• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Hercules56 said:
It appears that ICE has the authority to release people on bond, and I guess if such persons fail to show up to a court hearing or whatever they can hire bail bondsmen to find them.
Click to expand...
Different bondsmen. Ordinary bondsmen cannot act as immigration bondsmen. As far as I have been able to determine, immigration bondsmen are middlemen in the process, but do not act, as other bondsmen may, on unsecured loans. All I have seen suggests that either the immigrant, or an agency working on their behalf must pay the amount to the Immigration Court before release. It appears that some bondsmen will accept collateral, but there is no indication that immigration bondsmen will make unsecured loans, and no specified mechanism I've seen for chasing bail-jumpers. Bond is simply forfeited, and the immigrant back to detention if caught.

I may be wrong here, not having looked exhaustively, and so far, at least, the idea of bounty hunters exists only at the state level, in part because undocumented immigration is not currently a felony in Federal law. In Mississippi, a law has been proposed to make illegal entry a felony, with a bounty to those who hunt them down or lead to their arrest, qualifying ordinary bail bondsmen and their agents to do the job. I'm sure there are those among us whose mouths are virtually watering at the prospect, and looking forward to revisiting the question of how much, and how deadly, a force is permitted to bring down a fleeing felon or someone suspected of the crime and reluctant to submit to masked gunmen. I, perhaps outing myself as a radical leftie, am not among them.
 
Last edited:
Hercules56 said:
Huh, guess I read wrong. But they were reletively small nukes compared to what we got today.
Click to expand...
They are. But guess what? No one knows where the enriched uranium is. So the enrichment facility can be destroyed and there still is enough enriched uranium in Iran to create 10 bombs.
 
acbytesla said:
They are. But guess what? No one knows where the enriched uranium is. So the enrichment facility can be destroyed and there still is enough enriched uranium in Iran to create 10 bombs.
Click to expand...
The centrifuge part is UF6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride#Application_in_the_fuel_cycle
It is stored and transported, but is the hazardous part to deal with. It then goes to:

Abstract​

UO2 for nuclear fuel is made from UF6. The method involves injecting UF6, with or without a nitrogen carrier, into a solution containing 1) an inert reaction medium, 2) water, 3) a Lewis base. The precipitate from the above reaction is then reduced in H2 at a temperature below 750 DEG C. to give ceramic grade UO2.
 
Tero said:
The centrifuge part is UF6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_hexafluoride#Application_in_the_fuel_cycle
It is stored and transported, but is the hazardous part to deal with. It then goes to:

Abstract​

UO2 for nuclear fuel is made from UF6. The method involves injecting UF6, with or without a nitrogen carrier, into a solution containing 1) an inert reaction medium, 2) water, 3) a Lewis base. The precipitate from the above reaction is then reduced in H2 at a temperature below 750 DEG C. to give ceramic grade UO2.
Click to expand...
What's your point?
 
The problem with Trump is that he's the proverbial boy who cried wolf. He's such a lying dishonest POS that no one trusts him. And it's not like you can trust Netanyahu either.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
They are. But guess what? No one knows where the enriched uranium is. So the enrichment facility can be destroyed and there still is enough enriched uranium in Iran to create 10 bombs.
Click to expand...
It was stated earlier in the thread that Iran's uranium was at most ~60% pure, well short of bomb grade.
 
theprestige said:
Why is 60% not a problem for you regardless? Are you under the impression that the IAEA approves of that degree of enrichment, for any peaceful application?

What motivates you to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, in questions of excessive uranium enrichment?
Click to expand...
Please note I didn't say it wasn't a problem for me. No, I am not under the impression the IAEA approves, and nor do I. I am not giving Iran the benefit of any doubt. I asked 2 questions I would like to know the answers to, and to get a sense of how confidently we know those answers: What's the scale of Iran's production, i.e. is this a technical breach on a sample size to provoke negotiations or a practical bomb-making amount, and what is the particular significance of 60%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom