Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

i officially declared, WW3 gonna start next week..

I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range

I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range

"Iran really doesn't need nukes"

  • Iran does not have any. The IAEA said that it had no evidence that Iran has an organized nuclear weapons program or is building an atomic bomb. On the contrary Israel has 90. They do not really need any either.

"intercontinental missiles"

  • The Iranian Shabab-6 has a smaller range than the Israeli Jericho-4.

"it has a large, reasonably competent army"

  • But apparently is defenseless against Israeli and American air attacks.

"missiles and nukes are simply aggressive tools, not defensive tools"

  • No. Iranian missiles defend against attacks. Iran has no nuclear weapon.
    The Israeli iron dome intercepts 90% of incoming missiles. So for one hit Iran would need 10. Then Israel would retaliate with 90.

"decide to let neighbors live in peace"

  • That is what Iran did, but neither Israel nor the United States.

"The U.S. ... has a peaceful temperament"

  • That is why they renamed the Department of Defense to Department of War, and have so many aircraft carriers far away from their own shores.

"enriched Uranium"

  • This is useful to blend 408.6 kg @ 60% with depleted uranium @ 0.3% to make 13,940 kg @ 2% for civil use in power plants.
"Iran really doesn't need nukes" * Iran does not have any. The IAEA said that it had no evidence that Iran has an organized nuclear weapons program or is building an atomic bomb. On the contrary Israel has 90. They do not really need any either. "intercontinental missiles" * The Iranian Shabab-6 has a smaller range than the Israeli Jericho-4. "it has a large, reasonably competent army" * But apparently is defenseless against Israeli and American air attacks. "missiles and nukes are simply aggressive tools, not defensive tools" * No. Iranian missiles defend against attacks. Iran has no nuclear weapon. The Israeli iron dome intercepts 90% of incoming missiles. So for one hit Iran would need 10. Then Israel would retaliate with 90. "decide to let neighbors live in peace" * That is what Iran did, but neither Israel nor the United States. "The U.S. ... has a peaceful temperament" * That is why they renamed the Department of Defense to Department of War, and have so many aircraft carriers far away from their own shores. "enriched Uranium" * This is useful to blend 408.6 kg @ 60% with depleted uranium @ 0.3% to make 13,940 kg @ 2% for civil use in power plants.

@hcp_pro said ^

+1 if you agree
-1 if you disagree

oof, -28. i think the war is going to be delayed just by popular opinion.

@hcp_pro said [^](/forum/redirect/post/FrKvTDn2) > +1 if you agree > -1 if you disagree oof, -28. i think the war is going to be delayed just by popular opinion.

@Noflaps said ^

China "telling" the U.S. to leave might lead to a quick lesson about the importance of Kharg Island to the Chinese.

The U.S. (at the moment) is carefully sparing the non-military facilities of the island, because it doesn't wish to hurt the ordinary Iranian or those who depend on Iran's exports for the life of their economy.

Trying to push President Trump around would seem to be a silly idea at this point, would it not? He's not an ineffectual blusterer, after all, as should be rather evident.

There's a better solution to all of this. Iran really doesn't need nukes or intercontinental missiles. Nobody wants to invade it, it's geography would make that very difficult in any event, and it has a large, reasonably competent army.

So missiles and nukes are simply aggressive tools, not defensive tools. So why not simply decide to let neighbors live in peace, drop such pursuits, and let the world return to a better place?

The U.S. is not being run by the "autopen." And it, like Britain, has a peaceful temperament when not provoked by unpleasant necessity.

I don't think anybody is really denying the recent existence of unnecessarily enriched Uranium, not needed -- really -- for any peaceful purpose. Without a constant urge to over-enrich and develop very-long-range missiles, none of this would have happened, would it?

Funny how some people cry out to "protect Mother Earth" and protest nuclear proliferation -- but then try to defend, or at least pretend away, some examples of it, when the U.S. or Israel or perhaps even "the West" opposes it. Sometimes, politics can blunt the perception of even bright people.

Ok

@Noflaps said [^](/forum/redirect/post/W9iRwxHE) > China "telling" the U.S. to leave might lead to a quick lesson about the importance of Kharg Island to the Chinese. > > The U.S. (at the moment) is carefully sparing the non-military facilities of the island, because it doesn't wish to hurt the ordinary Iranian or those who depend on Iran's exports for the life of their economy. > > Trying to push President Trump around would seem to be a silly idea at this point, would it not? He's not an ineffectual blusterer, after all, as should be rather evident. > > There's a better solution to all of this. Iran really doesn't need nukes or intercontinental missiles. Nobody wants to invade it, it's geography would make that very difficult in any event, and it has a large, reasonably competent army. > > So missiles and nukes are simply aggressive tools, not defensive tools. So why not simply decide to let neighbors live in peace, drop such pursuits, and let the world return to a better place? > > The U.S. is not being run by the "autopen." And it, like Britain, has a peaceful temperament when not provoked by unpleasant necessity. > > I don't think anybody is really denying the recent existence of unnecessarily enriched Uranium, not needed -- really -- for any peaceful purpose. Without a constant urge to over-enrich and develop very-long-range missiles, none of this would have happened, would it? > > Funny how some people cry out to "protect Mother Earth" and protest nuclear proliferation -- but then try to defend, or at least pretend away, some examples of it, when the U.S. or Israel or perhaps even "the West" opposes it. Sometimes, politics can blunt the perception of even bright people. Ok

@aVague said ^

I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range

Why dont u trust info from user with a skull emoji? :[

@aVague said [^](/forum/redirect/post/D4AxfDw3) > I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range Why dont u trust info from user with a skull emoji? :[

@Onlybullet2026 said ^

I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range

Why dont u trust info from user with a skull emoji? :[

it's too harmful, things don't go according to nasty things only

@Onlybullet2026 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/oHMM3Eve) > > I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range > > Why dont u trust info from user with a skull emoji? :[ it's too harmful, things don't go according to nasty things only

@aVague said ^

I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range

Why dont u trust info from user with a skull emoji? :[

it's too harmful, things don't go according to nasty things only
ok :[

@aVague said [^](/forum/redirect/post/FSL0aktP) > > > I can't trust info from user with skull emoji, you can't be right in any way, so if ww3 happens , it will be much independent from your time range > > > > Why dont u trust info from user with a skull emoji? :[ > > it's too harmful, things don't go according to nasty things only ok :[

Some seem determined to tell themselves and others that the massive enrichment of Uranium to levels beyond what is apparently and typically needed for conventional, peaceful use is nothing to worry about.

Perhaps, before arriving at a final position about such things, they should at least first try to read about the reported conversation between Iranian negotiators and the American special envoy, Steve Witkoff, as reported around March 3 of this year.

I'm always somewhat puzzled by Panglossian optimism. Not that I think optimism is bad. To the contrary.

But the 1930s taught us that it can be carried too far.

I hope we all agree that any enlargement of the "nuclear club" would be a bad thing. Nukes aren't something that everybody needs a "fair share" of. Neither are bioweapons. Neither are chemical weapons.

What everyone should share, I believe, is a firm belief in the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. It's not something the world can afford to "get wrong."

I think that any who champion "gun control" should have no quarrel with "nuke control," too.

But I fear that sometimes politics creates unexpected combinations of belief.

Some seem determined to tell themselves and others that the massive enrichment of Uranium to levels beyond what is apparently and typically needed for conventional, peaceful use is nothing to worry about. Perhaps, before arriving at a final position about such things, they should at least first try to read about the reported conversation between Iranian negotiators and the American special envoy, Steve Witkoff, as reported around March 3 of this year. I'm always somewhat puzzled by Panglossian optimism. Not that I think optimism is bad. To the contrary. But the 1930s taught us that it can be carried too far. I hope we all agree that any enlargement of the "nuclear club" would be a bad thing. Nukes aren't something that everybody needs a "fair share" of. Neither are bioweapons. Neither are chemical weapons. What everyone should share, I believe, is a firm belief in the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. It's not something the world can afford to "get wrong." I think that any who champion "gun control" should have no quarrel with "nuke control," too. But I fear that sometimes politics creates unexpected combinations of belief.

Not world war, people, probably just Middle East because Israel is always fighting with another country.
Gaza: LEAVE US ALONE ISRAEL
Iran: GO AWAY ISRAEL
Israel: we are war country...
FOR REAL!!!
Make the world have peace for once

Not world war, people, probably just Middle East because Israel is always fighting with another country. Gaza: LEAVE US ALONE ISRAEL Iran: GO AWAY ISRAEL Israel: we are war country... FOR REAL!!! Make the world have peace for once

On October 7, 2023, Israel was peacefully minding its own business.

On that day there was a cease fire in effect.

It wasn't Israel that broke that cease fire.

Don't believe me -- I can always be mistaken. But I don't think it's too hard to determine whatever is true, independently and with not much effort.

October 7 for Israel seemed rather like December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001 for America -- except that Isreal is a much smaller country, so their losses were proportionately MUCH larger (as a percentage). And except that Japan's attack, long ago, upon America went primarily after military assets rather than civilians.

Israel has been attacked again and again and again and again -- starting in her FIRST WEEK as a new nation, long ago.

What about this is incorrect? That's a sincere question, not a rhetorical question.

On October 7, 2023, Israel was peacefully minding its own business. On that day there was a cease fire in effect. It wasn't Israel that broke that cease fire. Don't believe me -- I can always be mistaken. But I don't think it's too hard to determine whatever is true, independently and with not much effort. October 7 for Israel seemed rather like December 7, 1941 or September 11, 2001 for America -- except that Isreal is a much smaller country, so their losses were proportionately MUCH larger (as a percentage). And except that Japan's attack, long ago, upon America went primarily after military assets rather than civilians. Israel has been attacked again and again and again and again -- starting in her FIRST WEEK as a new nation, long ago. What about this is incorrect? That's a sincere question, not a rhetorical question.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.