Iranian missile test

[lookout123]

if they were building nuclear weapons in response to our imminent invasion, wouldn't they be smarter to spend the r &d money on conventional weaponry upgrades, troop movements and a larger standing army, and then move into more effective (from a real threat standpoint) wmd like bio and chem?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

if they were building nuclear weapons in response to our imminent invasion, wouldn't they be smarter to spend the r &d money on conventional weaponry upgrades, troop movements and a larger standing army, and then move into more effective (from a real threat standpoint) wmd like bio and chem?

What is the one thing that America hypes fear about in every war? Nuclear and biological weapons. Conventional weapons and tactics have long ago been proven futile when the Air Force finally learned its primary mission - the support of ground troops.

I find it ironic that one would advocate conventional military weapons and tactics to defend Iran when those have repeatedly been proven ineffective against the US military - even in VietNam. What has repeatedly proven effective? Guerilla warfare. Dispersed attacks. Missile attacks on support facilities. And unsubstantiated threats. What promotes the most fear in US military doctrine? WMD and Scud missile type attacks. Why would Iran build and equip themselves with weapons and tactics long ago proven ineffective?

Lets keep this fundamental point in perspective. Iran is not building a first strike military. They are building a classic defensive structure. Those who promote fear attempt to avoid this fact. A structure designed to deter rather than repell an attack. Why? George Jr's intention to unilaterally attack Iran is all but stated. Their only hope is that centrist Americans rise up, vote, and start being informed. We have a president so irresponsible that he was warned about 11 Sept and he did nothing to defend America. No problem. Hype fear of Iran and we the people will forget his impeachable offense.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

We have a president so irresponsible that he was warned about 11 Sept and he did nothing to defend America.

from the secret files of tw.

anyway - what i stand by what i said earlier. nuclear weapons are not their most effective method right now. how many thousands of americans would be killed by a decent nuc attack? what would happen to iran if they did launch a nuc attack? they would cease to exist. do you think we just sent all of our nuclear weapons to the city dump when the cold war ended? no - the US still maintains the right to counter attack in kind. iran? now you see it, now you don't. end of story.

if they were trying to deter the US they would be touting the bio weapons programs - that is what the US military really fears. a lot of dead people is a bad thing, but a lot of sick, infected, contagious people about to be dead people? that is a terrifying thing.

in the end - we just went to war because of a belief that Iraq has WMD - do you really think the best way to avoid a war, from the iranian perspective, is to taunt the US with a REAL WMD platform?

edit:

I find it ironic that one would advocate conventional military weapons and tactics to defend Iran when those have repeatedly been proven ineffective against the US military - even in VietNam.

if the US truly feels threatened there is no strategy that will prove effective. if the US gets off its ass and decides that a war is just and necessary and can get the schmucks in DC to unite behind it - there is nothing that can stop the US military when it is not tethered by the leash of public opinion. let's face it - that is what has stood in the way of US military success since Korea - the polls. public opinion and political gamesmanship. if the gov't were to actually realize there was a REAL threat and they pulled it together, the US military has the ability to devastate all comers.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

from the secret files of tw.
if the US gets off its ass and decides that a war is just and necessary and can get the schmucks in DC to unite behind it - there is nothing that can stop the US military when it is not tethered by the leash of public opinion. let's face it - that is what has stood in the way of US military success since Korea - the polls. public opinion and political gamesmanship. if the gov't were to actually realize there was a REAL threat and they pulled it together, the US military has the ability to devastate all comers.

I guess this silly little fact called Chinese has no place in your memory of Korea. And you are going to tell us that the public is the reason we lost in Vietnam? You did first learn basic geo-military-political history?

Tell me how many schmucks in DC stopped the US military from liberating Kuwait. In fact much of the resistance to that liberation was, instead, from the military itself - because those schmucks who were itching for war refused (out of misunderstanding) to do their job - provide a workable strategic objective. To blame the public for a military loss is to not have learned basic history - or to spend too much time with Rush Limbaugh half truths.

When a nation does not have public support for its war, then the war is wrong. So and again we return to a fundamentally simple concept - the smoking gun. Right wing extremists - enemies of the military - would advocate that the public is an impediment to the military. "Soldiers dealing with the trauma of killing " in the Current Events forum touches upon what happens when the military goes to war without public support. It is the little people who then and again suffer because the military is wrong. Too many still refuse to learn the lessons of Vietnam. Those are an enemy of the military.

And yes, the president did know (or at least was informed of by his PDB) that hijackings and attack by Al Qaeda were imminent. The 9/11 Commission says so. Furthermore, this president and his people did everything possible to cover up that fact. When Condi Rice read the title of that PDB, then the entire hearing room gasp. That is what the president want you to not know - that he was informed of the attack we now call 9/11. It is bluntly obvious to anyone with reading skills. The president was warned of the attack. Warned bluntly from numerous quarters. He and his principles instead quashed all attempts to uncover or subvert that attack. These are historical facts even provided by the 9/11 Commission report.

Nuclear weapons are a far more effective impediment than bio weapons. Basic military knowledge (rather than just hype opinions from Fox News) makes that obvious. Bio weaspons are trivial localized devices that are much too overhyped by naive news reporters. To even suspect that bio weapons can defer an attack is to be naive. Nuclear weapons can take out entire divisions and naval task forces including the aircraft carrier. The latter causes fear in generals, admirals, and presidents. Bio attacks only get the press upset and create cannon fodder. Bio weapons do not threaten top leadership and capital weapons. Bio weapons are described by the leadership as "militarily insignificant". No better weapon than nuclear to deter an invasion. Bio weapons will not deter an invasion. Simple background in military tactics make that obvious.

Iran must build nuclear weapons because George Jr has all but declared his intentions to attack Iran. Iran is next as soon as George Jr and his people can invent an excuse.

OK, I have a question. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, what is the critical limiting factor? Is it delivery? Is it having a facility where one can manufacture the requisite plutonium? Could one make plutonium in one's own garage? Just curious. Can anyone enlighten me?

[tw]

Originally Posted by marichiko

OK, I have a question. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, what is the critical limiting factor? Is it delivery? Is it having a facility where one can manufacture the requisite plutonium? Could one make plutonium in one's own garage? Just curious. Can anyone enlighten me?

Which WMD? I assume this is a question about plutonium or uranium based weapons. It is extremely difficult. First one must obtain sufficient quantities of a material harder to obtain than precious metals. Tons of material must be unearthed just to extract grams. Then there is the major effort of refining this bomb material into weapons grade. The amount of energy necessary to make the first three US atom bombs was so great that processing facilities were located where electricity was plentiful - Hanford in WA and in the Tennessee River Valley. After two bombs were dropped on Japan, there was insufficient weapons grade material remaining for another bomb. It is that difficult to obtain weapons grade material.

To get around that problem, one must steal pounds. And remember, weapons grade uranium and especially weapons grade plutonium will kill quckly if not properly contained. How does one steal what must be in a large container?

So we have this material. Now we must make a bomb. Idea is to compress the material so tight to create a chain reaction. Again not so easy. One cannot just explode dynamite around it to cause the compression. The explosive forces must be carefully sized, timed and placed to make compression without any leakage in all three dimensions. Less accurate compression means even more weapons grade material is required - and bomb must be physically heavier.

But it does not stop there. Neutrons must be slowed to properly create the chain reaction. A moderator material is required. How much? Just more reasons why a bomb design involves so much time on super computers. Where does a terrorist steal super computers with advanced development software?

Now clearly the facility is getting quite large. Massive amounts of electricity, computer development time, carefully selected explosive materials of refined purity, special moderator materials, highly accurate machine shops, and a host of control equipment that is not routinely available in international markets. All this and the resulting radioactive shielding must be hidden from public, law enforcement, and satellite view.

Then there are the so many other little facts and special materials we are not even going to discuss.

In short, it takes the full resources of a nation's government to make a bomb sufficient to be a terrorist weapon.

Clearly a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists is almost impossible. It is also unlikely that lightning will strike you and only you while inside your car. That one lightning event only to you and no one else is many times more likely than a terrorist with a bomb. However no one cares if you are struck by lightning. We do care if something much more impossible happens - terrorists with a nuclear device. Therefore we ignore you verses lightning in the car but give serious consideration to something thousands of times less likely - a terrorist with a nuclear device.

Again I must emphasize how much nonsense and fear is used instead of logic and numbers. A terrorist with a nuclear device is mostly stuff of fiction. Terrorists using airplanes was always a realistic scenario as even noted in a PDB to George Jr. A smart president must be able to put these two events in proper perspective.

Terrorist with a nuclear device could only happen if top leadership was outrightly subverting the little people in government from doing their job - as George Jr administration did to this nation's top anti-terrorists including John O'Neil and Richard Clark and to ongoing investigations that were about to expose the terrorist plots. Yes a nuclear device is something we must worry about - but not from terrorists. Just another reason why our international relations are so important to this nation's security. That bomb cannot exist when America worries about having friends - and therefore the threat would be discovered long before the threat exists. What is the best defenses against a nuclear bomb terrorist attack? Good relations with virtually every nation in the world. Something we no longer have.

Look at that last paragraph. I have gone from being ho-hum about George Jr to being one of the most vocal critics of this mental midget president. Notice how we best avoid a nuclear terrorist attack. This is but another in a long list of reasons why I openly, aggressively, and unconditionally say that George Jr is a very bad president. He has made the nearly impossible just a little more possible by being both mentally weak and politically dangerous. I cannot say enough to the moderates and centrists among us - are you registered to vote? Your vote is probably more necessary this November than anytime in the last 30 years. Things have gotten that bad. Are you registered?

Yes, I'm registered for what good it will do. Colorado always goes Republican, and we are hardly a swing state. I was wondering about the possibility of terrorism from within this country. Out in western Colorado near a little town called Naturita there are about a million abandoned uranium mines. There's still plenty of the stuff there. Everywhere you go in the mountains there are huge radiation warning signs. No one ever pays much attention to the area these days. I have a friend who is building several houses on an abandoned mining claim and no one - even the locals - knows he exists. It's a pretty remote and lonely area. Just wondered what the possibilities were of a terrorist group forming a "commune" in some place like Naturita?

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

In short, it takes the full resources of a nation's government to make a bomb sufficient to be a terrorist weapon.

Clearly a nuclear bomb in the hands of terrorists is almost impossible.

hmm, if only there were a former super power who built incredible stock piles of nuclear weapons before collapsing... and after they collapsed couldn't afford to pay their top scientists and many military officers... and if only that former super power had borders like a sieve... and only if there was someone with large sums of money, but no nuclear weapon who was willing to pay former scientists and military officers for a nuclear weapon...

nah, you're right tw, its almost impossible. so sleep tight tonight. i know it takes a lot of energy to dig up the conspiracy theories you have. careful though, i think "george jr" is on to you.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by marichiko

OK, I have a question. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction, what is the critical limiting factor? Is it delivery? Is it having a facility where one can manufacture the requisite plutonium? Could one make plutonium in one's own garage? Just curious. Can anyone enlighten me?

We (the US) made some of our first batch in a Squash Court at the University of Chicago. It's not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it's fairly do-able. The tricky stuff in nuclear material production is the separation of U235 from a mix of U235 and U238.

[russotto]

Plutonium is produced "naturally" in nuclear reactors by bombardment of U-238 with neutrons and the subsequent beta decays of U-239 to Pu-239. If you've got a neutron source (always the tricky part -- the best source is a nuclear reactor), and you've got U-238, you can make plutonium.

Making a bomb with plutonium is tricky, as you've got to assemble it quickly and precisely. Probably just not that hard with today's technology, though. Make sure you have an expert at high explosives on your staff.

You also need a neutron source; the traditional one is a berillyum-polonium device called an "urchin" for some reason.

All of this is 1940s technology. Yes, supercomputers are used to design weapons -- but that's because you want maximum yield for minimum material, or you want a certain type of yield (e.g more radiation and less blast for a neutron bomb). If you just want something that makes a really big bang, that's a different matter. If you can get enough U-235, it's even easier. U-235 is much less toxic than plutonium, and much easier to make go bang.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by lookout123

if they were building nuclear weapons in response to our imminent invasion, wouldn't they be smarter to spend the r &d money on conventional weaponry upgrades, troop movements and a larger standing army, and then move into more effective (from a real threat standpoint) wmd like bio and chem?

Because nuclear weapons are the great equalizer. Given their GDP, there is no way they can match US armor and tactics. Granted they make up some in fanaticism, but strapping explosives on young teenagers will not stop heavy armor.

Anyone who watched us roll over Iraq and stop at North Korea gets the message. After being placed on the Axis of Evil list, it would probably be irresponsible of them not to develop a deterrent. Right now the US is extended as far as we can sustain without a draft. We could field another 50K or more for a very short while, but would not have replacements anytime soon. It is in Iran's interests to develop a deterrent before the bulk of the troops come back and are sent out the door to Iran.

Considering the tinderbox the Middle East has become, I doubt that Israel can get away with a pre-emptive strike like they took against Iraq in 1981.

Of course, this might be premature since the reactor in Iran is supposedly not the best type for weapons grade development.

Still, it's nice to see a demonstration of the safer world Wolfowitz, Cheney, and friends have led us to. I hope they get locked out of the shelter if the day ever comes.