Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on October 20, 2012, 07:25:01 PM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/world/iran-said-ready-to-talk-to-us-about-nuclear-program.html?hp&_r=1&
U.S. Officials Say Iran Has Agreed to Nuclear Talks
WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.
Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.
News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.
I really doubt it would sway enough voters to matter anyway. I also wonder if this would just make us look weaker and/or start another North Korea agreement where we give a lot and end up with nothing in return. I have very little confidence that Iran would deal straight with us. I have little trust for most hard line Muslim nations I guess.
-
I think an agreement to stop work on the bomb would be a surprise. Agreeing to talk is a recent version of vaporware, something I think even the mouthbreathers dismiss. BTW, talk is all our president has.
-
Obama favored bilateral talks with Iran in the 2008 campaign. McCain insisted that was a mistake, and that any negotiation needed to be multilateral.
-
Obama favored bilateral talks with Iran in the 2008 campaign. McCain insisted that was a mistake, and that any negotiation needed to be multilateral.
that I think is a key point. We should force them to sit down with Isreal, but I think they would refuse.
-
According to the BBC:
US denies Iran nuclear talks New York Times report
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20019675 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20019675)
I wonder which one is right? Of course, it wouldn't be the first time this administration has given conflicting reports.
-
Iran isn't working on a bomb, so I'm not sure what these talks are supposed to yield. Iran isn't going to agree to stop all nuclear research.
-
Iran isn't working on a bomb, so I'm not sure what these talks are supposed to yield. Iran isn't going to agree to stop all nuclear research.
Of course not. We always use uranium enriched upwards of 20% for power plants.
-
Of course not. We always use uranium enriched upwards of 20% for power plants.
Is Iran wanting cancer treatments they don't currently have that unrealistic???
-
Is Iran wanting cancer treatments they don't currently have that unrealistic???
Uranium isn't used in cancer treatments.
20% uranium isn't used in any power producing reactors, only fast neutron reactors for research and isotope production. Sure, they could really want medical isotopes, but you don't need the kind of thermal powers they are building for research or isotope production, unless that research is "building weapons" or the isotope in question is plutonium-239.
The REASON having a capability to make 20% and having a lot of it, is twofold
1. 20% is the border between "low enriched" and "high enriched" according to international law and treaty
2. The reason why, is going from natural (~0.7%) to 20% requires the bulk of the separative effort (wiki separative work unit and do the math) and turning 20% into 90%+ is substantially easier.
Take it from someone who knows what they are talking about, you don't know what you are talking about.
-
Birdman, arguing with de selby is like arguing with heist. He will just go google some *expletive deleted*it he doesn't understand and come back with more crazy.
Don't bother
-
Thanks for the polite responses folks - no doubt your politics being different from mine isn't a factor in your behaviours! And a bit funny that I've written about three sentences, one of which was a question and none of which mentioned the uses of iran's 20 percent fuel.
Birdman, is this link completely wrong about the 20 percent uranium providing fuel for the Tehran research reactor? http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/ (http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/). Because that would seem to be an obvious non-weapons related use for the stuff.
The world's been scouring for proof that Iran is working on a bomb for years now, and Israel has been declaring a bomb to be six months away for the same period. Nothing has emerged from it all. I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.
-
From the same website DS linked:
The reactor has operated at 3 MW-th, partially due to a shortage of fuel. The Tehran Research Reactor is expected to run out of Argentine-supplied fuel at the end of 2010 or sometime in 2011.Iran used this reactor to conduct activities possibly linked to early efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Without notifying the IAEA Iran irradiated uranium oxide (UO2) targets in the TRR and separated plutonium in glove boxes at Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) laboratories. Iran also admitted to producing small amounts of polonium-210 in the TRR in the early 1990s through the irradiation of bismuth targets. Polonium 210 is a well-known radioactive material used in a beryllium-polonium neutron initiator that starts the chain reaction in a nuclear weapon. Iran claims that the polonium was produced as part of a study of the production of neutron sources for use in radioisotope thermoelectric generators and not for use in a nuclear weapons neutron initiator. The TRR was under traditional safeguards at the time of the undeclared plutonium experiments and polonium production. This type of safeguards is not designed to detect such small-scale activities.
So, like Birdman said, ~20% EU is used in research reactors, mostly for making weapons level isotopes.
I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.
Come on, you've been around here longer then that.
-
Thanks for the polite responses folks - no doubt your politics being different from mine isn't a factor in your behaviours! And a bit funny that I've written about three sentences, one of which was a question and none of which mentioned the uses of iran's 20 percent fuel.
Birdman, is this link completely wrong about the 20 percent uranium providing fuel for the Tehran research reactor? http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/ (http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/). Because that would seem to be an obvious non-weapons related use for the stuff.
The world's been scouring for proof that Iran is working on a bomb for years now, and Israel has been declaring a bomb to be six months away for the same period. Nothing has emerged from it all. I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.
And here it is, like clockwork
-
Not to be a pedantic prick, but shipboard reactors use between 50-90% HEU. With HEU you can build the core smaller and the fuel rods will also last a couple decades instead of less than a year. That leads into the next point, it would actually be more efficient for civi reactors to run on HEU because you wouldn't have to shut them down for 6 months out of every year for replacing the spent LEU fuel rods.
Maybe they're also trying to get into the nuclear submarine club?
-
Maybe they're also trying to get into the nuclear submarine club?
That makes us feel SO much better.... :facepalm:
-
That makes us feel SO much better.... :facepalm:
Actually I feel fine. Russia has over 70 years of Sub R&D under the belt and they're still just a little bit behind us. What do you think some backwards MENA country that owns a whopping 3 export type Kilo-class that they didn't even build can accomplish?
-
Not to be a pedantic prick, but shipboard reactors use between 50-90% HEU. With HEU you can build the core smaller and the fuel rods will also last a couple decades instead of less than a year. That leads into the next point, it would actually be more efficient for civi reactors to run on HEU because you wouldn't have to shut them down for 6 months out of every year for replacing the spent LEU fuel rods.
Maybe they're also trying to get into the nuclear submarine club?
HEU for commercial power is uneconomical, as the fuel cost skyrockets. The extended refueling interval benefit albeit at high cost, is only feasible for systems where the refuel,Inc cost in time and money (cutting open a sub) is extremely high. Additionally, naval reactors must use very esoteric fuel forms to obtain the burnup levels required for useof HEU fuel (see also, MIT research reactor, which runs on bomb grade fuel).
So no, not more efficient to run civilian power reactors on HEU.
-
Thanks for the polite responses folks - no doubt your politics being different from mine isn't a factor in your behaviours! And a bit funny that I've written about three sentences, one of which was a question and none of which mentioned the uses of iran's 20 percent fuel.
Birdman, is this link completely wrong about the 20 percent uranium providing fuel for the Tehran research reactor? http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/ (http://www.isisnucleariran.org/static/444/). Because that would seem to be an obvious non-weapons related use for the stuff.
The world's been scouring for proof that Iran is working on a bomb for years now, and Israel has been declaring a bomb to be six months away for the same period. Nothing has emerged from it all. I'm not sure that anyone's nuclear engineering background on APS will do what the most powerful intelligence apparatus on earth cannot.
Yes that research reactor uses 20%...the question is, why are they making so damn much of the fuel? The fuel they have made so far would power that reactor for decades...and they are still making more? Odd.
Also, considering I have more nuclear engineering expertise (or that 8+ years in the MIT nuclear engineering department, 2+ years at LANL as a nckear engineering consultant, and 6+ years of consulting on nuclear power plant design, nuclear fuel cycle activities, and other aspects was all just a waste of time) THAN most of those folks working for intelligence agencies puts your comment in an odd place. I work with folks who do these kids of assessments, and while I haven't worked directly for any intelligence agency on this topic, I have looked at these kinds of things before FOR those people who do this for a living.
-
Actually I feel fine. Russia has over 70 years of Sub R&D under the belt and they're still just a little bit behind us. What do you think some backwards MENA country that owns a whopping 3 export type Kilo-class that they didn't even build can accomplish?
I defer to your superior knowledge. I still have concerns, though, that the combination of intelligence lapses/bias and a black swan event (sudden enemy tech leap) might leave us vulnerable to a Pearl harbor style blow. Not necessarily catastrophic, but temporarily crippling. No specific examples in mind, just my paranoid ramblings...
-
HEU for commercial power is uneconomical, as the fuel cost skyrockets. The extended refueling interval benefit albeit at high cost, is only feasible for systems where the refuel,Inc cost in time and money (cutting open a sub) is extremely high. Additionally, naval reactors must use very esoteric fuel forms to obtain the burnup levels required for useof HEU fuel (see also, MIT research reactor, which runs on bomb grade fuel).
So no, not more efficient to run civilian power reactors on HEU.
Interesting. Got a resource handy regarding the costs of enriching past 4%? As you stated earlier, the difficulty (and presumably cost) drops off at the 20% mark, so I'm curious that if you take the enrichment all the way up to 90-95% the much longer "burn" time in the reactor (ie. the cost of all the refueling shut downs that would be avoided over the span of 20-30 years) would counterbalance the initial additional cost of going from 4 to 20%.
Also, how much plutonium would be produced and could the spent fuel be directly reprocessed into MOX for subsequent re-use?
ETA: Also is it possible to create a dual-fuel breeder/MOX reactor that burns U-238, and then can have the spent rods processed and plugged back in, in order to get the most "bang-for-the-buck"?
ETA Again: I just want to state that I'm under no illusions that Iran is going for the bomb. Just wanted to play devil's advocate a bit, plus I'm genuinely curious about nuke power. I was slated to go to nuke school but got my orders canceled at MEPS when we found out I've got a slight red/green color vision deficit. =(
-
Basically, DS, I know more about this topic than 99% of people IN THE FIELD, and more than 99.999% of the population in general, am a recognized expert on advanced nuclear systems, work with both defense and civilian groups in the field, have multiple degrees in the subject from the #1 university in the world in the subject, and am hired by people to answer the hard questions on the topic when other 'experts' have failed. I've worked on everything from low enriched PWR/BWR designs, have actually USED with my own hands research reactors using HEU all the way up to 90% fuel, designed personally reactors using both low-LEU, 20%, and HEU fuels for naval, spacecraft, and terrestrial research, isotope production, and power uses, and have worked on counter proliferation designs.
I can tell you flat out, in my, guess "somewhat" educated opinion, the real goal of the infrastructure they have created is a WEAPONS program, everything else is window dressing.
So we can continue to argue, if you'd like, but it will be embarrassing for you. I'll cite original sources, high level textbooks, and actual experience, you will cite news sources. Everyone in the conversation will realize you are simply arguing yourself deeper into a hole,many making an ass out of yourself in the process, not to mention showing ignorance, while I try to educate. I don't kow if you find that fun in some way, but I don't like seeing incorrect thoughts promulgated under the guise of facts, and thus must respond, which is wastes a substantial amount of my valuable time, just to prevent other more open minded folks from accepting your uneducated opinions as facts.
-
I defer to your superior knowledge. I still have concerns, though, that the combination of intelligence lapses/bias and a black swan event (sudden enemy tech leap) might leave us vulnerable to a Pearl harbor style blow. Not necessarily catastrophic, but temporarily crippling. No specific examples in mind, just my paranoid ramblings...
I get where you're coming from. I still have faith in our bubble-heads, if not the people ordering them around. =D If a newly built Iranian nuke boat put to sea I'm fairly certain there would be a Virginia or Seawolf tailing them just to make sure they didn't try anything funny.
-
Basically, DS, I know more about this topic than 99% of people IN THE FIELD, and more than 99.999% of the population in general, am a recognized expert on advanced nuclear systems, work with both defense and civilian groups in the field, have multiple degrees in the subject from the #1 university in the world in the subject, and am hired by people to answer the hard questions on the topic when other 'experts' have failed. I've worked on everything from low enriched PWR/BWR designs, have actually USED with my own hands research reactors using HEU all the way up to 90% fuel, designed personally reactors using both low-LEU, 20%, and HEU fuels for naval, spacecraft, and terrestrial research, isotope production, and power uses, and have worked on counter proliferation designs.
I can tell you flat out, in my, guess "somewhat" educated opinion, the real goal of the infrastructure they have created is a WEAPONS program, everything else is window dressing.
So we can continue to argue, if you'd like, but it will be embarrassing for you. I'll cite original sources, high level textbooks, and actual experience, you will cite news sources. Everyone in the conversation will realize you are simply arguing yourself deeper into a hole,many making an ass out of yourself in the process, not to mention showing ignorance, while I try to educate. I don't kow if you find that fun in some way, but I don't like seeing incorrect thoughts promulgated under the guise of facts, and thus must respond, which is wastes a substantial amount of my valuable time, just to prevent other more open minded folks from accepting your uneducated opinions as facts.
Oh, you're just getting all wee-wee-ed up about Iran.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjKCEN.jpg&hash=679b4b975296d8a9ac45c7834d0a664a37e3ee3d)
-
Interesting. Got a resource handy regarding the costs of enriching past 4%? As you stated earlier, the difficulty (and presumably cost) drops off at the 20% mark, so I'm curious that if you take the enrichment all the way up to 90-95% the much longer "burn" time in the reactor (ie. the cost of all the refueling shut downs that would be avoided over the span of 20-30 years) would counterbalance the initial additional cost of going from 4 to 20%.
Also, how much plutonium would be produced and could the spent fuel be directly reprocessed into MOX for subsequent re-use?
ETA: Also is it possible to create a dual-fuel breeder/MOX reactor that burns U-238, and then can have the spent rods processed and plugged back in, in order to get the most "bang-for-the-buck"?
ETA Again: I just want to state that I'm under no illusions that Iran is going for the bomb. Just wanted to play devil's advocate a bit, plus I'm genuinely curious about nuke power. I was slated to go to nuke school but got my orders canceled at MEPS when we found out I've got a slight red/green color vision deficit. =(
Here you go for the formulae:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Separative_work_unit
And the results:
To turn natural into 4% requires 6.6 SEU to yield 1kg of 4% for every 7.6kg put in.
Natural to 90% is ~230 SEU to make 1kg of 90%
Natural to 20% is ~46 SEU to make 1kg of 20%
20% to 90% is ~20 SEU to make 1kg of 20%. (since this requires 4.5kg of 20% as feed, the total is ~210SEU)
What this means is it costs 40x as much to make 90% as it does normal 4% fuel.
The other MORE IMPORTANT fact is to make 1kg of 90%, making the 4.5kg of 20% means that YOU HAVE ALREADY EXPENDED 90% of the effort required to go all the way.
So put it this way, let's say you need 100kg of 90% for your evil project. You would need about 18,000kg of natural uranium.
So to avoid "being the bad guy" until it's too late, you build centrifuges capable of 20,000 SEU/year, and at first make 450kg of 20% "research reactor fuel"... That takes a whole year, but you are still "a nice country, not making a bomb".
Now, secretly, you simply TURN SOME VALVES ELECTRONICALLY on your centrifuge plant, which unless you know which way the valves are pointing, and can crawl all over the schematic and physical nature of the pant to see what pipes go where no one can tell you did, and VOILA, that same facility can turn your 450kg of "LEU" 20% into 100kg of 90% bomb grade material in LESS THAN 5 WEEKS!!!
THAT is why, to quote our current VP, it is a "big f-ing deal"--any enrichment facility capable of creating hundreds to thousands of kilograms of 20%/year is EASILY CAPABLE of turning that into bomb material in a very short time, with little way of outsiders detecting the change...or even insiders, unless they assay the output.
If you were just making PWR 4% fuel, the above facility would be able to make 2400kg of PWR fuel per year..,enough to fuel a VERY large (for lets say, Iran) power plant, or make enough "medical isotopes" for many many bombs.
Like I said, the only reason to make more than a few 100's of Kg of 20% is to make a bomb.
As for breeders, for power, LEU startup/MOX burn breeders are THE most efficient way of using uranium to make power (or plutonium for that matter).
Sorry to hear about not getting nuke school, but a red/green deficit even if minor is a disqualifier since there are many times green is "okay" and red is "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die"
-
Sorry to hear about not getting nuke school, but a red/green deficit even if minor is a disqualifier since there are many times green is "okay" and red is "oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die"
Thing is, I can see red and green just fine. It's only under a very specific low-light circumstance that an un-illuminated red or green surface will appear brown. And that's how I ended up in crypto school instead. (funny thing, after going to the fleet, one of my jobs on look-out was spotting red or green lights, never had trouble with that)
-
I'm sure DS will along shortly with some aljazerra links proving the peaceful republic of Iran means no harm.
-
I'm sure DS will along shortly with some aljazerra links proving the peaceful republic of Iran means no harm.
Nah, instead Ill refer to something micro put up here a while back which is the source of my skepticism - Iran has been weeks/months away from the bomb for several years now (at least since 2007) according to the people who are certain this is a weapons program. There's a long list of these predictions going back to the last administration, and not one has ever failed to materialise.
If we've got indisputable proof of iran developing weapons here on APS, seems to me like someone should be phoning the president to let him in in the news. Or maybe in the next presentation to the UN on why we need another war over WMDs, they'll just cite this thread directly and call it proof, which isn't too far off from how we got to the last war: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html)
-
Nah, instead Ill refer to something micro put up here a while back which is the source of my skepticism - Iran has been weeks/months away from the bomb for several years now (at least since 2007) according to the people who are certain this is a weapons program. There's a long list of these predictions going back to the last administration, and not one has ever failed to materialise.
If we've got indisputable proof of iran developing weapons here on APS, seems to me like someone should be phoning the president to let him in in the news. Or maybe in the next presentation to the UN on why we need another war over WMDs, they'll just cite this thread directly and call it proof, which isn't too far off from how we got to the last war: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.html)
Stuxnet, flame, and the issues they have had with their "research reactor" since 2007 have slowed things down.
And a more important point, if it's NOT a weapons program, why is the damn enrichment facility buried underground in a bunker? I mean, ours is a big industrial building in TN.
Also, the similar facilities in Japan, France, england, china, Russia, Canada, south africa, etc are all big unhardened industrial buildings, so why do they feel the need to protect their peaceful program against precision munitions? The only countries who have expressed any inkling of bombing them at all are the Israelis and us, and in both cases it's to "prevent Iran from getting a bomb".
Also, how can you say it's NOT a weapons program given the above, and when the country's leader says israeli needs to be destroyed, AND their nuclear facilities are designed to defend against israel.
So far you've changed your argument from "definitely not, without proof" to "definitely not, and the proof is they haven't YET, and previous timelines were wrong"?
Keep digging DS, just make sure the dirt makes it out of the hole, cause its getting pretty deep.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F28709839.jpg&hash=95f302b1247c8279b7404636cf1ee185508a95db)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg
-
The Iran announcement may well be the "October Surprise". How the information is played will be important to both Obama and Romney.
I believe Iran is rapidly moving toward weaponization of their nuclear capabilites. I don't particularly want to fight or get involved in another war. Once they get to the "bomb" level, I suspect Iran will do a test which will confirm to the world that they are a nuclear nation. The other approach is to keep the information secret or test it in Isreal via a truck bomb.
-
Basically, DS, I know more about this topic than 99% of people IN THE FIELD, and more than 99.999% of the population in general, am a recognized expert on advanced nuclear systems, work with both defense and civilian groups in the field, have multiple degrees in the subject from the #1 university in the world in the subject, and am hired by people to answer the hard questions on the topic when other 'experts' have failed. I've worked on everything from low enriched PWR/BWR designs, have actually USED with my own hands research reactors using HEU all the way up to 90% fuel, designed personally reactors using both low-LEU, 20%, and HEU fuels for naval, spacecraft, and terrestrial research, isotope production, and power uses, and have worked on counter proliferation designs.
I can tell you flat out, in my, guess "somewhat" educated opinion, the real goal of the infrastructure they have created is a WEAPONS program, everything else is window dressing.
So we can continue to argue, if you'd like, but it will be embarrassing for you. I'll cite original sources, high level textbooks, and actual experience, you will cite news sources. Everyone in the conversation will realize you are simply arguing yourself deeper into a hole,many making an ass out of yourself in the process, not to mention showing ignorance, while I try to educate. I don't kow if you find that fun in some way, but I don't like seeing incorrect thoughts promulgated under the guise of facts, and thus must respond, which is wastes a substantial amount of my valuable time, just to prevent other more open minded folks from accepting your uneducated opinions as facts.
I LOL'd
-
Birdman is my new hero. I nearly wet my pants, reading his posts. That stung a bit, I imagine...
-
Birdman is my new hero. I nearly wet my pants, reading his posts. That stung a bit, I imagine...
Standby for strawman argument in 5, 4, 3, 2....
-
I do believe that this may be the first ICBS (InterContinental B**** Slap).
-
Nah, instead Ill refer to something micro put up here a while back which is the source of my skepticism - Iran has been weeks/months away from the bomb for several years now (at least since 2007) according to the people who are certain this is a weapons program. There's a long list of these predictions going back to the last administration, and not one has ever failed to materialise.
If birdman has been making these predictions for all these years, then you would have a point. But he hasn't. He's making them now, and a history of whackadoos having made the same prediction albeit too early, does not discredit him.
-
If birdman has been making these predictions for all these years, then you would have a point. But he hasn't. He's making them now, and a history of whackadoos having made the same prediction albeit too early, does not discredit him.
I did make them a few years ago, and ifit wasn't for my aforementioned factors (Stuxnet, etc) those, and other predictions would have been accurate. Remember, we still don't know HOW bad Stuxnet damaged things...but it was severe.
-
I did make them a few years ago, and ifit wasn't for my aforementioned factors (Stuxnet, etc) those, and other predictions would have been accurate. Remember, we still don't know HOW bad Stuxnet damaged things...but it was severe.
Also don't forget the targeted assassinations of key Iranian nuclear and computer experts. I believe they still haven't proven who was behind that, but smart money is on the Mossad.
-
Also don't forget the targeted assassinations of key Iranian nuclear and computer experts. I believe they still haven't proven who was behind that, but smart all but the galacticaly stupid, deaf, dumb, and blind money is on the Mossad.
FIFY.
-
If birdman has been making these predictions for all these years, then you would have a point. But he hasn't. He's making them now, and a history of whackadoos having made the same prediction albeit too early, does not discredit him.
While personally I'm not an interventionist.....
Much of those predictions would have come true had we not handed Iran thier electronic asses with those viri.
(and kgb's post too. Can't build *expletive deleted*it when your best scientists keeping getting all splodey.)
-
While personally I'm not an interventionist.....
Much of those predictions would have come true had we not handed Iran thier electronic asses with those viri.
(and kgb's post too. Can't build *expletive deleted* when your best scientists keeping getting all splodey.)
*nod* Imagine if the Nazi's or Japanese had whacked Oppenheimer and Fermi in late 1943 or early 1944. That would have put a kink in the Manhattan project alright.
-
I did make them a few years ago, and ifit wasn't for my aforementioned factors (Stuxnet, etc) those, and other predictions would have been accurate. Remember, we still don't know HOW bad Stuxnet damaged things...but it was severe.
While I am not quite the equiv of birdman when it comes to IEW... I'm not that far off.
Basically, yes and no. It burned out things that spun really fast. At a drastically higher than normal wear and tear fashion. Delayed production of ah, stuff, did not halt. It was designed to tamper with control units made by German company known for their control systems. Oddly coincidentally, my local brewery uses the same control hardware. How big of a delay depends on who you ask and what you actually mean. First nuke? Not a lot. Building many nukes. Quite a bit.
I am not quite as laid back as DS on the matter. If Iran had a couple nukes, does not matter. Pakistan has a handful, and is not a problem even with a large percentage of their spooks being allied with ... Folks. Iran with lots of nukes... That would not be good. Iranians are Shiites. Shiites don't tend to start stuff outside of their turf. Or what they consider to be their turf, which does not correspond to the maps. That is the Sunni, our allies, who tend to blow up our stuff. Iran with a significant nuclear arsenal would limit our ability to annoy Shiites at will and give Sunni a pass on blowing up our stuff. That would be... Interesting with our current list of favorites.
-
Also don't forget the targeted assassinations of key Iranian nuclear and computer experts. I believe they still haven't proven who was behind that, but smart money is on the Mossad.
Sigh. Not just Iranian.
You'd be surprised how many Israelis work at kiosks in malls. Most of them are just young kids. Not all of them are. The PRC is our primary espionage enemy. Israel is second. Never confuse a country, its government and its natural security complex. They are discrete and separate entities with different goals and ideology. Syria was on the state sponsors lists, yet we exported our ghost detainees there to be tortured for information.
Couple years ago, someone was clipping off a lot of our key bio researchers. I honestly don't know the story on that one and hope I never find out.
Short story long, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy's enemy. No more, no less. That does not make them a friend, ally or enemy. A lot of people have died because they made that mistake, thousands of them were Americans.
-
First nuke? Not a lot. Building many nukes. Quite a bit.
This brings up an interesting point, perhaps the Iranians havent build serial number 1 yet is because in their situation, having one is -very bad-.
You want to at least test one. Now, you have proven you have at least that one...faced with a country very willing to preemptively strike your ass to prevent you from going through on your "wipe them off the map" verbal posturing, you better have more than the one you just tested...a bit more.
So look at my previous numbers...if it takes you all of a month or two to turn your non-bomb stuff into bomb stuff, but that -might-be detectable, then you would probably want to make enough "non-bomb stuff" for (count number of major bases and cities in the aforementioned country you have threatened), and leave it "almost" completed until you can complete a bunchin short order. That way, once you test you can deter their pre-emptive actions.
In other words, perhaps slowing down stuff for weapons 2-20 possibly slowed down the completion of #1, just not in the most obvious way?
After all, that's what we did.
We didn't test or drop until we had more already done...or do people really wonder why little-boy wasn't tested, and there was only 3 weeks between trinity and Nagasaki (same design)? We didn't build the bomb in three weeks, it was already built.
-
Thing is, I can see red and green just fine. It's only under a very specific low-light circumstance that an un-illuminated red or green surface will appear brown. And that's how I ended up in crypto school instead. (funny thing, after going to the fleet, one of my jobs on look-out was spotting red or green lights, never had trouble with that)
If under any conditions red or green appears brown, you do NOT see red and green "just fine." I understand -- I am also red-green weak, and that deficiency once discovered by the United States Army kept me out of the explosive ordnance end of combat engineering. Which was actually pretty stupid, IMHO. When I was in and at the level I would ever possibly reach in one term of enlistment, I was never going to be making complicated nuclear-grade automatic, count-down detonators. We were doing shape charges to blow up bridges, using good old-fashioned, hand-held detonators. We connected two wires to the caps, then hooked the other ends of the wires to the control box. Twist handle ==> send spark ==> make BOOM.
IIRC, the two wires were black and white, neither of which is affected by red-green weakness. Even if it were, the wires came as a twisted pair. There were only two wires, and polarity didn't matter, so it could not possibly have mattered if I got them "reversed." But ... the Army didn't want me connecting those wires. Their loss.
-
If under any conditions red or green appears brown, you do NOT see red and green "just fine." I understand -- I am also red-green weak, and that deficiency once discovered by the United States Army kept me out of the explosive ordnance end of combat engineering. Which was actually pretty stupid, IMHO. When I was in and at the level I would ever possibly reach in one term of enlistment, I was never going to be making complicated nuclear-grade automatic, count-down detonators. We were doing shape charges to blow up bridges, using good old-fashioned, hand-held detonators. We connected two wires to the caps, then hooked the other ends of the wires to the control box. Twist handle ==> send spark ==> make BOOM.
IIRC, the two wires were black and white, neither of which is affected by red-green weakness. Even if it were, the wires came as a twisted pair. There were only two wires, and polarity didn't matter, so it could not possibly have mattered if I got them "reversed." But ... the Army didn't want me connecting those wires. Their loss.
Like I said, instead of pushing red and green back-lit buttons in a well illuminated control room, the Navy instead put me out in the pitch black night peering through some binoculars at ships 10 nautical miles away identifying which direction they were going according to an arrangement of a dim red, green and white lights. Never had much trouble with that. :P
-
Just in an "I told you so"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578123042469361174.html
Check that article out...talks about everything I've said in this thread :)
-
Just in an "I told you so"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323551004578123042469361174.html
Check that article out...talks about everything I've said in this thread :)
This is basically the same report, recycled with yet another " few months to the bomb!!!" prediction. Just like we've been hearing for the past five years.
-
This is basically the same report, recycled with yet another " few months to the bomb!!!" prediction. Just like we've been hearing for the past five years.
De Selby, if that is your retort, I suggest you look at every one of your posts...ever, as recycling the same points again and again is probably the best description to date of the garbage you post in these types of arguments.
-
De Selby: I'm not sure why you felt the need to report this post to the moderators. All I see is you politely getting bitchslapped by someone more knoweldgeable on a topic then you. Quit whining.
-
*picks up a pole, walks over to the giant APS scoreboard, and slides over one marker each for Birdman and Jamis*
-
DS, not sure why you felt the need to report this post to the moderators. All I see is you politely getting bitchslapped by someone more knoweldgeable on a topic then you. Quit whining.
It's fine Jamis. I'll accept whatever response is deemed appropriate, including voluntarily removing myself is asked. I'm just tired of this kind of thing.
I know I get worked up, but if I do so in error, (ie with kgbsquirrel in the drone thread), I apologize.
I attempt to keep in line with this being armed POLITE society, but if anyone bothers to notice I don't respond with personal attacks or anything impolite until after such behavior is visited on me. I try to make my points in as factual of a way as possible given certain external legal limitations, and do so with a substantial amount of research where possible, and I am always willing to cite sources.
While parroting responses and sarcastic digs are only mildly impolite, they are extremely frustrating when they are responses to posts that take some signficant time to formulate, hence my general disdain and anger associated with that type of response.
One aspect of politeness is not initiating behavior that one doesn't want returned, but to expect polite responses when one is impolite is ludicrous.
Apologies to the mods and the rest of the board for 'starting' something.
-
You've got nothing to apologize for.
-
(Psssssst........hey birdman......DS= De Selby......you're fine......)
-
(Psssssst........hey birdman......DS= De Selby......you're fine......)
I know. I'm still sorry for causing a scene and letting my temper get the better of me.
-
I know. I'm still sorry for causing a scene and letting my temper get the better of me.
Being polite sometimes means taking out the trash. =D
-
But the beef the US Government has with Iran is not really about nuclear weapons, or protecting the proles from nuclear terrorism. It's about eliminating the political, economic and military influence of pretty much the last non-US affiliated, non-IMF dependent power faction in the Region. Nuclear weapons just happen to be, simultaneously:
1) A safeguard against Regime Change and Nationbuilding projects.
2) A proper excuse and rally-call for War to bring about the very same Regime Change and Nationbuilding projects.
In an interesting duality, Nuclear weapons, or the concept of them serve both sides' agendas. Good is Bad. And Bad is Good.
As long as they are "months away" from having them, but not quite there yet, we are on track ;)
*Nationbuilding= propping up a Government structure that has State Department strings attached.