US vs Iran

drummindiver · February 15, 2017

1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

Yes, it has a similar half-life. Iodine-131 is the other evil isotope made in huge quantities, but it has a much shorter half-life. Days...

And we used to blow these things-off in the open on the surface willingly...lol.

We were just crazy kids then.....

DogOnPorch · February 15, 2017

Just now, drummindiver said:

We were just crazy kids then.....

Yes...lol...some BIG errors in the 50s-60s re: both A & H-Bombs. There's no real upper limit to a fusion boosted explosion's yield. A-Bombs top out at around 800kt. Tewa was an example of a clean test blast...as such. Mostly fusion.

Iran is playing the long game re: the Bomb...and why not? Especially if the West is going to give out cash. A-Bombs aren't that big an engineering feat. One just needs the right amount of fissile goodies (as opposed to mere fissionable) and a plan for you to not be around when critical mass is achieved. Keep those centrifuges spinning.

?Impact · February 15, 2017

19 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

A-Bombs aren't that big an engineering feat. One just needs the right amount of fissile goodies (as opposed to mere fissionable) and a plan for you to not be around when critical mass is achieved.

gun or implosion? Two very different A-bomb implementations, and quite different from an engineering standpoint.

DogOnPorch · February 15, 2017

6 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

gun or implosion? Two very different A-bomb implementations, and quite different from an engineering standpoint.

Gun, of course.

?Impact · February 15, 2017

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Gun, of course.

Lots of spinning to achieve that. North Korea's first two tests were plutonium, which indicates implosion due to the Pu-240 pre-detination problem.

DogOnPorch · February 15, 2017

Just now, ?Impact said:

Lots of spinning to achieve that. North Korea's first two tests were plutonium, which indicates implosion due to the Pu-240 pre-detination problem.

Gun is simpler but much less efficient. Gun types are also not as easy to put atop a missile as a warhead.

Still...bye bye Hiroshima. The rewards are evident. But who needs an ICBM when a tramp freighter sitting off Tel Aviv can do the deed? In that sense, I'd worry about Iran making a 'wet' thermonuclear device like Ivy Mike. Probably well within their science...

?Impact · February 15, 2017

10 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

a 'wet' thermonuclear device like Ivy Mike

I'm not sure I follow. From a destructive standpoint, there would be significant difference of an A-bomb version there. I don't know enough about Israel geography to guess how far inland and what damage it could cause. If you are talking about fallout, then I'm not sure what political objective it would accomplish.

CITIZEN_2015 · February 15, 2017

A history lesson on Iran vs US

http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/35281450-78/u.s.-needs-to-own-history-with-iran.csp

With President Trump and the neocon Democrats talking more about military action against Iran, a little history lesson is in order:

In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s democratically elected prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed the shah of Iran, a brutal dictator who ruled with an iron fist until 1979, when he was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution and its leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Unhappy at the removal of “our” dictator, the U.S. began heavily arming Saddam Hussein of Iraq, who waged a brutal war against Iran — including extensive use of chemical weapons — from 1980 to 1988.

Any discussion of Iran should be in he context of the above history. In particular, we need to concede that the people of Iran are quite justified in not having a high opinion of U.S. foreign policy in their region. I won’t claim that throughout the history cited above, Iran has behaved in exemplary fashion, but for the U.S. to claim that Iran is “destabilizing the region” after what the U.S. has done to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., is a towering example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Edited February 15, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

DogOnPorch · February 15, 2017

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

I'm not sure I follow. From a destructive standpoint, there would be significant difference of an A-bomb version there. I don't know enough about Israel geography to guess how far inland and what damage it could cause. If you are talking about fallout, then I'm not sure what political objective it would accomplish.

Ivy Mike was a ten megaton liquid deuterium boosted test blast. But, it was the size of a house. So an Iranian sponsored terrorist would need a freighter or something similar.

10 megatons in HUGE. 'Super-bomb'. Nuances like terrain getting in the way are less of a factor. The arfing fireball is that big.

Something smaller would be more likely...say one megaton to make it "worth it". Wind/weather would matter...towards the infidel, if possible.

But, realistically for Iran, it makes much more sense to pursue the 20 kt-ish plutonium A-Bomb road as it makes for a much lighter weapon overall. No matter issues with fizzles. Especially if putting one atop a missile is the goal...and let's not be coy. That's the plan.

Bonam · February 16, 2017

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

In that sense, I'd worry about Iran making a 'wet' thermonuclear device like Ivy Mike. Probably well within their science...

Getting the physics right for even a wet thermonuclear device is a heck of a lot more complex than a simple fission device. Any moderately bright physics grad student can figure out how to make a gun-type fission bomb, given they have the right amount of plutonium or enriched uranium available. On the other hand, the information necessary to get the thermonuclear device to work is not readily available and would take a lot of science and experimentation to get it right.

DogOnPorch · February 16, 2017

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

Getting the physics right for even a wet thermonuclear device is a heck of a lot more complex than a simple fission device. Any moderately bright physics grad student can figure out how to make a gun-type fission bomb, given they have the right amount of plutonium or enriched uranium available. On the other hand, the information necessary to get the thermonuclear device to work is not readily available and would take a lot of science and experimentation to get it right.

AQ Khan apparently sold the 'secret' of the two point implosion method with beryllium tamper to anyone willing to pay the price. Iran is a suspected buyer. Plus, North Korea is helping. Who knows what's possible?

Mike was a long plutonium rod in a tank of deuterium with a heavily reflected primary to crush it and get it all going. I guess you wouldn't want a dud...lol. A tad expensive.

herples · February 16, 2017

Iran won't bomb Israel because that won't get it anywhere in terms of support or benefits other than being a smoldering crater. Israel doesn't believe Iran will bomb it but it knows that an Iran back on it's feet economically would make it a more stronger force in the region.

SpankyMcFarland · February 16, 2017

22 hours ago, drummindiver said:

Israel is not going to use nukes on a reckless way. Iran sure as hell would.

That's the truth.

How do you know that? Israel hasn't even admitted it has nuclear weapons. Why should an enemy of Israel believe anything it says on the subject?

It's what you believe, not necessarily the truth at all.

bush_cheney2004 · February 16, 2017

If Iran is the enemy, then bomb Iran. Canada has certainly bombed other nations for far less (Iraq, Serbia, Libya, etc.)

GostHacked · February 16, 2017

19 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Nuclear weapons aren't just bigger bombs.

If Israel or the USA gets nuked by Iran, you get a dose of Strontium-90. No matter where you hide.

When Israel comes clean with it's own nuclear weapons arsenal, then they can bitch about Iran for not complying. Israel has not evens stepped up to the plate, just like India, both are not part of the NPT.

DogOnPorch · February 16, 2017

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

When Israel comes clean with it's own nuclear weapons arsenal, then they can bitch about Iran for not complying. Israel has not evens stepped up to the plate, just like India, both are not part of the NPT.

I think it is more than just Israel that is concerned over nuclear proliferation. Call me MAD.

GostHacked · February 16, 2017

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

I think it is more than just Israel that is concerned over nuclear proliferation. Call me MAD.

I'd be more concerned about the nukes we don't know that Israel possesses. Call me crazy. When they coming clean with that?

DogOnPorch · February 16, 2017

Just now, GostHacked said:

I'd be more concerned about the nukes we don't know that Israel possesses. Call me crazy. When they coming clean with that?

Don't know and don't care. Israel doesn't hold Death to Iran rallies.

Bonam · February 16, 2017

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

When Israel comes clean with it's own nuclear weapons arsenal, then they can bitch about Iran for not complying. Israel has not evens stepped up to the plate, just like India, both are not part of the NPT.

If Israel has nuclear weapons, it's supposedly had them for ~50 years. Despite being attacked multiple times in that time period, it has never used them or even threatened to use them. If Israel has nukes, it has demonstrated that it can be trusted with them no less than any other country.

kactus · February 16, 2017

8 minutes ago, Bonam said:

If Israel has nuclear weapons, it's supposedly had them for ~50 years. Despite being attacked multiple times in that time period, it has never used them or even threatened to use them. If Israel has nukes, it has demonstrated that it can be trusted with them no less than any other country.

The premise of this argument that I do agree with is this.

People are speculating that Iran (at the moment with no nuclear weapon) will attack Israel that has 200+ nuclear warheads. This speculation is baseless since these two countries have never directly attacked each other in the past. Benjamin Netanyahu has clearly threatened Iran with an attack. Iran will not attack if unprovoked and there is no basis for Iran to attack the US except that it is sold as project fear....

bush_cheney2004 · February 16, 2017

Of course....throngs of Iranians screaming "Death to America !!" is an Islamic expression of love and respect. Stupid westerners !

GostHacked · February 16, 2017

2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Don't know and don't care. Israel doesn't hold Death to Iran rallies.

Well not publicly anyways.

GostHacked · February 16, 2017

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Of course....throngs of Iranians screaming "Death to America !!" is an Islamic expression of love and respect. Stupid westerners !

When you mess with another nation and they bitch back at you, I don't want to hear complaints about Canada.

DogOnPorch · February 16, 2017

54 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Well not publicly anyways.

I guess you're forced to make things up.

SpankyMcFarland · February 16, 2017

3 hours ago, Bonam said:

If Israel has nuclear weapons, it's supposedly had them for ~50 years. Despite being attacked multiple times in that time period, it has never used them or even threatened to use them. If Israel has nukes, it has demonstrated that it can be trusted with them no less than any other country.

There is no 'supposedly' and 'if' about it. The nukes are real.

It has been reported that there was a debate in the leadership about using them in 1973. Israel's security has not been seriously threatened since.

The issue of what constitutes a threat is a complex one. There are explicit threats and implicit ones. Given that Israel has a policy of nuclear ambiguity that may have been agreed with the US, it is unable to issue explicit threats.

By the same token, every country but one has shown the same restraint.

Edited February 16, 2017 by SpankyMcFarland