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

[Philosopher]

Quote me when you know how nuclear devices work, what nuclear technology is,

I wonder how many times you will copy and paste the same comments.

you have learned the difference between warhead and reentry vehicle and you have understood the difference

Once again, repeating exactly the same comment that have been addressed. You obviously have nothing else to post. Try being original.

between launching satellites and ICBMs.

No one said they were the same thing. Pieces of puzzles, which you cannot comprehend.

That will keep you busy for quite a long time as your knowledge currently is at a bare minimum.

I think if you actually read a few pages of that article you posted, you may realise the difference between an MIRV vs RV, and even a warhead vs the RV thats contain it.

 

[mangekyo]

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.

2.68 million barrels of oil per day, foreign investments, booming tourist sector, less unemployment.

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?

Of course media coverage is a huge deal, Shah was portrayed favorably by the media until he stopped becoming dependent of US, then the accusations against him began. What I am saying is we should not repeat his mistakes.

Zarif was one of the top contenders for the Nobel Peace Price according to Peace Research Institution in Norway. (The Nobel Peace Price is awarded in Norway). What do you mean who gives a f'ck. I'm saying image matters, we went from being holocaust denying, jew hating terrorists to almost receiving the Peace Price

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.

Look at these videos and you will understand what I mean. Instead of learning from them, we are repeating his mistakes.

 

[QWECXZ]

I wonder how many times you will copy and paste the same comments.
Once again, repeating exactly the same comment that have been addressed. You obviously have nothing else to post. Try being original.

No said they were the same thing. Pieces of puzzles, which you cannot comprehend.

I think if you actually read a few pages of that article you posted, you may realise the difference between an MIRV vs RV, and even a warhead vs the RV thats contains it.

If you understood the difference, you wouldn't have said that launching a satellite to LEO with a multi-stage solid fuel missile with TVC demonstrates Iran's de facto ICBM capability.

I never confused MIRV versus RV. That just shows how little you know. At least I think at this point you have learned from me what an RV is. You clearly didn't know it exists lol

2.68 million barrels of oil per day, foreign investments, booming tourist sector, less unemployment.

Of course media coverage is a huge deal, Shah was portrayed favorably by the media until he stopped becoming dependent of US, then the accusations against him began. What I am saying is we should not repeat his mistakes.

Zarif was one of the top contenders for the Nobel Peace Price according to Peace Research Institution in Norway. (The Nobel Peace Price is awarded in Norway). What do you mean who gives a f'ck. I'm saying image matters, we went from being holocaust denying, jew hating terrorists to almost receiving the Peace Price

Look at these videos and you will understand what I mean. Instead of learning from them, we are repeating his mistakes.

Actually, our export was about 2.68 million barrels of oil per day. Otherwise our production was close to 4 million - 4.5 million barrels per day. But you should also consider the sharp drop in oil prices after the JCPOA. So, that can't be the reason for an increase in our GDP. What foreign investments? Name one foreign investment in Iran that went as planned. Telepizza, maybe? lol Iran's unemployment did not change much after the JCPOA.

Man, you really need to change your mind. Ahmadinejad never denied the Holocaust. He posed two questions about it that were very reasonable and he should pose them again: 1- Why is it forbidden to study this historical event? 2- What did Palestinians have to do with it?

And yes, nobody gives an eff about a Nobel Peace Prize. Obama won one and turned Syria and Libya into the mess they are today. A Nobel Peace Prize is completely worthless.

And I have seen all of Shah's interviews as I have always liked him and respected him. But he was too much dependent on the Americans.

 

[Philosopher]

You never mentioned anything about Iran's developments in the RV sector.

That is why you need to do your homework before commenting.

Heck, you didn't even know what an RV is. Thinking that it is the same as a warhead. LOL

Care to point to a posts where I made that claim?

You called them cluster bomblets. LMAO

I said, the only time an RV can contain multiple warheads like you claim is cluster bomblets. Which is factual. You're just repeating posts without proper substance.

No, idiot.

Insult number 3.

I was talking about the survivability of the RV from the very beginning. But you didn't even know what an RV is to understand those comments. lol

You were focusing on the warhead i.e nuclear bomb, not on the RV. You do not understand what an RV is.

 

[QWECXZ]

That is why you need to do your homework before commenting.

Care to point to a posts where I made that claim?


I said, the only time an RV can contain multiple warheads like you claim is cluster bomblets. Which is factual. You're just repeating posts without proper substance.

Insult number 3.

You were focusing on the warhead i.e nuclear bomb, not on the RV. You do not understand what an RV is.

No, that's why you should do your homework and also use cognitive science software to aid you with your deteriorating mental health.

I talked about the survivability of the reentry vehicle on several posts and you continuously said that's about warhead design. Didn't you? LOL

 

[Philosopher]

No, that's why you should do your homework and also use cognitive science software to aid you with your deteriorating mental health.

I see, now you're reduced to mostly insults. Which is where you normally end up.

I talked about the survivability of the reentry vehicle and you continuously said that's about warhead design. Didn't you? LOL

Exactly, I tried to educate you that the re-entry vehicle and warhead design are distinct. Meanwhile you continue to obfuscate them.

 

[Cthulhu]

They won't do anything.

 

[Dariush the Great]

bacheha, bikhial. aashti konid

 

[QWECXZ]

Exactly, I tried to educate you that the re-entry vehicle and warhead design are distinct. Meanwhile you continue to obfuscate them.

Exactly. You didn't know the difference. The survivability of the reentry vehicle has nothing to do with the warhead design. Different things as I was telling you from the beginning. Glad to know that you have finally understood it.

Let's use your own housing example. If you design an incredible kitchen, but your house gets destroyed, your kitchen will get destroyed too.

bacheha, bikhial. aashti konid

Ghahr nistim. Adatesh hast ke sare hichi shooroo be paridano pache gereftan bokone.

 

[Philosopher]

Exactly. You didn't know the difference. The survivability of the reentry vehicle has nothing to do with the warhead design.

So you are now backtracking? If you think the RV is not dependent on the warhead, then why keep comparing nuclear systems to conventional systems?

Different things as I was telling you from the beginning. Glad to know that you have finally understood it.

Well apparently you changed your stance to what I was telling you from the start, well done. You got there in the end.

 

[QWECXZ]

So you are now backtracking?

No, you are backtracking. You are just not brave enough to admit you were wrong.

This is what I said on page 4 that went clearly above your head about the reentry vehicle:

So, you have a reentry vehicle traveling at a hypersonic speed like 7,000 m/s (i.e. 25,000 km/h). Now your RV will have to tolerate an extremely high temperature during reentry. That requires its coating to be sacrificed to keep the warhead safe. Then during reentry, your RV first experiences the thin air of the upper atmosphere. The flow around your nosetip will be laminar but as it goes down and the air becomes denser, the flow becomes more and more turbulent. And then there will be a bombardment of dust at your RV that wears out your coating further as well as microscopic imperfections of your own nosetip that makes things worse. Now if at any point, your warhead gets damaged, (for example mixing your beryllium and polonium in a plutonium design or causing two separate uranium masses to join each other earlier than planned), your warhead will detonate prematurely or can lead to a fizzle yield or your warhead not working at all.

All the posts are there. They haven't gone anywhere.

If you think the RV is not dependent on the warhead, then why keep comparing nuclear systems to conventional systems?

That's a question you should answer because you said they were the same. I was telling you from the very beginning that the RV is dependent on the warhead but you denied it with passion. LOL

To people: do you see what he did there? He bolded only the part he wanted to change my words against my intended meaning. He didn't bold "the survivability of" part. He knows he is wrong, but he's just arguing to save face. LOL

Well apparently you changed your stance to what I was telling you from the start, well done. You got there in the end.

On the contrary, you have changed your stance to what I told you initially. You got educated. Now a thank you is due. You should thank me for teaching you something.

 

[Philosopher]

No, you are backtracking. You are just not brave enough to admit you were wrong.

You are imagining things dear, nothing more.

This is what I said on page 4 that went clearly above your head about the reentry vehicle:

That's a question you should answer because you said they were the same.

They are the same, are you now saying they are not? You just literally said:

"The survivability of the reentry vehicle has nothing to do with the warhead design."

Are you flipping your stance in the manner of a minute or two?

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

No, they are not different.

On the contrary, you have changed your stance to what I told you initially. You got educated. Now a thank you is due. You should thank me for teaching you something.

Like I said above, you went from saying RV is dependant to warhead, to its not, and now back to being its different. You have no coherent argument, none.

 

[QWECXZ]

You are imagining things dear, nothing more.

They are the same, are you now saying they are not? You just literally said:

"The survivability of the reentry vehicle has nothing to do with the warhead design."

Are you flipping your stance in the manner of a minute or two?

No, they are not different.

Like I said above, you went from saying RV is dependant to warhead, to its not, and now back to being its different. You have no coherent argument, none.

You did it again LOL

You have bolded only the part you want to change my word against its intended meaning. I said its survivability has nothing to do with the warhead design meaning that even if you have designed a perfectly good warhead but your reentry vehicle explodes in the atmosphere, your perfectly good warhead will be useless or at most leads to a fizzle yield.

On a side note, the North Koreans initially informed the Chinese of an expected 4 kilotons yield, but once measured, the yield was estimated at 0.48 kilotons.

 

[Philosopher]

You have bolded only the part you want to change my word against its intended meaning. I said its survivability has nothing to do with the warhead design. Meaning that even if you have designed a perfectly good warhead but your reentry vehicle explodes in the atmosphere, your perfectly good warhead will be useless or at most leads to a fizzle yield.

That makes no difference to my argument. Here I can make the whole part bold:

"The survivability of the reentry vehicle has nothing to do with the warhead design."

This is what I have said from beginning, i.e what's inside the RV makes no difference to the design of the RV. The purpose of the RV is just to deliver the warhead in one piece. You are apparently under the assumption that a nuclear RV is more special.

 

[QWECXZ]

This is what I have said from beginning, i.e what's inside the RV makes no difference to the design of the RV. The purpose of the RV is just to deliver the warhead in one piece. You are apparently under the assumption than a nuclear RV is more special.

Yes, that has been my point since the very beginning. Thank God that you have finally understood what I meant. Because a conventional warhead is indeed simpler than a nuclear warhead.