Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad

[Hax]

Becuase as of right now it hurts US interests .

Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?

[rvg]

Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?

Nothing. Still, Americans will support American interests above all other interests, and I'm sure that the Dutch will do the same with regards to the interests of their country. That's just common sense. In case of Iran the US interests happen to match the interests of most of the civilized world, which is why most of the civilized world is hostile towards the Iranian nuclear aspirations.

[Hax]

Actually, I try to think of the interests of the world. I'm not limiting my view to my own country.

[rvg]

Oh, alright. Well, good luck with that.

[Strike For The South]

Yeah, well..what made the US the lawful and eternal masters of the known universe?

Our nukes mostly. I'm prefectly aware I'm being hypocrictical. I'm also perfectly aware and Iran sans nukes will save allot of lives somewhere down the road.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Our nukes mostly.

Of course not. Russia has not only more atomics, in quantity, but also more in the yield. Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

This was done after the scientists said a 100 megaton bomb would cripple all of Russia with the fallout (which would be equivalent to 25% of all tested nuclear devices in the history of mankind) and the shockwave, which would generate a Richter 10 or worse earthquake if detonated on the ground – the 50 megaton test could have released 7.2 Richter if it was not an airburst…

What would be called a “strategic” fission device in US is “tactical” in USSR/Russia. The largest operational atomic in US is the Titan II at ~2 megatons, which has been recently decommissioned, leaving US with only tactical-grade fusion devices.

But all this is crap, because it does not matter how much of them you have or how high-quality they are. All you need is a sufficient amount to make the enemy think before attacking . That is all. Russia is no more powerful than Israel, UK, or France in terms of its nuclear capabilities. Nor is US.

What really matters, what made US great, is of course the economy. That is all that matters really. With an economy the size of US, you can go from the 1939 100,000 man militia with severely insufficient rifles and no weapons of higher grade than small arms – US did not even possess machineguns, artillery, or tanks in the beginning of WWII. But all it took was some factories to elevate US war machine roughly on par with that of the Greater German Reich or USSR.

War can only be continued with money, and in modern world, the “money” is replaced with the more general word, the “economy”, as money can be inflated or deflated with little obstructions, unlike in the past, where the decreasing of bullion content in coins was a serious offence indicating severe weakness.

However, knowing you, SFTS, you are probably trolling as usual… Although it seems you were serious this time

[Ironside]

This was done after the scientists said a 100 megaton bomb would cripple all of Russia with the fallout (which would be equivalent to 25% of all tested nuclear devices in the history of mankind) and the shockwave, which would generate a Richter 10 or worse earthquake if detonated on the ground – the 50 megaton test could have released 7.2 Richter if it was not an airburst…

Posting only because you have mentioned a preference of statistics.

100/2=50 megaton = half of Russia crippled with the fallout. (The reduced radiation comes from scrapping the uranium to lead in the final blasting cap. A pure fusion bomb is fairly clean, only neutron decay from the blast)

50*2 = triggering a 16.000 times stronger earthquake.

100 megaton triggering a seismic energy yield of 1.000.000 megaton (10 Richter).

Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨
The point of blowing it in the air is exactly that, because hitting the ground is severly weaking the blast, thus effiency.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Posting only because you have mentioned a preference of statistics.

100/2=50 megaton = half of Russia crippled with the fallout. (The reduced radiation comes from scrapping the uranium to lead in the final blasting cap. A pure fusion bomb is fairly clean, only neutron decay from the blast)

Sorry, but I do not understand you point well... what are you saying? You seem to be repeating my post:
Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

Even as clean as most fusion designs are, the Tsar Bomba was expected to release momentous amounts of radiation, like I said, 25% of all the atomic tests ever conducted (roughly reported and estimated ~2600 nuclear devices – 2430 fully confirmed). Now, I am no physicist. Neither are you, or at least not a nuclear physicist. I see no reason why an official statement by the Soviet scientists, backed up by the American counterparts is not valid. If they say the radiation would have laid waste to much of Russia, then it must have had substantial amount of truth in it.



Like I said, please elaborate your post...

50*2 = triggering a 16.000 times stronger earthquake.

100 megaton triggering a seismic energy yield of 1.000.000 megaton (10 Richter).

Once again, what is your point? My apologies, but I do not see it (no, I am not sarcastic, I honestly did not understand your post).

[QUOTE=Ironside;2354108]Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨

The point of blowing it in the air is exactly that, because hitting the ground is severly weaking the blast, thus effiency.

Of course, I know that. An air burst utilises the ordnance’s blast most efficiently, but that is not always the goal. The 50 megaton did equal 7.1 Richter. I am citing the official reports, not my own reckoning. A 100 megaton bomb would have created a catastrophic earthquake, although due to the logarithmic scale of Richter I am cannot say what would be the power of a 100-megaton bomb – I have no desire to perform calculations now.

[Ironside]

Sorry, but I do not understand you point well... what are you saying? You seem to be repeating my post:
Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

Even as clean as most fusion designs are, the Tsar Bomba was expected to release momentous amounts of radiation, like I said, 25% of all the atomic tests ever conducted (roughly reported and estimated ~2600 nuclear devices – 2430 fully confirmed). Now, I am no physicist. Neither are you, or at least not a nuclear physicist. I see no reason why an official statement by the Soviet scientists, backed up by the American counterparts is not valid. If they say the radiation would have laid waste to much of Russia, then it must have had substantial amount of truth in it.

Neutron radiation reduces with a 1000 every 2,5 hours (half-life of about 15 min), so basically any dangerous radiation that spreads (the neutrons are very dangerous in close proximity though, the principle used in neutron bombs) is from the blasting cap, that's a fission nuke for fusion bombs. So the radiation has more to do with the method of blowing the bomb than with the size of the bomb. Should that be 25% of the total radiation, then the 100 megoton nuke would be very dirty.

Like I said, please elaborate your post...


Once again, what is your point? My apologies, but I do not see it (no, I am not sarcastic, I honestly did not understand your post).

A 100megaton bomb is about 7.3 richter. Basically it's either hitting a critical point on the crust that have a meassurable treshold, is complete bull or the earth crust have been completly raptured, possibly with the whole planet cracking open by every larger meteor strike during earths history. A 400 megaton nuke would wipe out humanity with a vide margin (triggering a earthquake with about 16 on the richter scale).

Simply put, the differances between the 100 one and 50 one are wildly exaggerated. If that's in the offical report, it's plain propaganda.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Simply put, the differances between the 100 one and 50 one are wildly exaggerated. If that's in the offical report, it's plain propaganda.

The Americans never seemed to contradict anything said by the Soviets, the data is still widely cited in treatises on this subject. Actually, the Americans claimed the Russians understated the strength of the reaction, which the Americans measured at 57 megatons. Quite the opposite of dismissing the incident as padded and glorified/overstated with propaganda.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Amelius, I can't quote your post because of the font tags that show up in it, so it's easier to respond this way.

Israel acts overwhelmingly in a defensive manner, and at the time it acquired nuclear bombs it was in real danger of being totally destroyed. Now, this doesn't mean that acquiring the nuclear weaponry was a good thing, but from the Israeli point of view it was necessary. I don't disagree with you that further nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. In fact, this is exactly why I don't want Iran to acquire them. Israel has had them for decades, Iran is acquiring them now. We don't want more potential nuclear powers, but Israel already is one. It is not good to allow yet another nuclear power to emerge in that region merely in the interests of fairness.

For most of Israel's history it has been the underdog. It could easily take out every Arab state by itself one by one, but if they are allied together the situation becomes much more desperate, as shown at least twice since the end of the Second World War. While you are correct in saying that this is probably not realistic today, in the fifties and sixties it was a very probable possibility. It would be difficult to convince Israel to disarm at the same time that Iran is now arming - the rough equivalent of America giving up all of her nuclear bombs while allowing Russia and China to keep theirs.

Hell If Israel needs nukes to combat its enemies than what about the Iranians ?!

On the one side you have a bunch of fairly poorly equipped forces divided in opinion, on the other side you have two of the most powerful military's in the world...

Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.

If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...

Only if your equation is wrong to start with.

My point is more along the lines of...

If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)

The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...

Iran is not under any threat from Israel whatsoever, and is under relatively little threat from America.

[Aemilius Paulus]

It is not good to allow yet another nuclear power to emerge in that region merely in the interests of fairness.

Hehe, well, I am not advocating that either. The last thing I care about in politics is fairness.
What I am merely pointing out is that the West has no one to blame for Iran's atomics other than themselves. You are inevitably putting yourselves in the position of blatant hypocrisy. Just how much you care about that is your choice...

It would be difficult to convince Israel to disarm at the same time that Iran is now arming - the rough equivalent of America giving up all of her nuclear bombs while allowing Russia and China to keep theirs.

Which is why Israel should not have waited by now. Iranian patience is not limitless. Israel continued their nuclear programme and no one did anything to stop them. They did not scrap their program like South African Republic or Libya did. Even after the danger clearly went away, it did not offer to destroy its atomics. Now they pay the price. Seriously, were the Jews honestly so foolish as to not realise that a powerful, militant, and uranium rich nation such as Iran would not attempt to catch up by producing its own fission armaments by the 1990s? I doubt it.

They knew it was coming, just not when. They could have extended the olive branch, but they did not. Of course, that is always hard to do. But even harder to now face nuclear Iran, which will stay nuclear even if it agrees to surrender its WMDs. After all, they have the technology, just like Ukraine, which produced atomics under the Soviet supervision and gave up its arsenal to Russia (and US I believe as well). If things heat up there, who knows...

[rvg]

Israel continued their nuclear programme and no one did anything to stop them. They did not scrap their program like South African Republic or Libya did. Even after the danger clearly went away, it did not offer to destroy its atomics.

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

[drone]

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

This.

And Iran has a way out of the treaty, a 3 month advance notice of withdrawal. Until then, research and development of nuclear weaponry is forbidden.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.

So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".

How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.


Please, cut the jokes...

[rvg]

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by?

Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.

[drone]

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

It was that Israel didn't sign, and Iran did. This is why there wasn't nearly as much fuss when it became obvious that Israel had the bomb. They weren't bound by the treaty. Neither were India and Pakistan.

All Iran has to do is put in it's 90-day notice, and then it can give El Baradei the finger when it comes to inspections.

Kyoto Protocol

how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified