• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

You really have no clue how a nuclear weapon works do you?

You only need about 40lbs of HEU, which is the step they are at now... they either reconfigure their known plants or they have something set up elsewhere... take 4-6 months max to process what they have.

And fatman was bulky because of the era... we didn't know better... explosives were different... a fission bomb is at the heart of every one of our modern nuclear weapons... it don't take much set one off.
YouTube - M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle

Do you really think it's much secret how that thing works?

And using that you could attempt a multistage fusion weapon....

in Italics: No freaking clue.
in Bold: Hey! It seems that we agree that is silly to think that Iran would use a nuclear weapon as it seems just so g'd easy to create, and use, that if there were to be a nuclear weapon used it was going to have already been done...
 
in Italics: No freaking clue.
in Bold: Hey! It seems that we agree that is silly to think that Iran would use a nuclear weapon as it seems just so g'd easy to create, and use, that if there were to be a nuclear weapon used it was going to have already been done...
And 40lbs is for an inefficient weapon.

Fat Man used:
Fat Man, the Nagasaki bomb, used 13.6 lb (6.2 kg, about 12 fluid ounces in volume) of Pu-239, which is only 39% of bare-metal critical mass. (See Fat Man article for a detailed drawing.) The U-238 reflected, 13.6 lb (6.2 kg) pit was sub-critical before detonation. During detonation, criticality was achieved by implosion. The plutonium pit was squeezed to increase its density by simultaneous detonation of conventional explosives placed uniformly around the pit. The explosives were detonated by multiple exploding-bridgewire detonators. It is estimated that only about 20% of the plutonium underwent fission, the rest (about 11 lb (5.0 kg) or 5 kg) was scattered.
Nuclear weapon design - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that was a wasteful pure fission weapon. Most of the weight was the conventional package around the weapon.

You can lower the size by using a small fission ignition to initiate a second stage Fusion explosion. Boosting nominal yield from 10-20kt into the low 100's of KT. Taken a step further you can hit the Megaton range, but that's really a waste in the end. It's easier, and more efficient to make 4-5 200KT warheads then 1 2MT weapon. And you get better damage if done right.


Did you know South Africa once had fully functional nuclear weapons?

Also, to make weapons grade plutonium U235 is used in the reactor...

Just saying.


So any hoots, it's not so much that a nuclear weapon is hard to build, it ain't. I could build Little Boy, it's NOT HARD. The hard part is making the weapons grade material, and then getting the parts to make it a deliverable weapon. But making an atom bomb is easy, setting up the infrastructure to support fusion weapon development isn't so easy.
 
You really have no clue how a nuclear weapon works do you?

Given the numerous posts here, I do know how it works. What is clear is that you clearly don't have a clue.

You only need about 40lbs of HEU, which is the step they are at now.

Incorrect. The step they are at is about 1,000 + lbs of LEU, which as Arch pointed out can be made into a weapon by excessive use of neutron deflectors and shaped charges. The problem with that is largely weight.

You clearly don't understand the difference between LEU and HEU and what they both entail in producing a weapon.

they either reconfigure their known plants or they have something set up elsewhere... take 4-6 months max to process what they have.

Perhaps, but it makes more sense to produce HEU from the start rather then making LEU and then enriching it into HEU which is longer, more costly and less in line with a weapons production facility. If you had any understanding of history, you'd know that both the US and Britain had dedicated facilities specifically designed to churn out weapons grade material. That ain't Iran.

And fatman was bulky because of the era... we didn't know better... explosives were different

Hardly. Fatman is fundamentally no different then what Iran is doing aside from being plutonium rather then uranium based. And explosives weren't difference. The same principles for shaped charged and neutron deflectors are the same as today abet with better milling processes. To produce a weapon from LEU would require huge amounts of additional shaped charges and deflectors, all adding additional weight.

Like I said, Iran's going to need a semitruck to deliver such a weapon.

a fission bomb is at the heart of every one of our modern nuclear weapons... it don't take much set one off.

That's because our weapons are fusion based and fusion does not occur at room temperature. A fission reaction is required to produce the correct level of temperature to allow fusion to occur. Iran is not building a fusion weapon.

Do you really think it's much secret how that thing works?

You do realize that weapon was more or less suicide for whoever used it no? Furthermore, the yield on such a weapon was absolutely tiny compared to what we have today. Not to mention that the weapon was an implosion type. Being a single millimeter off in a shape charge will cause the weapon to fail. It's quite a feat of engineering that we actually managed to build such a small implosion type weapon in the first place.

And using that you could attempt a multistage fusion weapon....

Come again? You think that a .1 kiloton blast could produce the necessary heat to sustain a fusion reaction from large amounts of HEU?

MAYBE. But it's real questionable that such a small fission reaction will produce sufficient neutrons among other radiation necessary to cause fusion.
 
Last edited:
And 40lbs is for an inefficient weapon.

Not really. In theory 12 lbs of Plutonium could make an extremely efficient weapon well excess of larger weapons we have today. The trick is getting the critical mass to imploded into a superdense core. It's actually part of the reasons why the small sample initiative in the IAEA was criticized.

Efficiency is actually about yield to critical mass, not necessarily about critical mass alone.

Really, peanut gallery should not discuss things they do not understand.

And that was a wasteful pure fission weapon. Most of the weight was the conventional package around the weapon.

For a fission weapon, it wasn't bad.

Did you know South Africa once had fully functional nuclear weapons?

Gun type. Implosion weapons are immensely harder to produce. There's a reason why Iran is using uranium rather then plutonium. Let's see if you can figure out why plutonium cannot be used in a gun type for someone who criticizes others for their alleged lack of knowledge. And gun types are relatively straight forward to build. Except that they cannot be used to produce tiny weapons such as your favorite tactical 3 mile range one. Furthermore, gun types require significently more HEU then implosion weapons do.

Talking about nuclear weapons as if they were all the same shows a clear ignorance of the issue.

Also, to make weapons grade plutonium U235 is used in the reactor.

U238 is a better fuel if you're after plutonium as it's far more common. Historically nuclear breeder reactors, the type the US, USSR, France, Britain and others have used to make plutonium based weapons used 238, not 235.

So any hoots, it's not so much that a nuclear weapon is hard to build, it ain't.

It's making a good, deliverable and reliable one that is hard. You know, the kind that fits on top of a missile?

That ain't what Iran can do at least for the current future. Still, the notion that Iran will actually use it is kind of funny. The likely fact that Iran will scare the pants off everyone else and thus cause them to get weapons is not.
 
Nope they just have Al-Qaeda operating in their country. But I guess that isn't a concern of yours is it since Pakistan is a nuclear country.

Are you reading what he's writing, or are you just making assumptions? He said that ISRAEL is likely more worried about Iran than Pakistan because of those reasons, not himself. While I'm sure Israel cares abotu Al-Qaeda, I'm pretty sure they likely care much more about Iran at the moment due to the comments and sentiment coming out of that countries leadership.
 
Given how the U.S. deals with nuclear (and terrorist supporting countries) like Pakistan, it is no wonder why every ME country wants nukes.

It is most likely Osama Bin Ladin is in Pakistan, why doesn't the U.S. do something about it? Oh yeah, they have gone nuclear.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make that connection and why every country wants to go nuclear.

Hmm. What did I say?
There are those here that will -never- comdemn Iran for building a bomb.

These people fall into two groups:
Those that believe the US is the cause of most problems in the world;
Those that look forward to the destruction of Israel.
 
Hmm. What did I say?
There are those here that will -never- comdemn Iran for building a bomb.

These people fall into two groups:
Those that believe the US is the cause of most problems in the world;
Those that look forward to the destruction of Israel.

Israel can and will take care of itself. While the bluster goes on about Iran's collection of low grade uranium, the real nuclear threat continues to build and stockpile plutonium weapons while AlQaeda and the Taliban seize and hold territory close to its capital.
 
Last edited:
Given the numerous posts here, I do know how it works. What is clear is that you clearly don't have a clue.



Incorrect. The step they are at is about 1,000 + lbs of LEU, which as Arch pointed out can be made into a weapon by excessive use of neutron deflectors and shaped charges. The problem with that is largely weight.
No one makes nukes out of LEU, you take that and enrich it...

Obviously... you have no clue here.
You clearly don't understand the difference between LEU and HEU and what they both entail in producing a weapon.


Perhaps, but it makes more sense to produce HEU from the start rather then making LEU and then enriching it into HEU which is longer, more costly and less in line with a weapons production facility. If you had any understanding of history, you'd know that both the US and Britain had dedicated facilities specifically designed to churn out weapons grade material. That ain't Iran. [/quote]
And you don't understand how Uranium Enrichment works... LEU is a used to make either HEU or Plutonium... damn... and Pu is a much better weapons material.



Hardly. Fatman is fundamentally no different then what Iran is doing aside from being plutonium rather then uranium based. And explosives weren't difference. The same principles for shaped charged and neutron deflectors are the same as today abet with better milling processes. To produce a weapon from LEU would require huge amounts of additional shaped charges and deflectors, all adding additional weight.
That's why you further enrich the uranium... and yeah most of Fat man was the CONVENTIONAL side. Note the Davy Crockett weapon I showed you in that fun video... it's 180lbs.

Like I said, Iran's going to need a semitruck to deliver such a weapon.
That's why they won't use LEU.. they'll refine it further... durrrr.

That's because our weapons are fusion based and fusion does not occur at room temperature. A fission reaction is required to produce the correct level of temperature to allow fusion to occur. Iran is not building a fusion weapon.
Really... they aren't? You sure? Got proof?


You do realize that weapon was more or less suicide for whoever used it no? Furthermore, the yield on such a weapon was absolutely tiny compared to what we have today. Not to mention that the weapon was an implosion type. Being a single millimeter off in a shape charge will cause the weapon to fail. It's quite a feat of engineering that we actually managed to build such a small implosion type weapon in the first place.
It's really not a big deal, the physics are straight forward... it's just a matter of getting the material to implode fast enough and retain it's shape.


Come again? You think that a .1 kiloton blast could produce the necessary heat to sustain a fusion reaction from large amounts of HEU?
I believe my point was that it doesn't take much to start a fission reaction, and a multi-stage thermonuclear weapon... you really think they are very big? MIRV's were small, thermonuclear warheads... 150-250kt yields... small fission triggers... it really doesn't take that much to kick off a fusion reaction.


MAYBE. But it's real questionable that such a small fission reaction will produce sufficient neutrons among other radiation necessary to cause fusion.
It would be bigger then a .1-.3kt, but not much, again the point was to show how small a nuke could be. Hell we had made nuclear land mines with yields up to 15Kt...

250px-Medium_Atomic_Demolition_Munition_%28with_scientists%29.jpg
 
OC, I know the difference between Fission weapons, I know the difference between gun and implosion, I know that Pu sucks for gun type weapons... and they are bulky sob's.

I also find it hilarious you believe Iran is somehow rationale, and wouldn't ever use a nuclear weapon...
 
I also find it hilarious you believe Iran is somehow rationale, and wouldn't ever use a nuclear weapon...

There is way more evidence to suggest that America would be the first to use a nuclear weapon.
 
There is way more evidence to suggest that America would be the first to use a nuclear weapon.

Yes, and this is based on....

Oh nothing. Nice thought though.

Iran, terrorist sponsors... calls for the destruction of Israel and the USA... pushing a Nuclear Program and refuses to stop... but hey, the REAL threat is the USA!
 
Hmm. What did I say?
There are those here that will -never- comdemn Iran for building a bomb.

These people fall into two groups:
Those that believe the US is the cause of most problems in the world;
Those that look forward to the destruction of Israel.

I don't care if Iran gets a bomb. How about US keeps an eye on the real dangerous country? Pakistan ... the same country which did a deal with Taliban.
If i had to choose between Taliban getting hold of Nukes and Iran, i'd be shoving my entire stock into Ahmadinejad's hands.

And you're right, i do think some problems in this world can be attributed in some way to US actions abroad. I do not want a situation where US alone can dictate which countries can get weapons or not. Why the hell shouldn't Middle Eastern countries get Nukes if it's done in a legal way?

Is US willing to lead by example and destroy all of it's arsenal? - I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and this is based on....

Oh nothing. Nice thought though.

Iran, terrorist sponsors... calls for the destruction of Israel and the USA... pushing a Nuclear Program and refuses to stop... but hey, the REAL threat is the USA!

Based on the fact that America's the only country in the history of civilization to use an atomic weapon, and not just one, but two......
 
Based on the fact that America's the only country in the history of civilization to use an atomic weapon, and not just one, but two......

I suppose Germany is likely to invade France again. And Japan will attack Pearl Harbor again. And Russia will have a Czar again. I mean based on the fact these nations did these things before it MUST mean they are more likely to happen again.

OR: There's more to it than that. Am I right?
 
I suppose Germany is likely to invade France again. And Japan will attack Pearl Harbor again. And Russia will have a Czar again. I mean based on the fact these nations did these things before it MUST mean they are more likely to happen again.

OR: There's more to it than that. Am I right?

I never said that *I* believed America will nuke (infact, I have made it apparent that *I* believe that nobody is going to nuke anybody). I just say that base on straight up historical statistics on atomic weaponry, America is the only one with a history of using it.

FFS.
 
I never said that *I* believed America will nuke (infact, I have made it apparent that *I* believe that nobody is going to nuke anybody). I just say that base on straight up historical statistics on atomic weaponry, America is the only one with a history of using it.

FFS.

So which is it?

1) Irrelevant to the debate.

2) A red herring.

3) Begging the question.
 
So which is it?

1) Irrelevant to the debate.

2) A red herring.

3) Begging the question.

It's an observation backed up by an idea I have promoted over and over again on these forums.. that nobody is crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon.

Prove me wrong. Please.
 
I nobody is crazy enough to use a nuclear weapon.
Are you claiming that you did not say that the US will be the most likely to use a nuke in the future than Iran based on the fact the US used them in WW2?

Prove me wrong. Please.
Prove what wrong, exactly? It appears you just changed your claims.
 
Last edited:
Are you claiming that you did not say that the US will be the most likely to use a nuke in the future than Iran based on the fact the US used them in WW2?
I think that's the only time a nuclear weapon, or predecessor to a nuclear weapon (as to even compare the damage caused by those dropped on Japan, and those in our arsenal now is quite silly), will ever be used. Everyone knew it was going to be horrible, but nobody knew to what extent--exactly.

Prove what wrong, exactly? It appears you just changed your claims.

Prove me wrong! That a nation-state will use a nuclear weapon.
 
I think that's the only time a nuclear weapon, or predecessor to a nuclear weapon (as to even compare the damage caused by those dropped on Japan, and those in our arsenal now is quite silly), will ever be used. Everyone knew it was going to be horrible, but nobody knew to what extent--exactly.
:confused:

This has nothing to do with your previous claim that the US is more likely to use a nuke based solely on the fact that the US used nukes to end WW2.

If you mispoke or misworded that's fine. But your above post is a non-sequitor in regards to my post..


Prove me wrong! That a nation-state will use a nuclear weapon.
You can't prove your claim is true. That's why your claim is silly and useless.

But here goes:
1) You cannot predict the future.
2) Thus you cannot prove that a nation-state will not use a nuclear weapon.
3) Therefore, your statement is not true.

That was simple. :lol:
 
Last edited:
:confused:

This has nothing to do with your previous claim that the US is more likely to use a nuke based solely on the fact that the US used nukes to end WW2.

If you mispoke or misworded that's fine. But your above post is a non-sequitor in regards to my post..

Oh come on. Read my posts.
I said that I, personally, do not think America will use a nuke (nor will any nation-state; extremist organizations are slightly different, but one should be more worried about small-pox and other biological attacks). But, I do think that, based on history, that America is the only one with the record of using atomic weaponry. Never said "I think America will be the first to Nuke". I said "based on history,I think that America has the best credentials to Nuke (given her record)".
You can't prove your claim is true. That's why your claim is silly and useless.

But here goes:
1) You cannot predict the future.
2) Thus you cannot prove that a nation-state will not use a nuclear weapon.
3) Therefore, your statement is not true.

That was simple. :lol:

I don't think I can predict the future. I am just simply stating that the statement "If Iran gets a nuclear arsenal, then Israel is screwed" (which is a summation of all the fears) is trying to predict the future. I know I know, there's the whole "Islamo-Fascist" Iranian government spelling disaster for Israel. My beliefs are that it's just rhetoric; political bull****; that Iran is trying to flex.
The Iranians don't support the elimination of Israel. Hell, to most muslims it is religion first, then it is politics. The Ayatollah seems to have more influence on the people then that wack-job in the "Presidency".

Just trying to state that people are irrationally fearful
 
Oh come on. Read my posts.
I said that I, personally, do not think America will use a nuke (nor will any nation-state; extremist organizations are slightly different, but one should be more worried about small-pox and other biological attacks).
the following is what I had an issue with:

But, I do think that, based on history, that America is the only one with the record of using atomic weaponry
...
I said "based on history,I think that America has the best credentials to Nuke (given her record)".
I would argue that the US has shown unwavering restraint regarding nuclear weapons given the many circumstances where use was applicable.

I don't think I can predict the future. I am just simply stating that the statement "If Iran gets a nuclear arsenal, then Israel is screwed" (which is a summation of all the fears) is trying to predict the future.
the Iranian regime is nearly as unpredictable and irrational as crazy Kim in N Korea. Make no mistake.

I know I know, there's the whole "Islamo-Fascist" Iranian government spelling disaster for Israel. My beliefs are that it's just rhetoric; political bull****; that Iran is trying to flex.
it sure walks like a duck.... (Continued later)

The Iranians don't support the elimination of Israel.
Then why the rhetoric? What is their goal? The answer to that question is far more concerning.

Hell, to most muslims it is religion first, then it is politics. The Ayatollah seems to have more influence on the people then that wack-job in the "Presidency".
uh yea. That's not an accident. Its designed that way. And adhinamijaday isn't a wackjob. He knows exactly what he's doing. And he's damn good at it. The regime has practiced hard to develop strong propaganda skills and its having an effect.

Just trying to state that people are irrationally fearful
...it also quacks like a duck. :mrgreen:
 
the following is what I had an issue with:

I would argue that the US has shown unwavering restraint regarding nuclear weapons given the many circumstances where use was applicable.
Applicable? Any situation is applicable you've got to be more specific.
the Iranian regime is nearly as unpredictable and irrational as crazy Kim in N Korea. Make no mistake.
Where does the nuclear soviet union fit onto your chart of irrationality?

Then why the rhetoric? What is their goal? The answer to that question is far more concerning.
They are opposing the west and her influence. It is what is hot in the Middle East/ former Persian territory. Helped Al Quedia's requirement.

uh yea. That's not an accident. Its designed that way. And adhinamijaday isn't a wackjob. He knows exactly what he's doing. And he's damn good at it. The regime has practiced hard to develop strong propaganda skills and its having an effect.

...it also quacks like a duck. :mrgreen:

So Iranian President is sane, and Kim is insane.. oh okay.
 
Where does the nuclear soviet union fit onto your chart of irrationality?
There are consequences for every action. I doubt whether we could come to a conclusion about "what-if" we used nukes. Suffice it to say we have not used nukes since WW2 and the opportunities in conflicts from Korea to Cuba have presented themselves, nonetheless.

They are opposing the west and her influence. It is what is hot in the Middle East/ former Persian territory.
That is the end game? Just leave us alone? If we just stopped "influencing" the ME everything would be fine? Hmmm... i don't think so.

This is not even getting into the whole world economy problem.

So Iranian President is sane, and Kim is insane.. oh okay.
E.G. launching long range missiles while openly developing nuclear weapons and being hyperagressive toward S Korea. The obsession of the Kim regime to reunite the peninsula at great expense of life, liberty, and money could be diagnosed as "crazy", yes.
 
There are consequences for every action. I doubt whether we could come to a conclusion about "what-if" we used nukes. Suffice it to say we have not used nukes since WW2 and the opportunities in conflicts from Korea to Cuba have presented themselves, nonetheless.
They was one way to ***** foot around the answer to my question.

That is the end game? Just leave us alone? If we just stopped "influencing" the ME everything would be fine? Hmmm... i don't think so.

This is not even getting into the whole world economy problem.
You are drawing connections that are not there.
I never said anything about us "stopping the influence" in the ME countries. Infact, I don't think that is a possible option... It is what it is and what it is is that we are a large influence on M.E. and the World in general.

E.G. launching long range missiles while openly developing nuclear weapons and being hyperagressive toward S Korea. The obsession of the Kim regime to reunite the peninsula at great expense of life, liberty, and money could be diagnosed as "crazy", yes.

All countries test their weaponry.
 
Back
Top Bottom