Israel vs. Iran (gas price, rating, financial, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Iran has no nuclear weapons program nor does it have nuclear weapons, but assuming for a moment that it did, the maximum yield would only be 60 kt.
Why? Because Iran has only uranium and no means of producing plutonium (or separating plutonium) and so any nuclear device Iran may have could only be uranium-based.
There are no missiles on Planet Earth capable of delivering a 60 kt uranium-based warhead. Even the US couldn't do that. Only the Russians have an aircraft capable of delivering a warhead that freaking humongous.
It took the US 6 months to slap together a single-gun uranium warhead. It took South Africa and Pakistan about 4 months.
Iran has no capability.
You sound like you have at least some cursory knowledge of nuclear arms development, so I have a question for you. What, besides Iran's word, makes you confident that they are telling the truth about not having a program?
If we assume that they do indeed have a program, producing a small fission device is a reasonable goal for them. They have uranium 238 for their energy program. So how would we know they aren't using gas centrifuges to isolate the isotope U-235? Do we even have any idea how much uranium ore they have totally?
I believe they have the capability of delivering a super critical mass of U-235 to Israel. It would be a bit over 50 lbs not including other items such as a tamper. By missile? No. But by sending a fleet of bombers (basically their entire air force) they could have enough decoys and defenders to make it there in a surprise attack. However, this model isn't even how they would strike. Most likely 3rd parties would "steal" some nukes from Iran and then ship them via container ship. Does Israel scan every shipment for radiation? I know the US doesn't....
I'm not saying this is or is not a reason for a preemptive strike. I'm not even arguing that Iran has plans to follow through with this (it would be suicide). I want to know where your confidence comes from. I've been researching the fission bomb development process, and have been surprised at the relative ease for a nation with minimal resources to produce one.
"Is not that way publicly. You have no idea what is said privately, or behind closed doors, or during military exercises."
Ignoring my point, or are you missing it? Iran is very publicly, very vehemently, and disgustingly taunting Israel, and that's putting it mildly. Grasping for straws here to even bother to say this, in this context. (no offense, but like duhh....what you say applies to all humans in every situation)
Israel is NOT taunting or working to provoke Iran. Iran is, and they are nutty enough, in fact that leader of theirs, so I have read in many places, is a religious nut that wants the last war of the world so that his savior will come to earth, and he is determined to annhialate Israel, NO, not "just the govt." He and many others hate the nation existing and we all know that it requires citizens of which a govt. is needed to administer, etc.
What, besides Iran's word, makes you confident that they are telling the truth about not having a program?
There are certain things that go with nuclear weapons. It's something that just cannot be helped, and Iran has none of those things. I'm not just speculating. I read intensively on it, and have seen satellite photos and have access to real time satellite (I'm no longer affiliated with the University of Cincinnati, but I still have colleagues there and Iran is a hot issue).
I said the same about Iraq.
There's a whole infrastructure associated with nuclear weapons, and it is more than just research and development, assembly, etc, it also encompasses, storage, maintenance, transportation, communications and security, and Iran has none of it (and neither did Iraq).
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
If we assume that they do indeed have a program, producing a small fission device is a reasonable goal for them.
That would be true of any country that had access to fissile materials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
They have uranium 238 for their energy program. So how would we know they aren't using gas centrifuges to isolate the isotope U-235?
Well, they are doing exactly that.
The dual-reactors at Bushwher that were built by Siemens use enriched U235. I am not familiar with that specific reactor design, but I would venture to guess they need to enrich the ore to about 12%-15% U235.
To have any hope of building an operating nuclear device that is deliverable by missile or aircraft, it would need to be enriched to at least 90%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
Do we even have any idea how much uranium ore they have totally?
Sure, they are sitting on a natural deposit of uranium ore, one of many in the world. They have all the uranium ore they need to operate their nuclear reactors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
I believe they have the capability of delivering a super critical mass of U-235 to Israel. It would be a bit over 50 lbs not including other items such as a tamper.
And that would be about 0.1 kt.
The US had a weapon like that. It was an 8"/203 mm AFAP. We called them RAPs (Rocket Assisted Projectiles). It was 8" (obviously) by 14" and weighed about 75 pounds or so. You mate the warhead to the rocket, stuff it into the breech, use a special propellant charge that kicks the whole thing out of the tube and ignites the fuel in the rocket motor and away it goes.
Then you destroy the gun. If the hydraulic brakes aren't FUBAR then either the tube is warped or the rifling is ripped out, so it's a one-shot deal and the gun is useless after that.
In theory, Iran could built a 20 kt device and deliver it with their H-6 (modified Tu-16), escorted by F-14s Tomcats, F-4 Phantom IIs or F-5s. An Su-24D would have the combat radius too carry one too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
By missile? No.
That would be rather stupid.
The Iranians might be dumb, but they aren't stupid and certainly aren't suicidal (Shi'a suicide bomber is an oxymoron but Sunni suicide bomber is not).
Everyone knows Israel has variable yield warheads in the 80-100 kt range, plus 400 kt warheads, and a variety of smaller tactical weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if they still had multiple yield fission-fusion-fission warheads.
In a nuclear conflict, you need to be able to match your opponent closely kiloton to kiloton.
Iran cannot do that, and it would be years (meaning decades) before that was even possible. Iran is not going to deliver a few low yield devices only to get hammered with a few thousand kilotons of weapons in retaliation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
But by sending a fleet of bombers (basically their entire air force) they could have enough decoys and defenders to make it there in a surprise attack. However, this model isn't even how they would strike. Most likely 3rd parties would "steal" some nukes from Iran and then ship them via container ship. Does Israel scan every shipment for radiation? I know the US doesn't....
Why do that when you can hand carry a dozen or so 8" x 14" 0.1 kt device across the border?
The US had a back-pack/suitcase device that was just a fraction bigger, but it was a multiple yield (0.01 kt , 0.1 kt and 1 kt) and made of plutonium, not uranium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by decafdave
I've been researching the fission bomb development process, and have been surprised at the relative ease for a nation with minimal resources to produce one.
You're right, it is easy, but that assumes they would be using a gun or double-gun device (the easiest). Those are good for artillery fired weapons and also [gravity] bombs, but not so good for missile artillery.
For missiles, you really need to use a spherical implosion design, and when your sole fissile material is U235, it gets real big and bulky and heavy real fast. It'd almost be like sticking an Olympic-sized swimming pool on top of a missile.
And you have to test it. You don't have a choice. That's the only way you know it works. Look at North Korea. That was about 1 kt, so figure 4.5 to 5 kg of weapons grade plutonium in a spherical implosion design, and it worked.
Pakistan is in the same position Iran is in. India has both uranium and plutonium based weapons, but Pakistan only has uranium based weapons. Pakistan did test-detonate a weapon. What design? I don't know. I'm inclined to believe they test-detonated one just to prove they had nuclear weapons, and not to test a particular design, so it was probably a gun system.
By the way, they use a component system, and the components are stored at different facilities, so it is not possible to access a single facility and obtain a warhead. You'd have to access two separate facilities, and not only that, but the components are uniquely matched, so you have to grab two specific components in order to get one functioning weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnysee
Ignoring my point, or are you missing it? Iran is very publicly, very vehemently, and disgustingly taunting Israel, and that's putting it mildly.
You have it backwards.
Israel has been threatening to attack Iran. What did President Khatami do? He did and said nothing, primarily because he and Bush were having some decent dialog, then Bush snubbed Khatami repeatedly in the US media and international media, and the result was that President Khatami was not re-elected.
Why was Khatami not re-elected? Because Bush snubbed him and made him look weak in the US and international media eyes of the Iranian people.
Who was elected instead of Khatami?
Ahmadinejad was elected. And then Ahmadinejad was re-elected for his 2nd and Final Term (there is a 2 term limitation), because he appeared to be strong in the eyes of the Iranian people and stand up the insults delivered by Bush and the Israelis.
So, yes, Iran, specifically made some comments in response to Israel's constant threats of attack on Iran.
If you keep slapping a dog, it will eventually yelp, and then it will eventually bite you, and you cannot complain when it does.
Israel kept slapping Iran, and Ahmadinejad yelped.
Do you want Israel to keep slapping Iran?
That's pretty stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunnysee
Israel is NOT taunting or working to provoke Iran.
Obviously you drank the Kool-Aid. A threat to attack Iran is both taunting and provoking, and Israel had been doing that since before Ahmadinejad was elected and before Ahmadinejad threatened the Israeli government.
This smells a lot like the Cuban Missile Crisis where everyone totally ignores the fact that the US threatened the whole of Eastern Europe and Russia with its deployment of Jupiter missiles to Italy and Turkey, which is the sole reason Russia deployed weapons to Cuba -- to counter the US deployment of missiles.
There are certain things that go with nuclear weapons. It's something that just cannot be helped, and Iran has none of those things. I'm not just speculating. I read intensively on it, and have seen satellite photos and have access to real time satellite (I'm no longer affiliated with the University of Cincinnati, but I still have colleagues there and Iran is a hot issue).
I said the same about Iraq.
There's a whole infrastructure associated with nuclear weapons, and it is more than just research and development, assembly, etc, it also encompasses, storage, maintenance, transportation, communications and security, and Iran has none of it (and neither did Iraq).
That would be true of any country that had access to fissile materials.
Well, they are doing exactly that.
The dual-reactors at Bushwher that were built by Siemens use enriched U235. I am not familiar with that specific reactor design, but I would venture to guess they need to enrich the ore to about 12%-15% U235.
To have any hope of building an operating nuclear device that is deliverable by missile or aircraft, it would need to be enriched to at least 90%.
Sure, they are sitting on a natural deposit of uranium ore, one of many in the world. They have all the uranium ore they need to operate their nuclear reactors.
And that would be about 0.1 kt.
The US had a weapon like that. It was an 8"/203 mm AFAP. We called them RAPs (Rocket Assisted Projectiles). It was 8" (obviously) by 14" and weighed about 75 pounds or so. You mate the warhead to the rocket, stuff it into the breech, use a special propellant charge that kicks the whole thing out of the tube and ignites the fuel in the rocket motor and away it goes.
Then you destroy the gun. If the hydraulic brakes aren't FUBAR then either the tube is warped or the rifling is ripped out, so it's a one-shot deal and the gun is useless after that.
In theory, Iran could built a 20 kt device and deliver it with their H-6 (modified Tu-16), escorted by F-14s Tomcats, F-4 Phantom IIs or F-5s. An Su-24D would have the combat radius too carry one too.
That would be rather stupid.
The Iranians might be dumb, but they aren't stupid and certainly aren't suicidal (Shi'a suicide bomber is an oxymoron but Sunni suicide bomber is not).
Everyone knows Israel has variable yield warheads in the 80-100 kt range, plus 400 kt warheads, and a variety of smaller tactical weapons. I wouldn't be surprised if they still had multiple yield fission-fusion-fission warheads.
In a nuclear conflict, you need to be able to match your opponent closely kiloton to kiloton.
Iran cannot do that, and it would be years (meaning decades) before that was even possible. Iran is not going to deliver a few low yield devices only to get hammered with a few thousand kilotons of weapons in retaliation.
Why do that when you can hand carry a dozen or so 8" x 14" 0.1 kt device across the border?
The US had a back-pack/suitcase device that was just a fraction bigger, but it was a multiple yield (0.01 kt , 0.1 kt and 1 kt) and made of plutonium, not uranium.
You're right, it is easy, but that assumes they would be using a gun or double-gun device (the easiest). Those are good for artillery fired weapons and also [gravity] bombs, but not so good for missile artillery.
For missiles, you really need to use a spherical implosion design, and when your sole fissile material is U235, it gets real big and bulky and heavy real fast. It'd almost be like sticking an Olympic-sized swimming pool on top of a missile.
And you have to test it. You don't have a choice. That's the only way you know it works. Look at North Korea. That was about 1 kt, so figure 4.5 to 5 kg of weapons grade plutonium in a spherical implosion design, and it worked.
Pakistan is in the same position Iran is in. India has both uranium and plutonium based weapons, but Pakistan only has uranium based weapons. Pakistan did test-detonate a weapon. What design? I don't know. I'm inclined to believe they test-detonated one just to prove they had nuclear weapons, and not to test a particular design, so it was probably a gun system.
By the way, they use a component system, and the components are stored at different facilities, so it is not possible to access a single facility and obtain a warhead. You'd have to access two separate facilities, and not only that, but the components are uniquely matched, so you have to grab two specific components in order to get one functioning weapon.
You have it backwards.
Israel has been threatening to attack Iran. What did President Khatami do? He did and said nothing, primarily because he and Bush were having some decent dialog, then Bush snubbed Khatami repeatedly in the US media and international media, and the result was that President Khatami was not re-elected.
Why was Khatami not re-elected? Because Bush snubbed him and made him look weak in the US and international media eyes of the Iranian people.
Who was elected instead of Khatami?
Ahmadinejad was elected. And then Ahmadinejad was re-elected for his 2nd and Final Term (there is a 2 term limitation), because he appeared to be strong in the eyes of the Iranian people and stand up the insults delivered by Bush and the Israelis.
So, yes, Iran, specifically made some comments in response to Israel's constant threats of attack on Iran.
If you keep slapping a dog, it will eventually yelp, and then it will eventually bite you, and you cannot complain when it does.
Israel kept slapping Iran, and Ahmadinejad yelped.
Do you want Israel to keep slapping Iran?
That's pretty stupid.
Obviously you drank the Kool-Aid. A threat to attack Iran is both taunting and provoking, and Israel had been doing that since before Ahmadinejad was elected and before Ahmadinejad threatened the Israeli government.
This smells a lot like the Cuban Missile Crisis where everyone totally ignores the fact that the US threatened the whole of Eastern Europe and Russia with its deployment of Jupiter missiles to Italy and Turkey, which is the sole reason Russia deployed weapons to Cuba -- to counter the US deployment of missiles.
and it was solved like this:
After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in southern Italy and in Turkey, the latter on the border of the Soviet Union, in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba
At 9:00 am EDT, on October 28, a new message from Khrushchev was broadcast on Radio Moscow. Khrushchev stated that, "the Soviet government, in addition to previously issued instructions on the cessation of further work at the building sites for the weapons, has issued a new order on the dismantling of the weapons which you describe as 'offensive' and their crating and return to the Soviet Union." (end)
we removed our threat and they removed their threat.
it's not that hard to achieve peace if you actually want it.
After much deliberation between the Soviet Union and Kennedy's cabinet, Kennedy secretly agreed to remove all missiles set in southern Italy and in Turkey, the latter on the border of the Soviet Union, in exchange for Khrushchev removing all missiles in Cuba
At 9:00 am EDT, on October 28, a new message from Khrushchev was broadcast on Radio Moscow. Khrushchev stated that, "the Soviet government, in addition to previously issued instructions on the cessation of further work at the building sites for the weapons, has issued a new order on the dismantling of the weapons which you describe as 'offensive' and their crating and return to the Soviet Union."
we removed our threat and they removed their threat.
it's not that hard to achieve peace if you actually want it.
I believe the situation here is a little more difficult/complex to solve.
I believe the situation here is a little more difficult/complex to solve.
that was a big threat in its time, with the same type of propaganda.
i believe they are trying to make it difficult and, of course, it is americans who will suffer at the gas pumps.
maybe we should be focused on OUR economy. it would be more helpful for us to NOT have rising gas prices, although i did see an interesting report that saudi arabia needs oil prices at a certain level to "keep peace" at home. that might be hard to do in a worldwide recession unless you have conflict.
I think we as Americans have more of a "beef" against Iran than Israel.
Let us not forget the Ayatollah's revolution where our embassy was attacked, occupied and destroyed and American citizens were taken hostage. From my point of view, the Iranians got off scott-free after committing this crime against the American people.
The underlying dynamic is to continue the "Forever War" to keep borrowed money flowing to the most acceptable form of industrial welfare ever created. Then there is the political control gained by keeping your people too frightened to think. This helps would be autocrats in Israel, Iran and the US. The biggest beneficiary of this phony war between Israel and Iran is the Saudi Royal family that still operates a very efficient tyranny dedicated to looting tar oil wealth of their country for their own pockets. They buy permission by funding the arch conservative Whaddist (sp?) Muslims to the detriment of themselves and the world.
1) Never heard Israel "barking about invading" Iran. Apparently we listen to different news programs.
2) Of course Israel would prefer the US and Nato to pick up the heavy lifting. The superpowers have the military capabilities and diplomatic advantage. However, if Israel preferred to do it by herself you would accuse them of disproportional aggression and war mongering. As usual, a no win situation with biased people.
3) What "destroy what is left" means?
1) I can tell. And not just now, but every six months or so and for a long time. Heck, even the Russian foreign minister (link posted yesterday) also suggested this observation. So, who got it right? Certainly not you.
2) Of course! But unlike you, I would prefer Israel being more than a Chihuahua and leave my country alone. Let it suffer the consequences, however it might spell. Why must I care?
3) What do you think it means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nafster
Who said I want the USA to come to the rescue????
What said I was speaking for you?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
