Iran Backing away from nuclear deal

Jerry J. Fortin · December 9, 2009

You don't think the Iranians can do it? Not even with the help of Pakistan, the home of the Muslim bomb?

DogOnPorch · December 9, 2009

You don't think the Iranians can do it? Not even with the help of Pakistan, the home of the Muslim bomb?

Nope.

Jerry J. Fortin · December 9, 2009

Nope.

Then you have no worries.

DogOnPorch · December 9, 2009

Then you have no worries.

How do you figure that I have no worries?

DogOnPorch · December 9, 2009

Oh I think I see the problem...are you unaware that there are two basic forms of fission weapons?

Alex Moore · December 9, 2009

I'm well aware of the history of the area as well as who The Shah was and what the Islamic Revolution was. As for mini skirts, they were common throughout the Middle East in the 60s-70s, not just Iran.

so then you call an imposed dictatorship a great alliance? I'm a little confused by this.

as for the miniskirts I've not been alive long enough to comment on their history. but given the sexually repressive nature of Islam I have trouble believe that they where common during the 60-70s. especially since the shah's attempts to westernize Iran was a factor in the Islamic revolution

Alex Moore · December 9, 2009

You don't think the Iranians can do it? Not even with the help of Pakistan, the home of the Muslim bomb?

As much as i believe the Iranians can (will if allowed to) do it. Pakistan isn't going to help them.

DogOnPorch · December 9, 2009

so then you call an imposed dictatorship a great alliance? I'm a little confused by this.

as for the miniskirts I've not been alive long enough to comment on their history. but given the sexually repressive nature of Islam I have trouble believe that they where common during the 60-70s. especially since the shah's attempts to westernize Iran was a factor in the Islamic revolution

The Shah...as much as you might dislike him without knowing much about him...was big on women's rights.

Re: Mini skirts...because you can't imagine it...it must be impossible.

http://bahrein.blogspot.com/2004/12/miniskirt-in-middle-east.html

http://ikbis.com/triplem/shot/78949

DogOnPorch · December 9, 2009

As much as i believe the Iranians can (will if allowed to) do it. Pakistan isn't going to help them.

That's immaterial...Pakistan doesn't have the smarts for a plutonium weapon or a fusion weapon, either. Their nuclear weapons are rather small and primitive next to say India's. Shot-plug type fission weapons similar to Little Boy.

Jerry J. Fortin · December 10, 2009

That's immaterial...Pakistan doesn't have the smarts for a plutonium weapon or a fusion weapon, either. Their nuclear weapons are rather small and primitive next to say India's. Shot-plug type fission weapons similar to Little Boy.

Boom is still boom. Nuclear weapons whether fission or fusion make a large mess. If the size of the hole in the ground is the concern, then simply do an air explosion like the Americans did in Japan. Aside from that the blast radius just kills more people. As you are aware tens of thousands were killed in Japan. If the goal is to kill hundreds of thousands then by all means use a bigger bomb. I would suggest that even a small nuke is a bad nuke. A small nuke blast is more than enough to cause all kinds of problems don't you think?

Wild Bill · December 10, 2009

so then you call an imposed dictatorship a great alliance? I'm a little confused by this.

as for the miniskirts I've not been alive long enough to comment on their history. but given the sexually repressive nature of Islam I have trouble believe that they where common during the 60-70s. especially since the shah's attempts to westernize Iran was a factor in the Islamic revolution

Dog on Porch has already pointed out that the Shah was big on women's rights but I thought you might not also be aware that the mini-skirt is older than the Burkha! There is no record of any women wearing the full burkha at any time before the mid-70's! So it is NOT a historic Islamic custom but merely something a few Islamic misogynists dreamed up on their own to subjugate women in just the last few decades.

DogOnPorch · December 10, 2009

Boom is still boom. Nuclear weapons whether fission or fusion make a large mess. If the size of the hole in the ground is the concern, then simply do an air explosion like the Americans did in Japan. Aside from that the blast radius just kills more people. As you are aware tens of thousands were killed in Japan. If the goal is to kill hundreds of thousands then by all means use a bigger bomb. I would suggest that even a small nuke is a bad nuke. A small nuke blast is more than enough to cause all kinds of problems don't you think?

Layered/staged fusion weapons (H-Bombs) are very high tech and only a few nations have the ability to make them. Re: a boom is still a boom...sure...but check this out.

http://www.imagepoop.com/image/186/Mushroom-Cloud-Chart.html

Jerry J. Fortin · December 10, 2009

Layered/staged fusion weapons (H-Bombs) are very high tech and only a few nations have the ability to make them. Re: a boom is still a boom...sure...but check this out.

http://www.imagepoop.com/image/186/Mushroom-Cloud-Chart.html

The difference is substantial to be sure, but the effects are the same only more wide spread. Boom is boom! A pellet gun can kill you as dead as a 45, it just takes longer. Dead is dead, you don't walk away. So from my view, a bomb that destroys New York is just as tragic as a bomb that blows up Barrhead, people die either way.

DogOnPorch · December 10, 2009

The difference is substantial to be sure, but the effects are the same only more wide spread. Boom is boom! A pellet gun can kill you as dead as a 45, it just takes longer. Dead is dead, you don't walk away. So from my view, a bomb that destroys New York is just as tragic as a bomb that blows up Barrhead, people die either way.

The 'beauty' of modern thermonuclear weapons is that what took the size of a large garage to contain with Ivy Mike and Castle Bravo has been reduced to a mere fraction of that size for use ontop of ICBMs or inside bombers, cruise missiles, etc. The B-61 for example is tiny (size-wise) variable-yield thermonuclear device that weighs in at 320kg for the basic model.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html

Iran would have trouble reducing anything to that size...but I think 500-750kg fission weapon of the Little Boy variety isn't out of the question. Something they could stick on their Safir once they have better SRB technology. A 15-30kt yield being quite achievable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safir_(rocket)

During the Cold War, H-Bombs had more of a use than they do today as they were the only weapon likely to touch a hardened missile silo...and you wanted to be sure if you were in the business of First Strike. No survivors...or you get it back in spades.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asAkcbI2nt4

Ivy Mike: Nov 1st, 1952

Edited December 10, 2009 by DogOnPorch

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2009

The B-61 for example is tiny (size-wise) variable-yield thermonuclear device that weighs in at 320kg for the basic model.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B61.html

Cool..we use to call these "Dial-A-Nuke".

During the Cold War, H-Bombs had more of a use than they do today as they were the only weapon likely to touch a hardened missile silo...and you wanted to be sure if you were in the business of First Strike. No survivors...or you get it back in spades.

CEPs (accuracies) are much better today....so much so...some brainiac wanted to used SLBMs for conventional HE warheads as part of the load mix. It would work....but that's a very expensive way to get very long range strike capability.

M.Dancer · December 10, 2009

It would work....but that's a very expensive way to get very long range strike capability.

But the psychological effect would be priceless.

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2009

But the psychological effect would be priceless.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

DogOnPorch · December 10, 2009

Cool..we use to call these "Dial-A-Nuke".

CEPs (accuracies) are much better today....so much so...some brainiac wanted to used SLBMs for conventional HE warheads as part of the load mix. It would work....but that's a very expensive way to get very long range strike capability.

That's a 'conventional' SCUD for you. Giant missile to deliver a relatively small charge of HE. During Gulf War 1 I thought Saddam was nuts to fire SCUDs that WEREN'T equipped w/ VX...like what's the point? To see if Israel really does have an H-Bomb that can hit Iraq? Lucky for Saddam and company...Israel was convinced to stand-down and we never did find out the answer to that nasty question.

The B-61 has been around since 1963...so it must be a keeper. Its lay-down ability combined with its hefty yield (or not...dial-a-nuke as you say) make every US aircraft with a bomb pylon a potential nuclear bomber.

ICBM (et al) accuracies have indeed improved many many fold....there was a time when they weren't totally certain how trajectories over the North Pole would be affected re: the Earth's rotation. Thus bigger weapons like the W-59 (nice pic) which would have left a huge megatonne crater where the target generally was...or maybe it was over there...or there...?

:lol:

DogOnPorch · December 10, 2009

I might add that fission weapons have an apparent maximum yield while staged fusion weapons have potentially an unlimited yield. Ivy King, I believe was the largest fission explosion...but maybe Joe-4 qualifies as it wasn't a true Teller-Ulam device.

Ivy-King

The Tsar Bomb was, of course, the biggest boy on the block...but we all know the difficulties that arise from such a massive (50-100Mt) weapon.

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2009

ICBM (et al) accuracies have indeed improved many many fold....there was a time when they weren't totally certain how trajectories over the North Pole would be affected re: the Earth's rotation.

There was a time when the actual distances and elevations for potential targets were not accurately known [e.g. the true distance from London to Moscow] for the entire (irregular) globe. In several ways our geography and navigation had to catch up to the ability to nuke each other at long range. Nixon's crew fixed that...including local weather at the target.

DogOnPorch · December 10, 2009

Big Bird...Keyhole...the first 'Google Maps'.

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2009

Big Bird...Keyhole...the first 'Google Maps'.

Cover story was....we're going to the Moon!

DogOnPorch · December 10, 2009

Cover story was....we're going to the Moon!

There you go...giving the Moon Hoaxers ammo.

:lol:

Gotta wonder what they have up there now seeing Keyhole could read your shoe size from orbit.

bush_cheney2004 · December 10, 2009

...Gotta wonder what they have up there now seeing Keyhole could read your shoe size from orbit.

That's why underground complex and bunker building is such good business these days, especially in Iran! :lol:

ZenOps · December 10, 2009

Iran does not have the capability to do Plutonium period.

If they are using centrifuges for refinement its Uranium for sure, any Plutonium is purely accidental. However, they do have the ability to do fusion induced fission. Heavy water is readily available everywhere, college science students can get the stuff. I'm actually somewhat suprised that North Korea did not try a 30% enhanced test (or maybe they did)