Russia to start Iran's 1st nuclear plant next week

obvious Child said:

That's technically not true. An implosion device utilizing uranium can make a nuke out of 20% enriched. It just would require a larger then normal number of reflectors and a larger then normal explosive amount of shaped charges to compress the uranium into a critical mass. Sure it's bloody hard to make it, but North Korea managed to make implosion devices with plutonium and they have been in contact with Iran.

Click to expand...

Well, let's clarify some stuff.

One "enriches" uranium to concentrate the U235. The complicated enrichment process is required because there's no chemical difference between the fairly non-reactive U238 and it's more reactive lighter isotope.

A 20% enriched weapon could never be more than a "dirty nuke", intended more to create a radiological horror in Tel Aviv than to flatten the city. Especially not if it's delivered by air.

Plutonium is chemically different from uranium, and it will be separated from the nuclear waste when the operating reactors Russia is providing are refueled.

Plutonium has a much greater neutron absorption cross section than U235, which means a small critical mass is needed to make a boom. Because of the greater reactivity of Pu239, an implosion shock wave is necessary to compress the subcritical core before predetonation causes a fizzle. Given that this computer I bought over the counter has more than enough computing power to solve the hydrodynamic equations of the implosion, it's no wonder than a backwoods nation like North Korea would opt for the implosion of Pu239 instead of the massive industrial investment making U235 bombs entails.

From Wiki: Weapons-grade plutonium is defined as containing no more than 7% Pu-240; this is achieved by only exposing U-238 to neutron sources for short periods of time to minimize the Pu-240 produced. Pu-240 exposed to alpha particles will incite a nuclear fission.[citation needed]

JohnWOlin said:

The only nation to my knowledge to actually use nuclear weapons is United States and even then, one could debate it wasn't necassary.

Click to expand...

One could only debate it wasn't necessary if one deliberately choose to lose the debate.

End of Debate: The life of ONE American GI that was saved by not having to invade Japan was worth the hundred thousand or so lives of the enemy lost when we FIREBOMBED Kyoto.

Oh, wait, you were talking about nukes. When you define how being dead from burning up in a nuclear blast is deader than dying in a fire started by Curtis LeMay's incendiary raids is deader then jumping from the World Trade Center to avoid the agony of being burned up by fires started by terrorist vandals, let me know.

Like I said, you can't win that argument, you'd only waste forum space if you tried. So I've already ended the argument for you and you won't get any further discussion on that topic from me.

Since the United States is morally superior to Iran, I'm also not especially interested in any lame moral equivalency arguments. Just in case you haven't noticed, the United States hasn't ordered any adultresses stoned to death in the last ummm... forever.

You're defending the acquisition of "Fry Whole Cities Quickly" technology by a nation that is currently fending off international protest at it's decision to cast stones boldly at defenseless women. That argument will hold water as good as a gill net.

Scarecrow, you continue to show me how much of a tool you are. What I was referring to was the fact that by that point the United States was totally hammering the Japanese, had control of most the Pacific islands and Japan even was preparing to write the terms of surrender. Also, I wouldn't debate it because I am unsure exactly what would have happened either way. The fact that the people piloting the planes didn't even know what they were dropping could cause that much destruction, and having to live with that probably didn't cross your mind either.

Scarecrow, what is your opinion on the Irani people? Do you believe they are evil people that want to come to your house rape your sister, and then stone you to death?

JohnWOlin said:

How about who gives a ****? What is Iran going to do seriously? Wage war against a bunch of other people that got nothing but sand and bull**** around them?

We're Americans, and if there is ever a real threat to our nation, we'll be on them like stink on **** in less than 24 hours time so let them build their little science fair.

Click to expand...

Your argument assumes the leadership of Iran is sane.

The leadership of Iraq are religous fanatics.

Also, the best time to for the helicopter to dump retardant on a forest fire is when the camper that started the fire is still standing next to it. The best time to deal with Iran's nuclear weapons program was eight years ago, was seven years ago,was last year, was yesterday, is NOW. Waiting until they have the actual devices means we risk a nuclear war when we try to take them away.

Some of us aren't stupid enough to trust the financial backers of Hezbollah with nuclear weapons.

Funny, isn't it, how the Left in the US wets their pants at the thought that some Americans might elect to use their constitutional freedom to own a gun, and do everything they can, including lying and bullying, to prevent people from being able to excercise that freedom, but those same Lefties defend Iran's "right" to own weapons that can murder millions in a flash.

What's wrong with those people?

JohnWOlin said:

Scarecrow, you continue to show me how much of a tool you are.

Click to expand...

No.

Your claim that I've posted nude photos of myself on-line are false.

I would never do that. It would take too much bandwidth.

What I was referring to was the fact that by that point the United States was totally hammering the Japanese, had control of most the Pacific islands and Japan even was preparing to write the terms of surrender. Also, I wouldn't debate it because I am unsure exactly what would have happened either way. The fact that the people piloting the planes didn't even know what they were dropping could cause that much destruction, and having to live with that probably didn't cross your mind either.

Click to expand...

Did you see the part where I said you already lost the argument?

Did you see the part where I said I won't be contributing to any discussion on the matter you already lost?

I meant it.

JohnWOlin said:

Scarecrow, what is your opinion on the Irani people? Do you believe they are evil people that want to come to your house rape your sister, and then stone you to death?

Click to expand...

Let's look at a historical example, and please, spare us the juvenile notion that any reference to Nazi Germany is a confession of loss by your betters.

The average German was a nice person. Even in the 1920's this was true.

That didn't stop looney toons from gaming the system, seizing power, and causing the deaths of fifty millon people.

The Iranians I've met are nice people. Too bad, then, that the Iranians in Iran have allowed their nice country to be overrun and ruled by religious fanatics who deny the German Holocaust happened and who beleive another nation should be erased from the earth....while they themselves have been financing a decades long program of international terrorism.

So, AGAIN, your attempt to establish moral equivalency for Iran's leadership has failed.

You need to explain, in detail, why you wish the leaders of a nation that promotes international terrorism should be allowed to finish the nuclear weapons project that's nearing completion.

Denying they have the weapons program is not an option, unless you're going to argue that even if they had the weapons, any attempt to launch them would cause the weapons to fall off the edge of the earth to bother Atuan, the Great Turtle.

obvious Child said:

Because? With sufficent quanities of 20% (and I'm meaning LOTS) it shouldn't be impossible to compress it to the point where self sustaining reactions occur. I don't think it would work with the normal amount of material used in enriched. But with sufficent amounts 20% and lots of shaped charges and reflectors, it should theoretically work. But at that point, deployment as a weapon is virtually out of the question. When your weapon is as big as a house, it's not really useful. But that does not make it impossible.

Click to expand...

It's been estimated that roughly 10% of the 15 megaton Castle Bravo blast came from fissions in the unenriched U238 tamper.

However, the implosion energy for that device came from the thermonuclear principle action.

Funny, isn't it, how the Left in the US wets their pants at the thought that some Americans might elect to use their constitutional freedom to own a gun, and do everything they can, including lying and bullying, to prevent people from being able to excercise that freedom, but those same Lefties defend Iran's "right" to own weapons that can murder millions in a flash.

Click to expand...

First off wtf is your problem seriously? I love guns. I own o' plenty. Second off do you have proof of them having nuclear weapons? Do you seriously think a ****ty country like Iran has the capability to nuke the United States before we shoot it down? Do you just not have any faith in United States? I don't think you do.

Second off, good cop out. You can't actually defend your views of killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Don't get me wrong I love nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons kick ass. I watched an entire series on Military channel of US and Russian test videos. I think if it wouldn't punch a giant gaping hole in our atmopshere we should let off nukes in the desert every fourth of July and set up a fake town just to watch that town get scorched. My point though is, is we have no proof these people even have them, and even if they did like I said we would be on them like fat people on cake or do you not have any faith in our US armed forces? I don't think you do, because I love making unfounded assumptions.

JohnWOlin said:

First off wtf is your problem seriously?

Click to expand...

The Left is destroying the United States.

Serously.

JohnWOlin said:

I love guns. I own o' plenty.

Click to expand...

I don't care about any particular hypocritical individual's ownership of guns while he gives his heart and mind to the people who are trying to steal them from him. That alone says all that needs saying on that off-topic matter that was introduced merely to point out the hypocrisy of the people the hypocritical gun owner is defending. That task is complete.

JohnWOlin said:

Second off do you have proof of them having nuclear weapons?

Click to expand...

Since the issue at hand is preventing the development and acquisiton of nuclear weapons by Iran, it's safe to say that no, I do not have evidence that Iran is currently in possession of nuclear weapons.

JohnWOlin said:

Do you seriously think a ****ty country like Iran has the capability to nuke the United States before we shoot it down?

Click to expand...

Fact in Evidence:

A ****ty country like Afghanistan successfully murdered three thousand Americans in one morning, destroyed one iconic American landmark, seriously damaged another, and, through no thanks to the government, was prevented from attacking a third by the courageous actions of civillian passengers in the fourth weapon.

Yes, I think if Iran wanted to get a nuclear weapon into the US and detonated it could find the means to do so.

And, no, the United States mainland does not have any defenses against nuclear attack at this time. The Messiah cancelled even the limited efforts Bush made to get such a system installed in Poland. On the anniversary of the day Russia invaded Poland in 1939.

JohnWOlin said:

Do you just not have any faith in United States? I don't think you do.

Click to expand...

Faith is useless when God gives the enemy the better weapons.

What's needed is hard headed pragmatism, proper threat assessments, and the willingness to act to reduce the threats presented.

As a US Navy veteran, I've plenty of "faith" in the US, and as a political observer, I have ZERO faith that American politicians will act in the nation's best interests. Especially not the Messiah.

JohnWOlin said:

Second off, good cop out. You can't actually defend your views of killing thousands of innocent civilians.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I love nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons kick ass. I watched an entire series on Military channel of US and Russian test videos. I think if it wouldn't punch a giant gaping hole in our atmopshere we should let off nukes in the desert every fourth of July and set up a fake town just to watch that town get scorched. My point though is, is we have no proof these people even have them, and even if they did like I said we would be on them like fat people on cake or do you not have any faith in our US armed forces? I don't think you do, because I love making unfounded assumptions.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's apparent you love making unfounded assumptions and you love reacting viscerally to issues that require study and concentration.

JohnWOlin said:

How about who gives a ****? What is Iran going to do seriously? Wage war against a bunch of other people that got nothing but sand and bull**** around them?

We're Americans, and if there is ever a real threat to our nation, we'll be on them like stink on **** in less than 24 hours time so let them build their little science fair.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There's no real evidence that they're trying to build a nuke, and even if they did, it would be for defensive purposes.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

"Defensive" nukes?

Click to expand...

Mutual assured destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try again Akhbar. And this time put some effort into it.

They do it to kill huge numbers of people.

Click to expand...

So South Korea never attempted weapons production as a defensive measure against North Korea? This is the first hint that you are wrong.

So Pakistan never attempted weapons production as a defensive measure against military superior nuclear armed India? This is the second hint that you are wrong.

So Japan maintains the capacity to build nuclear weapons within a month to kill lots of people offensively? This is the third hint that you are wrong.

Iran getting nuclear weapons is not a defensive move. Let us not pretend that just because sane nations in the past have used nuclear weapons in the final extremity only that Iran will become sane when it possesses nuclear weapons. There's no evidence of sanity in that regime.

Click to expand...

Oh look another mindless statement.

Okay, if they are so insane, why do the Mullahs run CvB analysis on projects? Feel free to run away at this time.

Your second post is irrelevant in trying to prove I'm wrong.

Orion said:

Tehran alone has 17 million people. The nuclear energy will go a long way.

Click to expand...

Did Massad plant the detonators? :mrgreen:

According to other news articles, Russia is supplying the fuel for the reactor. So, why is Iran enriching uranium if not for weapons?

im kind of excited for this plant to open and heres why so just here me out don't need to be trolled by the whole forum: i think its okay and a good thing that Iran is going to start a nuclear program simply to " stick it " to the man saying that we can do whatever we want with out having your permission sure they have made threats and what not but im sure if they were to do something wrong..... yeah.. Iran wouldn't be there same goes for Israel if they decide to bomb the plant and are proven guilty theres going to be a massive war. so again i im all up for the plant to open simply because of the opportunities that it will provide the country and the benefits, not the possible tragedies

Like I said ****'em. Let them do what they want and let God sort them out.

JohnWOlin said:

Like I said ****'em. Let them do what they want and let God sort them out.

Click to expand...

glad im not alone with this thought