Iran to react if US prevents lifting arms embargo as per nuclear deal: President Rouhani

[mangekyo]

Euros are wusses as long as they got US bases and NATO they will bend backward to Washington all the time got to wait till the US Empire breathes its last

Yeah but we should still not make enemies of them.

 

[Yankee-stani]

Bro, I can't care less about how the Europeans view us. Of course they viewed us favorably because we were signing deals over 50 billion dollars with them for things we could buy with much less risk and money from other countries. Most of those deals were treasonous, just like the passenger airplanes you mentioned.

We experienced a 15% economic growth. But not because the conditions of our economy had improved, but only because our blocked money had been released. That's a one-time thing. You can't run a country by one-time policies. That's exactly the North Korean style that I was condemning at the beginning.

And you are now contradicting yourself. If you think Europeans care about human rights, Iran was still the same country after the JCPOA. So, why were they viewing us differently? Huh?

I view the Western Europeans with contempt all they want from Iran is another alternative supplier from Putin"s Russia but they won't cause Euro businesses like Daimler,Total,etc all want the American market but I think with the Great Bifurcation of the world thanks to China and US spilting away Europe could have wiggle room gotta wait a few more years tho

 

[mangekyo]

We experienced a 15% economic growth. But not because our economy had improved, but only because our blocked money had been released. That's a one-time thing. You can't run a country by one-time policies.

I dont believe our economic growth was only because of our released assets.

And you are now contradicting yourself. If you think Europeans care about human rights, Iran was still the same country after the JCPOA. So, why were they viewing us differently? Huh?

Because Zarif was galavanting around giving hour long speeches defending our image. They even wanted to give him the nobel peace price, but they didn't because giving an Iranian government official a nobel peace price would cause public outrage. Compare that to when Ahmadinejad gave speeches, although he spoke the truth 100% you cant just go around and blabber about everything. The Shah was stupid and did it too, he was telling the British and Americans that we will have economic growth, become the top 5-10 most prosperous country in the word, and we would become absolutely independent from the US soon, and we would increase our oil price and there was nothing they could do about it etc. You cant do that in politics. You cant just say f you to the world. We live in a global world, we cant isolate ourselves forever.

 

[Kastor]

Yeah but we should still not make enemies of them.

What you are prescribing is classic approach to diplomacy....an approach that was turned on it's head with Khamenei's self prescribed approach. The rhetoric of Marg bar Amerika, has cost us several hundred billion if not trillions. In the U.S. Trump's number 1 supporters are the ones who least benefit from his policies. Iran is no different, as long as we have people who think we are better off making enemies of U.S. and Europe we stay screwed....40 yrs of growth that will never be realized. They had a guy on here just a few days ago that said it's all because of Britain's grand design. We have an incredibly naive population when it comes to politics...as long as they don't wake up this mismanagement will continue. India, UAE and S.A. will be lording over the region while these knuckle heads try to get by with the world's severest sanction program ever to be unleashed on a country. Heck, they may even re-elect Ahmadinejad.

 

[QWECXZ]

I dont believe our economic growth was only because of our released assets.

We experienced a 23% economic growth after the end of the Iraq-Iran war. Maybe we should start a new war and end it then? And what do you think caused our GDP growth if not our released assets? Iran has experienced huge GDP growths several times in its history, 4 times at least, including under the presidency of Ahmadinejad. That means nothing in my opinion.

Because Zarif was galavanting around giving hour long speeches defending our image. They even wanted to give him the nobel peace price, but they didn't because giving an Iranian government official a nobel peace price would cause public outrage. Compare that to when Ahmadinejad gave speeches, although he spoke the truth 100% you cant just go around and blabber about everything. The Shah was stupid and did it too, he was telling the British and Americans that we will have economic growth, become the top 5-10 most prosperous country in the word, and we would become absolutely independent from the US soon, and we would increase our oil price and there was nothing they could do about it etc. You cant do that in politics. You cant just say f you to the world. We live in a global world, we cant isolate ourselves forever.

Bro, you just proved my point that our picture has nothing to do with those things but it has to do with media coverage. And I beg you not to say embarrassing things like "they even wanted to give him the Nobel Peace Prize". Who wanted to give Zarif a Nobel peace prize? Only a bunch of internet fanboys of Zarif wanted him to be nominated for it. He wasn't even nominated for it if I remember correctly. Was he? Plus, who gives a flying f*ck about a Nobel Peace Prize anyway?

I have always been a supporter of the Shah, but his stupidity was not only about his speeches. His real stupidity was in fact the amount of trust and power he had invested in the Americans.

 

[Philosopher]

Why would I post it directly from an article when I understand its content?

Because you have not actually read that article, you're just posting a link acting as if you read it. Hence why I asked you to quote it directly.

I am not you to cite others word by word without knowing what they truly mean.

My quotation from the article you posted was self-explanatory. If you cannot or chose not to see this, then it is not my problem.

I just proved to you that I had read that article several days ago. So, once again you were proven wrong but you're not brave enough to admit it.

As far as I am concerned, you have proven to be misleading, your words are not to be taken seriously. I am certain you have not read that article to any considerable extend if at all.

No, all you did was to derail the conversation by confusing warheads with reentry vehicles.

That is precisely what you have done, I tried to educate you.

I told you very clearly about reentry vehicles and you kept talking about warheads, showing that you didn't know the difference.

You were asking inane question regarding warhead design, when I was commenting on re-entry vehicle, showing you are the one who is confused.

You talk like an ICBM is just an IRBM/MRBM with a longer range.

This is your own assertion not backed by anything I have said here.

You said earlier on this thread that Iran has demonstrated ICBM capability, showing how little you know about the whole thing.

Iran has demonstrated de facto ICBM technology, in the form of satellite launchers and Salman TVC systems and so on. Even our friend PeeD has made this statement. You are once again showing to be utterly clueless.

You have said times and times again that a reentry vehicle that carries a conventional warhead can carry a nuclear warhead too.

Yes, it can.

You are completely ignoring survivability and safety concerns for an RV carrying a nuclear warhead and you have been told this a thousand times but still fail to understand.

You are just making up your own claims, once again. The "survivability and safety" factor is the job of the RV regardless of the nature of "the bomb" inside whether it is nuclear or not.

 

[QWECXZ]

Because you have not actually read that article, you're just posting a link acting as if you read it. Hence why I asked you to quote it directly.

My quotation from the article you posted was self-explanatory. If you cannot or chose not to see this, then it is not my problem.

As far as I am concerned, you have proven to be misleading, your words are not to be taken seriously. I am certain you have not read that article to any considerable extend if at all.

That is precisely what you have done, I tried to educate you.

You were asking inane question regarding warhead design, when I was commenting on re-entry vehicle, showing you are the one who is confused.

This is your own assertion not backed by anything I have said here.

Iran has demonstrated de facto ICBM technology, in the form of satellite launchers and Salman TVC systems and so on. Even our friend PeeD has made this statement. You are once again showing to be utterly clueless.

Yes, it can.

You are just making up your own claims, once again. The "survivability and safety" factor is the job of the RV regardless of the nature of "the bomb" inside whether it is nuclear or not.

My post from Saturday was completely about that article I posted. That's 3 days ago, proving beyond doubt that I had read that article days ago. LOL. Do you have dementia? I know you are old. It seems that your mental skills are deteriorating to the level of someone with Down syndrome. You have lost the ability to engage in meaningful conversations and you bark like a dog at people without even understanding what they say.

If you think sending a 10-20 kg toaster to LEO with a solid fuel rocket with TVC makes you have ICBM technology, then you are the one who is clueless. And once again you proved you don't know anything about ballistic missiles by saying this ridiculous statement. You don't need to go through a reentry phase for placing a satellite into its orbit, but for an ICBM, you do have to go through a reentry phase. Huge difference.

I posed those questions because you were terribly confused and I wanted to help you and correct you and make you understand why you are wrong, not the other way around. I wanted to spoonfeed you, but even that was clearly above your head.

 

[mangekyo]

What you are prescribing is classic approach to diplomacy....an approach that was turned on it's head with Khamenei's self prescribed approach. The rhetoric of Marg bar Amerika, has cost us several hundred billion if not trillions. In the U.S. Trump's number 1 supporters are the ones who least benefit from his policies. Iran is no different, as long as we have people who think we are better off making enemies of U.S. and Europe we stay screwed....40 yrs of growth that will never be realized. They had a guy on here just a few days ago that said it's all because of Britain's grand design. We have an incredibly naive population when it comes to politics...as long as they don't wake up this mismanagement will continue. India, UAE and S.A. will be lording over the region while these knuckle heads try to get by with the world's severest sanction program ever to be unleashed on a country. Heck, they may even re-elect Ahmadinejad.

Thats what Im saying, chanting death to America has no positive outcome for us, but there are thousands of negative ones, so why continue it? We need to turn our policy upside down, fix our internal problems and stop making enemies out of everyone. If we continue on this road, 50 years from now, we will become the next Afghanistan of the region.

 

[Shawnee]

My post from Saturday was completely about that article I posted. That's 3 days ago, proving beyond doubt that I had read that article days ago. LOL. Do you have dementia? I know you are old. It seems that your mental skills are deteriorating to the level of someone with Down syndrome. You have lost the ability to engage in meaningful conversations and you bark like a dog at people without even understanding what they say.

If you think sending a 10-20 kg toaster to LEO with a solid fuel rocket with TVC makes you have ICBM technology, then you are the one who is clueless. And once again you proved you don't know anything about ballistic missiles by saying this ridiculous statement. You don't need to go through a reentry phase for placing a satellite into its orbit, but for an ICBM, you do have to go through a reentry phase. Huge difference.

I posed those questions because you were terribly confused and I wanted to help you and correct you and make you understand why you are wrong, not the other way around. I wanted to spoonfeed you, but even that was clearly above your head.

Speaking of toast, if you can place 900 kg in the LEO orbit without any reentry, you can TOAST the infrastructures of many countries to 0-0-0.

You are too much obsessed with reentry and triggering cascade. There is no reported failure of any triggering cascade and all nuclear tests were successful. It is 1940s technology. Can you name a failed nuclear test? NONE.

I am sure someone who can master an SLV can master the smaller phases too.

Finally, non conventional deterrence does not have too reach US. You can do a lot with just Israel. It does not have to be nuclear either.

Bebin che harfhaayi zadi to matnet be in bande khodaa. Tohin nabaayad injaa has daashte baashe.
......

 

[Philosopher]

What an idiot.

Insulting does not help your arguments, try harder.

My post from Saturday was completely about that article. That's 3 days ago. LOL.

You have not demonstrated to have read the article. I visited it for 1 minute and managed to find a section to suit my argument. You just posted the article here without any direct reference to its parts. You have the opportunity to do that, but you're refusing, why? Because you're just posting it in the hopes people believe you properly read it.

Do you have dementia? I know you are old. It seems that your mental skills are deteriorating to the level of someone with Down syndrome. You have lost the ability to engage in meaningful conversations and you bark like a dog at people without even understanding them. Well beyond your knowledge.

Once again, insulting. Even your insults are weak.

If you think sending a 10-20 kg toaster to LEO with a solid fuel rocket with TVC makes you have ICBM technology, then you are the one who is clueless.

Any country that can put a satellite into orbit, can put a warhead anywhere on this planet. Other major issue is re-entry vehicle. Yes, that is in great part demonstration of ICBM technology. TVC in Salman is another key part of this technology. Here is a quote be PeeD:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iranian-missiles-news-and-discussions.227673/page-264

I suppose both me and PeeD are wrong, yet a person that cannot differentiate between a MIRV and RV is correct.

You don't need to go through a reentry phase for placing a satellite into its orbit, but for an ICBM, you do have to go through a reentry phase. Huge difference.

Those are pieces of the puzzle, just because you cannot put them together is not my issue. This is why you should stick to topics you know.

I posed those questions because you were terribly confused and I wanted to help you and educate you

You tried to "educate me" by asking meaningless questions like:

"Do you agree that the reentry vehicle of a nuclear warhead must be different from a conventional warhead or not?"

Trying to insinuate the design of RV changes based on the bomb inside. And I debunked this already.

and make you understand why you are wrong, not the other way around. I wanted to spoonfeed you, but even that was clearly above your head.

What you have achieved so far:

1- Confused RV with a warhead design
2- Resorted to strawman
3- Resorted to Insults
4- Posted links without any proper reference to said link

etc

You have yet to make a single coherent argument. You're just replying for the sake of replying.

 

[QWECXZ]

Speaking of toast, if you can place 900 kg in the orbit without any reentry, you can TOAST the infrastructures of many countries to 0-0-0.

You are too much obsessed with reentry and triggering cascade. There is no reported failure of any triggering cascade and all nuclear tests were successful. It is 1940s technology. Can you name a failed nuclear test? NONE.

I am sure someone who can master an SLV can master the smaller phases too.

Finally, non conventional deterrence does not have too reach US. You can do a lot with just Israel. It does not have to be nuclear either.
......

Can I name a failed nuclear test?

Buster Able
Considered to be the first known failure of any nuclear device.[6]
Upshot–Knothole Ruth
Testing a uranium hydride bomb. The test failed to declassify the site (erase evidence) as it left the bottom third of the 300-foot (91 m) shot tower still standing.[7]
Upshot–Knothole Ray
Similar test conducted the following month. Allegedly a shorter 100-foot (30 m) tower was chosen, to ensure that the tower would be completely destroyed.[7]
North Korean nuclear test in 2006
Russia claimed to have measured 5–15 kt yield, whereas the United States, France, and South Korea measured less than 1 kt yield.[8] This North Korean debut test was weaker than all other countries' initial tests by a factor of 20,[9] and the smallest initial test in history.[10]

The first ICBM was tested in 1957. So, it is more like late 1950 technology. And there are many 1940 technologies that other countries haven't mastered yet. Jet engines were 1940s technology as well, and few countries have mastered that 1940 technology.

Insulting does not help your arguments, try harder.

You have not demonstrated to have read the article. I visited it for 1 minute and managed to find a section to suit my argument. You just posted the article here without any direct reference to its parts. You have the opportunity to do that, but you're refusing, why? Because you're just posting it in the hopes people believe you properly read it.

Once again, insulting. Even your insults are weak.

Any country that can put a satellite into orbit, can put a warhead anywhere on this planet. Other major issue is re-entry vehicle. Yes, that is in great part demonstration of ICBM technology. TVC in Salman is another key part of this technology. Here is a quote be PeeD:

View attachment 642001
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iranian-missiles-news-and-discussions.227673/page-264

I suppose both me and PeeD are wrong, yet a person that cannot differentiate between a MIRV and RV is correct.

Those are pieces of the puzzle, just because you cannot put them together is not my issue. This is why you should stick to topics you know.

You tried to "educate me" by asking meaningless questions like:

"Do you agree that the reentry vehicle of a nuclear warhead must be different from a conventional warhead or not?"

Trying to insinuate the design of RV changes based on the bomb inside. And I debunked this already.

What you have achieved so far:

1- Confused RV with a warhead design
2- Resorted to strawman
3- Resorted to Insults
4- Posted links without any proper reference to said link

etc

You have yet to make a single coherent argument. You're just replying for the sake of replying.

Man, why do you keep bringing PeeD in this? Are you his stooge? I mean I don't expect more from you because you are completely incapable of having your own arguments because you are not educated enough for discussions like this. You are clearly good for copying his words only without knowing what they mean. And PeeD might be your God, and I respect him a lot because of his quality posts, but first of all, you are nowhere near his knowledge, secondly, you seem incapable of understanding the technicalities of his posts and thirdly, he is not an academic resource. What I sent you is indeed an academic resource and you can read it and learn from it.

Again, you have shown that you understand nothing about nuclear devices, reentry vehicles and ballistic missiles in general. You really have to read that article I sent. That can educate you and prevent you from making yourself a laughingstock like you did before by calling neuroscience facts "Alex Jones level conspiracy theories". LMAO

 

[Shawnee]

Can I name a failed nuclear test?

Buster Able
Considered to be the first known failure of any nuclear device.[6]
Upshot–Knothole Ruth
Testing a uranium hydride bomb. The test failed to declassify the site (erase evidence) as it left the bottom third of the 300-foot (91 m) shot tower still standing.[7]
Upshot–Knothole Ray
Similar test conducted the following month. Allegedly a shorter 100-foot (30 m) tower was chosen, to ensure that the tower would be completely destroyed.[7]
North Korean nuclear test in 2006
Russia claimed to have measured 5–15 kt yield, whereas the United States, France, and South Korea measured less than 1 kt yield.[8] This North Korean debut test was weaker than all other countries' initial tests by a factor of 20,[9] and the smallest initial test in history.[10]

NK did a small mass test. That is why the test was small. They mentioned it ahead that they are using a small test.
They wanted to economize on fissile materials.

Immediate second NK test proved US wrong. They finally used a good amount and did a big size test.

Harfam ine Chan taa comment cheghad arzesh daare ke be in bande khodaa tohin kardi.

Dude, when it comes to space technology Soheil and Peed are the best of us. I know a lot about my job and speciality and I am sure you do too. We have to learn from each other.
......

 

[QWECXZ]

NK did a small mass test. That is why the test was small. They mentioned it ahead that they are using a small test.
They wanted to economize on fissile materials.

Immediate second NK test proved US wrong. They finally used a good amount and did a big size test.

Harfam ine Chan taa comment cheghad arzesh daare ke be in bande khodaa tohin kardi.
......

I don't know that, the Westerners consider it a failed test. I'm not saying they are right, but different measurements showed it to have a very small yield. And yes, there have been failed nuclear tests. And just because a technology has been developed in 1940s or 1950s, doesn't mean that other countries can master it easily.

Man behesh aval tohin nakardam, khodesh shooroo kard be tohin be man. Man faghat pasokhesh ro dadam.

 

[Philosopher]

Man, why do you keep bringing PeeD in this? Are you his stooge? I

Because he is a different opinion and one who is respected in this regard, in other words, unlike you, I can refer to sources outside of myself.

mean I don't expect more from you because you are completely incapable of having your own arguments because you are not educated enough for discussions like this.

I have given you ample amount of my own argument, I am trying to educate you using multiple sources.

You are clearly good for copying his words only without knowing what they mean. And PeeD might be your God, and I respect him a lot because of his quality posts, but first of all, you are nowhere near his knowledge, secondly, you seem incapable of understanding the technicalities of his posts and thirdly, he is not an academic resource. What I sent you is indeed an academic resource and you can read it and learn from it.

I made the claim Iran has de facto ICBM technology and you disagreed, hence why I posted his claims too. Do you disagree with both of us? You are running from answering the question.
Furthermore, your "academic resource" did not debnk anything I said. You basically found a random link online and posted it without reading.

Again, you have shown that you understand nothing about nuclear devices, reentry vehicles and ballistic missiles in general.

Repeating yourself, again without a substance.

You really have to read that article I sent. That can educate you and prevent you from making yourself a laughingstock like you did before by calling neuroscience facts "Alex Jones level conspiracy theories". LMAO

I think you should read it first yourself given you were the one that posted it but is incapable of actually using that article in this discussion. I am still waiting for you to quote from it and counter my claims.

Harfam ine Chan taa comment cheghad arzesh daare ke be in bande khodaa tohin kardi.
......

He has a history of resorting to insults when his "arguments" (if we can call them that) are debunked. These topics are beyond his understanding.

 

[QWECXZ]

Because he is a different opinion and one who is respected in this regard, in other words, unlike you, I can refer to sources outside of myself.


I have given you ample amount of my own argument, I am trying to educate you using multiple sources.

I made the claim Iran has de facto ICBM technology and you disagreed, hence why I posted his claims too. Do you disagree with both of us? You are running from answering the question.
Furthermore, your "academic resource" did not debnk anything I said. You basically found a random link online and posted it without reading.


Repeating yourself, again without a substance.

I think you should read it first yourself given you were the one that posted it but is incapable of actually using that article in this discussion. I am still waiting for you to quote from it and counter my claims.

Quote me when you know how nuclear devices work, what nuclear technology is, you have learned the difference between warhead and reentry vehicles (which even now I think you don't understand it) and you have understood the difference between launching satellites and ICBMs. That will keep you busy for quite a long time as your knowledge currently is at a bare minimum.