Home | I wouldn't tell them anything, you can't frighten these types of religeous nuts. Just go in and do the job. The US knows where most of the nuclear facilities are and probably knows where the leaders sleep. First thing is to take out all of the government leaders in a night strike. Destroy all govenment buildings also. Next is the military airfields and army barracks. After that the nuclear sites. That could take several days, but do the job right. AND LEAVE THE DAMN INFRASTRUCTURE ALONE!
Yeah...and while we're out it lets just take out Chavez and Castro...Chirac...etc...there's a whole lot of folks we don't like - kill em all!Originally Posted by Lazarus
Most nukes are very wasteful and ineficient...though Teller was into some technologies/techniques that were very interesting (but likely had very narrow applications and utility) in the years before his death (and others likely carry on his work - though you'll not likely hear much more about it). Shaped conventional charges - while no where near as powerful as nukes - carry neither the collateral mess or political fallout factor. And they are reletively cheap and easy to apply in great numbers - sufficient for most any concievable application - certainly against any of these Iranian facilities which are large and (while considred hardened, are in fact) quite relatively soft. And you'd likely be quite amazed at advances in these areas that have occured in the last several years. And much has been learned from the intial Iraq campaign. The Iranians have nothing on Sadaam when it came to hardened facilities. (of course that is pretty much entirely past tense...eh eh)
Chavez and Castro...Chirac...etc... hasn't threatened to wipe another country off the map. They aren't working toward nuclear weapons. Iran is and has threatened to wipe Isreal off the map. War is ugly and discusting and usually brings death to many thousands. However, in this instance, not taking action could mean the death of millions or hundreds of millions. If Iran is allowed to continue, what do you think will happen after the first nuke explodes over Tel Aviv? Think about it!
I would suggest that the only way to guarrentee that Iran will not have short term access to nuclear weapons would be to destroy Pakistan and not Iran. Iran is still quite a ways away from any kind of domestic nuclear weapon capability. Much like their bluster regarding Israel there is far more smoke then fire. Granted their leadership is less then ideal - scary even I admit - but I really see it as (potentially) a temporary thing - as are all of these radical attitudes towards Israel. I certainly don't think that we will eliminate the threat or lessen the hatred (against Israel or the US etc) by attacking Iran. Its a very stupid idea.
I keep wondering why people assume that it will take Iran 5 to 10 years to make a nuke. How long did it take the United States with the Manhatten Project? About 3 years from start to finish and the dropping of the bombs on Japan. Iran has not only a head start but also the science already established to work from. I give them 1 to 2 years before the first one explodes. The question is where will it explode?
I've got a buddy that could build you one in a matter of months (maybe even weeks...)....just send enriched uranium (and some other related stuff)...yeah...thats the ticket...somehow your estimate and that of most experts differs a bit....who should we believe?
After the Hiroshima bombing, George Orwell wrote a piece in Tribune that didn't lament the existance nor the use of this horrible new weapon. The only factor Orwell thought worthy of contemplation was, "Just how difficult are these things to make?"
BTW I spent two months in Los Alamos in 2000. You'd think the place would be as tight as Ft. Knox. Not even close. That town is a veritable rumor mill. Nuclear weapons weren't even on the radar screen then. Nanotechnology weapons were the real buzz. Check out this shot of the foyer of the Los Alamos Public Library. I asked the librarian to turn off the overhead lights so I could take this shot. The architect designed the foyer and the stacks to resemble the fuel chamber in a fast breeder reactor. Spooky huh?
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l3...libraryone.jpg
Interesting pic. I've never been inside Los Alamos but I've been to some of the other labs and felt that security was pretty good (and taken very seriously). I'd be surprised if Los Alamos ws any different - particualry in light of the Wen Ho (?) and other such (related) scandals (hard discs missing and such) they have had over the last 10 years...
Nanotechnology weapons - yeah lots of potential (but I worry about them getting out of control/misused in ways that could cause real problems...but what can you do eh?)
A great SciFi book (by a great Sci Fi author) David Bear - called Slant (really part 2 of Queen of Angels - but I read Slant first and it was OK that way) - deals in large part with some very cool nano weapons and other great stuff. Highly recommended (for the futurist).
Nukes aren't that difficult to make - with the right raw materials and percision machinery...so its really pretty hopeles to expect to be able to stop countries like Iran from developing them (in time)...current non-proliferation regiem has clearly failed...(and is a joke)...and again - that we attach so much importance to such weapons (our own and others having them) only adds to the incentive for nations to want them. Considering their great political baggage they really are of limited utility except as a very specialized weapon (for super hard to kill stuff...) - or as a terror weapon. If only nations realized that for the most part aquirring such weapons puts them in greater danger and doesn't do much to make them safer - maybe less nations would pursue them.
Since when it's "WE" Mister? Tell our new member where are you actually from and tell about your country's relationship with the Iran.
hehe indeed i was going to ask the same question,Armenia is Iran's best friend in the region.
hi, i will share some amateur info about it...
i think it's something called (or not called lol) mini nuke. it has 1/15 power of the bomb which dropped to hiroshima.
the First Israel must to blow bunkers on the ground. Bunkers are protecting underground nuclear activities. Each bunker builded is about 25-30 Meters for to prevent. I'm talking about 25 to 30 meters concrete.
Israel will finish the mission at once and it's over. Only options is "succes".
there will be two squadrons. 1 will blow the bunkers, wipe the concrete; otherone will drop the nuclear bomb inside the hole.
It's the only option that Israel could do at once...
and they need bases aroun the Iran. Turkey will be the closest option for IAF
Believe history, and also look at North Korea. I kept hearing the same estimates for North Korea until all of a sudden they had the nuke.who should we believe?
As long as Pakistan has a stable government they won't threaten anyone. Pakistan and India are too busy trying to get along with each other.I would suggest that the only way to guarrentee that Iran will not have short term access to nuclear weapons would be to destroy Pakistan
Efficient deliverable nuclear weapons are in fact devilishly hard to make. Big non deployable inefficient gadgets that require huge amounts of fuel are somewhat less difficult. The challenge is making a weapon that's small enough to be deliverable while at the same time efficient enough to have an effective yield.
Rail type fission weapons are very inefficient by modern standards and countries like North Korea etc can probably make one, they take a very large amount of fuel. This is not only time consuming and expensive but yields a massively large weapon that's nearly impossible to transport; figure 3-5 tons. Small weapons are, well, small - and if you can make one then need to have one with a yield to make it worthwhile. The smallest nuclear weapon ever deployed by the US weighed 55-58lbs and had a yield of about 10-20 T or 0.01-02 Kt all the way up to 1kT. Mounted on a recoiless rifle it had a range of 2.5 miles. There was a specially enhanced version with yields estimated at 250 T or 0.25Kt. but it weighed more. In order to make weapons this small though, or smaller, one would have to fusion boost them - making them very complex beasts that require huge amounts of math and engineering.
In weapons engineering there is a trade off between accuracy and size. The better the accuracy the smaller the bomb. If you can't make an accurate bomb then you have to make a bigger bomb and so the cycle goes on and on. But size and cost have their own cycle. The smaller the more accurate bomb the harder it is to make one.
Actually, Efficient isn't necessary. An exploding nuke over a major Israely city is all they need.
And a simple nuclear weapon is extremely easy to make. Little Boy dropped over Japan was a gun type nuke:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb
The simplest technique for assembling a supercritical mass is to shoot one piece of fissile material as a projectile against a second part as a target, usually called the gun-type method. This is roughly how the "Little Boy" weapon which was detonated over Hiroshima worked.
Although in Little Boy 60 kg of 80% grade U-235 was used (hence 48 kg), the minimum is approximately 20 to 25 kg, versus 15 kg for the implosion method.
As for delivery of a 60 kg weapon:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab-3.htm
The Iranian Shahab-3 is a single-stage, liquid-fueled, road-mobile, medium-range ballistic missile with a range of approximately 800 miles (1,280 km). A MRBM variant, sometimes called Shahab-4, has a range of more than 1,200 miles (1,930 km).
Shahab-3 is capable of carrying a 1,000-760 kilogram warhead. Fewer than 20 launchers were deployed as of March 2006, according to Air Force Intelligence. The variant was not deployed at the time.
Shahab-3 means Meteor-3 or Shooting Star-3 in Farsi [alternatively designated Zelzal (Earthquake)] is derivative from the 1,300-1,500 kilometer range North Korean No-dong missile.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks