• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

The Iran crisis

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    The Iran crisis

    I am a bit confused about the current "crisis" over Iran.

    I certainly have misgivings about any religious state having nuclear weaponry for the simple reason that a religiously motivated state is less susceptible to real world considerations than a secular one. It bothers me even that Bush and He who-Must-Be-Stabbed have their fingers on nuclear triggers instead than the more secular Clinton or Major.

    The idea of a fundamentalist Muslim state having a significant nuclear capability cannot be countenanced. Leaders of most states would think twice about entering into any conflict which they know they would probably lose or which would kill enormous numbers of their citizens. Such calculations cannot be assumed to apply to a state dominated by a religion that believes in suicide bombings. If Islam can regard an individual suicide bombing by impressionable young men with their whole lives ahead of them, even by their own sons, as a glorious event, who can say they would not view the suicide of their nation in the same manner? If Iran, under the current regime anyway, looks like getting nuclear capability it needs to stopped by any means possible.

    But what I cannot follow is why we are drawing a line in the sand when the sea is still 300 yards away. As I understand it, the degree of Uranium enrichment needed for commercial power generation, which the Iranians say is their only interest, is a few percent. The enrichment needed for a nuclear warhead is over 80%. So why exactly are we insisting on no enrichment at all? why not call their bluff (if it is a bluff) and say that the degree of enrichment needed for a reactor is fine but we will take immediate action if they go significantly beyond that such that the only intended application can be a bomb? This takes away all their moral high ground about interfering in the perfectly peaceful intentions of a sovereign state.

    Are there some technical reasons why having a peaceful nuclear program can provide expertise that makes a nuclear bomb simpler to develop?

    Or is this just the usual politician insanity that insists on making absurd stands when no valid reason yet exists?
    Last edited by xoggoth; 19 April 2006, 21:01.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

    #2
    Originally posted by zeitghost
    Though the Yanks managed it twice in 1945 so it can't be that hard...
    Once (the Nagasaki bomb). The Hiroshima bomb was the other sort.

    Comment


      #3
      Aaaah, you are of course correct, Zeity. That's why you're the giant alien lizard and I am evil incarnate.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by zeitghost
        I find it a bit odd too, after all it takes about 40 to 50 kg of U235 to make a device.

        This takes yonks to produce using centrifuges...

        It takes about 10kg of Pu239 to do much the same.

        And you can separate Pu239 chemically from spent reactor fuel.

        Just like we, the Russians & the Americans did in the 40s & 50s.

        The difference is that the U235 can be fitted into a gun assembly which is dead simple, while the Pu239 requires spherical compression which isn't quite so simple.

        Though the Yanks managed it twice in 1945 so it can't be that hard...
        These days there are simpler techniques for isotope separation, such as laser separation.

        Also, to answer Xog's question, if you can enrich uranium by 3% then you can do it again on the result, and so on. Doesn't take much weapons grade uranium to make a bomb.
        Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

        Comment


          #5
          Polonium?

          Nasty stuff that, even for those of us used to the infernal reaches.

          Comment


            #6
            That's why the boys at Burghfield use Neutron Generators...

            Switch on...
            Switch <BANG>...

            Comment


              #7
              IIRC most people exposure to Polonium is due to smoking. Apparently the stuff they use to make fertiliser for tobacco plants has a lot of it and so ends up in the cigarettes.

              Additionally the resulting radiation dose from a packet of cigarettes is the same as having a chest X-ray.

              Insanity: repeating the same actions, but expecting different results.
              threadeds website, and here's my blog.

              Comment


                #8
                /rant on

                Yep, this is a strange one. What is clear is that the president of Iran has been taking lessons from Bin Laden on how to play the super-powers. This little storm has one objective, to increase the value of oil on the markets and that seems like a good idea if you have lots of it to export and demand is very high. Hence the "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric. But why do they want nuclear power if they have all that oil? Quite obviously they covet the Saudi ability to control oil markets because this power lets you fund terror networks and hold onto power with an iron fist but still be friends with America, so if you can export nearly every drop you essentially have a price spigot and a place by the fire. Nuclear weapons are just a bonus somewhere down the line but I don't think they are a priority right now. The only thing that has me scratching my head is why the Americans are falling for all this? Can't be stupidity can it? Not again anyway. Hang on a minute, don't the UK/US own most of the biggest oil companies? Look at their share prices recently, ahhhhhhhhh.

                /rant off

                Everyone's a winner, except us as usual.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Those whom would question our plans for War in Iran are concealing Weapons of Mass Destruction.

                  Iran will be the catalyst for the Rapture, we know that they already have nuclear weapons courtesy of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

                  The unprovoked nuclear attack upon Iran will trigger the Final Days.

                  Revel in your time.

                  Insure Now With Prudential
                  Last edited by Central-Scrutiniser; 20 April 2006, 12:45.
                  If you have done no wrong then you have nothing to fear ...perhaps.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by zeitghost
                    They won't payout after the Big Bang, but hey! you still get that feeling of security...
                    Au contraire my esteemed ZG, Prudential are already Rapture Compliant.

                    My advice to all contractors is to become a Rapturist,if true then you get to go to Heaven, if not you will never be the wiser.

                    A Win Win Sitch .

                    Here is a well known Rapturist

                    Why not be a smartie
                    Come and join the Rapture Party !


                    Last edited by Central-Scrutiniser; 20 April 2006, 13:00.
                    If you have done no wrong then you have nothing to fear ...perhaps.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X