Could a tank or land vehicle be nuclear powered?

[mheslep]

So what argument do you have that my statement was hyperbole? You haven't addressed it at all.

...The real, actual risks for proliferation lie with Iran and North Korea, whom we know are trying to make weapons. Yet no one wants to do anything about them. How is banning reprocessing of fuel in the United States, while ignoring Iran's uranium centrifuges make sense? Ok I'm done ranting now. :)

BTWyperbole

So what argument do you have that my statement was hyperbole? You haven't addressed it at all.

Iran just announced they had even more uranium centrifuges then anyone (even the vaunted UN) knew about, on the eve of the United States president announcing his wish to get rid of all nuclear weapons. And no one has done anything about it.

This is off topic, but I can't find an appropriate Iranian nuclear program thread.

Using the unarguable 'no one wants' instead of the arguable 'no one has done' is a textbook case of hyperbole, as I think you must know. It's inflammatory, leading off to another locked thread. Reverting to at least the arguable, what would qualify as something being 'done' in your mind? BTW, one won't find any apologizing for Iranian nuclear efforts and threats in my posts historically, but this kind of hand waving about nobody wanting to do anything is annoying. It reflects a lack of investigation into what has been done, what can be done in the future, and it indicates at least a disinterest in the consequences of more drastic action.Edit: Brief timeline on what has been done vis Iran:
2005: IAEA finds Iran in breech of IPT, reports out to UN SC

1. Finds that Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as detailed in GOV/2003/75, constitute non compliance in the context of Article XII.C of
the Agency’s Statute;
2. Finds also that the history of concealment of Iran’s nuclear activities referred to in the Director General’s report,...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf

2006: UN SC passes resolution 1737 by unanimous vote, imposes multilateral sanctions

2007: UN SC 2nd round of sanctions
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/202-sanctions/41855.html

 

[QuantumPion]

This is off topic, but I can't find an appropriate Iranian nuclear program thread.

Using the unarguable 'no one wants' instead of the arguable 'no one has done' is a textbook case of hyperbole, as I think you must know. It's inflammatory, leading off to another locked thread. Reverting to at least the arguable, what would qualify as something being 'done' in your mind? BTW, one won't find any apologizing for Iranian nuclear efforts and threats in my posts historically, but this kind of hand waving about nobody wanting to do anything is annoying. It reflects a lack of investigation into what has been done, what can be done in the future, and it indicates at least a disinterest in the consequences of more drastic action.


Edit: Brief timeline on what has been done vis Iran:
2005: IAEA finds Iran in breech of IPT, reports out to UN SC

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf

2006: UN SC passes resolution 1737 by unanimous vote, imposes multilateral sanctions

2007: UN SC 2nd round of sanctions
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/202-sanctions/41855.html

You keep using the word hyperbole but I don't think you know what it means. Hyperbole, for example, is when someone says "it's a billion degrees outside" on a hot summer day.

When I said the world has done nothing about Iran and North Korea, that is a statement of fact. While the UN have made sanctions, no action has been taken to prevent either country from continue to develop nuclear weapons. Your two linked articles are from 2005 and 2006 which go on about how the NIE report proves that Iran posed no proliferation risk. That report was proved to be laughably false in the wake of Iran's announcement of weapons enrichment this year.

Anyway, this has gotten off topic and I'm done arguing about it. You still keep using this red herring and ignoring the original issue - which is about fuel reprocessing. If you want to pose some sort of actual argument on this matter I'll be happy to address it, but otherwise I am done.

 

[mheslep]

You keep using the word hyperbole but I don't think you know what it means. Hyperbole, for example, is when someone says "it's a billion degrees outside" on a hot summer day.

Or, its when some says "Yet no one wants to do anything about them", your original statement, since you can't possibly know what everyone wants to do, nor even know what everyone has done.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

You could fit a reactor in a tank. You just need to take a page from the Germans and go big like the P. 1000 Ratte, or the P.1500 Monster. I definitely would not want to be on the business end of a 1000 to 1500 tonne tank.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread is a little too silly for PF. Locked.