is like using a train in most smaller co