Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
Netanyahu says that Iran is at least as big a threat to the Middle East and the rest of the world if they get their nuclear weapon.
|
If.
There isn't a single shred of evidence that Iran has or had a nuclear weapons program.
Even if Iran were to have a nuclear weapons program, it would be strictly uranium-based nuclear weapons, since Iran has no means of producing plutonium. Uranium-based nuclear weapons are limited to a maximum of 60 kt. That is due to physics. The largest uranium-based weapon ever built and deployed was a 40 kt uranium warhead by France early on in their nuclear weapons program.
There's a reason why Little Boy was a 20 kt single-gun device, and that is because if it had been a spherical implosion device, the B-29 would not have been able to carry it. Think about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
He says that Iran supplies terrorists with weapons and support and would probably do the same with nuclear weapons.
|
Iran supplied the US with weapons. They surely did, on more than one occasion. Most people know of Iran-Contra, but few know of Iran-Kosovo.
Iran also supplied weapons to Pakistan for al-Qaida, er, um, I mean the
mujhadeen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
When will the rest of the world open their eyes as puppies do at a certain time?
|
Because there's nothing to see.
It's about jobs.
If Iran gets the dual-reactors working, then Iran can shut down all of its oil fired electric power plants. What will Iran do then? Shift that oil to petro-chemical production. Petro-chemical refineries are water-intensive, so it's no surprise that one of the dual-reactors is dedicated to powering desalinization plants on the coast.
What happens if Iran (or Libya) gets into petro-chemical production? You'll lose 2 Million jobs over the next 3-5 years.
You have 49 operating oil refineries in the US.
32 of those 49 refineries produce zero gasoline. All they produce is petro-chemicals. They cannot compete globally. If Proctor & Gamble can buy triethanolomine cheaper from another country than from Royal Dutch Shell in Louisiana, what do you think Proctor & Gamble will do?
They'll buy from another country so they can make more profits on Liquid Tide laundry detergent.
Iran would also be able to run electrical power to the Iranian Plateau and irrigate it. That means Iran can produce more food and become a net-exporter, instead of being a net-importer.
It would also reduce Iran's perennial 20+% unemployment rate (and people here think 9% is bad) and create stability by building wealth in the Middle Class.
That is what the US fears most, because the US needs Iran as part of its long-term global geo-political strategy to seize Central Asia and the resource rich eastern Russian republics. If Iran is stable, then the US will have difficulty over-throwing the government or invading the country to effect "regime change."
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
You do know that they promised to send some ships to our coasts, I hope.
|
The US promised for 100 years to build a trans-Andean Highway, Rail Road and Pipeline, but never did (and can't now because BRIC is).
Iran has a brown-water navy with no capital ships. Iran doesn't even have destroyers. The US sank Iran's destroyers during the Iran-Iraq War because the Iraqis were getting beat and retreating and the US feared Iran would actually cross the border into Iraq.
I had a chance to go to Iraq as a military advisor in 1984 during the Iraq-Iran War, but went to Egypt to train troops instead. In hindsight, I probably should have gone to Iraq.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkTheLine
Freedom fighters fighting off invaders are not terrorists. If the U.S. was invaded i would see nothing wrong with doing the same thing.
|
Like Arafat said, "
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.â€
It's all relative. The US classified the MEK as terrorists, because they advocated the overthrow of the Iranian government (at that time that was the Shah) and they had attacked US facilities and killed and injured Americans.
Now the US says the MEK are "freedom fighters."
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahnyc
Maybe Netanyahu should focus on his own nuclear weapons program and his country's history of carrying out an illegal occupation and annexation.
|
The World's Greatest Intelligence Coup is when the Mossad stole deuterium-tritium from the US.
The World's 2nd Greatest Intelligence Coup is when the CIA created a dummy cover company and got the Soviets to sell titanium to it (without which the US would not have been able to build the SR-71 to spy on the Soviets).
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
Are you saying Iran can make suitcase nuclear weapons? Suitcase nuclear weapons have never been produced and are considered theoretical at best.
|
They have been produced.
Both the US and Russians had them.
However, it requires plutonium, and Iran has none.
The smallest uranium weapon you can make is 8" in diameter and 14" in length, weighs about 75 pounds and had a 0.1 kt yield. I used to drag those around all the time. The Russian version was about 1/4" bigger in diameter and weighed a few pounds more. I saw a training warhead during Druzba '86 when I was observing a Soviet field storage site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
If both the United States and the Soviet Union had difficulty producing miniature nuclear weapons with a sufficient yield, what makes you think the Iranians can build them?
|
Neither the US nor Soviets had a problem building them. The US had 226 of them in Germany up until 1987.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
Also, the smallest nuclear device (Davy Crockett) has a yield of around a kiloton which is equivalent to an MOAB.
|
That's a suitcase nuke. The Crockett was a modifed SADM that could be "fired" with a launcher. I think "lobbed" would be more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
Iranian missiles are notoriously inaccurate...
|
With respect to nuclear weapons, that is not a problem. The solution was multi-megaton warheads. As accuracy improved, the warheads got smaller. Now most are in the 400 kt to 750 kt range (and they are cheaper to build and to maintain).
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
... and they don't have a long range bomber to reach Israel.
|
Oh, yes they do. Iran can attack Israel, but Israel cannot attack Iran, unless it strictly uses F-15s. I believe the Israeli Mirage IIIs have the combat radius.
Not I'm referring to combat radius, not range. Combat radius and range aren't the same thing.
The F-16 and the Kfir just don't have the combat radius, and worse than that, the F-16 in a strike load-out is like flying a bus with the Love Boat in tow. First sign of a missile launch they'd have to jettison all of their ordnance and flee, or end up as a small stain on the ground.
The F-16s would have refuel in-flight once inbound and once outbound after dropping their ordnance, unless they intend to run a one-way suicide mission. Israel doesn't have the tanker assets to fuel a strike force to hit even one target, let alone three or four targets.
Just off the top of my head, Iran has at least 51 F-14 Tomcats flying (a US surface group picked up the ECM from 29 flying in formation a few years ago -- probably on FOB rotation).
In addition to that, they have Su-24Ds, Su-22s and F-4Ds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
This isn't even taking into account, the various American military bases throughout the Persian Gulf surrounding Iran that will make it difficult for Iran to even attack Israel.
|
Detection is a problem for both Iran and Israel.
It doesn't really matter. Israel uses Russian military doctrine. Israel never telegraphs its intentions or make public threats in the media, because that eliminates the element of surprise, and the same for the Iranians.
If either intended to attack the other, you wouldn't hear anything about it all until after the fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
Instead of calling us stupid and engaging in ad hominem attacks, why don't you actually address our responses with a well thought out argument. All I see you doing is calling people "mentally ill" or saying "this forum sucks".
|
You're asking for the impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkTheLine
Isreal is one of the top sponsors of terrorist groups such as Mossad.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv
Feel free to post some verifiable evidence of Mossad employing terrorism.
|
I would suggest that you ask Gerald Bull, but since the Mossad assassinated him, that isn't possible.
Instead, I'll refer you to the Mossad's infiltration of a terror group in Egypt and then the Mossad convinced them to attack the US Embassy Mission Cairo. The plot was foiled, so the bombing never took place, but that wasn't for lack of the Mossad trying.
I guess it's a good thing Israel is an "ally" and not an enemy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sterpetron
You tell me what the forum quality is when it attracts posters claiming that suicide bombers targeting children are to be respected as freedom fighters. Quality forums don't tolerate posts like that, they delete them for being the flamebait they are.
|
Uh, no a quality forum would recognize that as part and parcel of conflict.
I would attack the families of military officers, just like the Israelis attacked the families of British military officers. That, plus bombing the British Embassy in Rome and killing civilians was instrumental in getting Britain to back out and wash their hands.
It works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahnyc
No, instead Israel uses U.S-taxpayer paid for fighter jets and cluster-bombs entire neighborhoods causing thousands of deaths in an area they illegally occupy instead.[/
Groups like Hamas sprung up after decades of Israeli terrorism on a subjugated and abused population.
Stop referring to everyone who doesn't support your 100% israeli-love as 'trolls'. You just make yourself look stupid and ignorant.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
The only thing I have been saying is that the Iranians do not have the technical knowledge to miniaturize the weapons...
|
Miniaturized weapons requires plutonium which Iran does not have, plus extensive experience in building weapons systems, and the computer ability to model tests.
In order to miniaturize weapons, you have to first fully understand and be able to properly execute designs for spherical implosion devices. The step after that is to go from spherical implosion to linear implosion.
It also requires the technology, which would be autoclaves and computerized milling machines. Not only does the plutonium have to milled with tolerances of 0.0001 but so does the plastic explosive lenses. Those are actually laminates of slow bring and fast burning plastic explosives milled into shaped charges.
There's also the matter of the controllers that send out the electric current to detonate the plastic explosives. An error of 1 microsecond can result in reduced yield or a dud.
The US had a linear implosion device that was 6" in diameter and 9.5" in length(height), but the yield was only 0.01 kt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
I mean they haven't even tested whatever weapon they have.
|
That would be an absolute necessity for any implosion device. It might not be necessary to test a single-gun or double-gun system. I suppose it depends on the confidence of your design. Pakistan did not test theirs initially.
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak
If the United States and the Soviet Union had difficulty miniaturizing nuclear weapons, what makes you think the Iranians would be so skilled in that if they can't even manufacture a crude nuclear bomb (that is based on 70 year old technology).
|
It would take about 6 months. Iran should have had a simple single-gun device with a 1 kt to 20 kt yield about 8 years ago, assuming they actually had a nuclear weapons program.
It only took South Africa 4 months to slap one together.
10 years from now they'll still be screaming Iran has nukes even though they don't.
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.
we've been in afghanistan for ten, i say" ten long years.. for what i don't know, bin laden??? or could it be they just want to keep close to all of pakistans nukes, you know just in case scenario,, you know a smash and grab em before the terrorist could get them... i guess we will be there for quite some time... ohh zod!!!
