Iran and the Bomb

[Shapley]

In these days of suicide bombers, surely all you need is 2 sub-critical masses and 2 backpacks?

That's true, but the two masses have to be forced together at high speed, otherwise you get a low-level explosion that just scatters the rest of the mass, creating a 'dirty bomb'.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

In these days of suicide bombers, surely all you need is 2 sub-critical masses and 2 backpacks?

If the fissionable is sufficiently enriched, and if the machining is perfect, you can fit the whole kit 'n kaboodle in one of jamie's gone-hiking-for-a-week frame backpacks.

I don't know that jamie could pick it up, though. Fissionables are heavy.

[jamiebk]

In these days of suicide bombers, surely all you need is 2 sub-critical masses and 2 backpacks?

If the fissionable is sufficiently enriched, and if the machining is perfect, you can fit the whole kit 'n kaboodle in one of jamie's gone-hiking-for-a-week frame backpacks.

I don't know that jamie could pick it up, though. Fissionables are heavy.

Sometimes, I could swear I was carrying lead.

[Shapley]

I'm not sure how much U-235 would be needed for a decent sized bomb, but I seem to recall that a 4" Dia. sphere would make a pretty good bang. If I did my math correctly, that should weigh in somewhere around 22 lbs. With each backpacker carrying half of that, that would equate to about 11 lbs. each. That wouldn't be too heavy to pack.

[Shapley]

So, do you reckon Homeland Security is monitoring the Bulletin Board yet?

[Haggis@wk]

But that Arnold movie "True Lies" seems prescient with its black market bombs no bigger than an outboard motor.... I pray the real ones are all accounted for and i wish they'd find that one that fell off the B52 into the swamp mud off North Carolina.
When you consider there's basketball sized torpedo warheads, briefcase sized two man deployable "concealed carry" nukes, and thermos bottle sized nukes for five inch artillery,,, the outboard motor sized ones in Arnold's movie seem outlandishly awkward.

Probably it's wise to mentally prepare oneself for the possibility -- what will I do here if it happens there?

It appears there are 11 missing U.S. nukes including the one you reference (it was actually a B-47) We've lost 2 nuke subs and the Russians lost 5, presumably all had some sort of nuke weapons, we know the U.S. subs had W34 nuke torpedoes. Most of the nuke weapons appear to have been lost at sea but at least one was lost on land in Greenland

This quote from Wiki scared the bujeebus out of me when I read it.

January 24, 1961 – Goldsboro B-52 crash – Physical destruction of a nuclear bomb, loss of nuclear materials

A USAF B-52 bomber caught fire and exploded in midair due to a major leak in a wing fuel cell 12 miles (19 km) north of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina. Five crewmen parachuted to safety, but three died—two in the aircraft and one on landing. The incident released the bomber’s two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs. Three of the four arming devices on one of the bombs activated, causing it to carry out many of the steps needed to arm itself, such as the charging of the firing capacitors and, critically, the deployment of a 100-foot (30 m) diameter retardation parachute. The parachute allowed the bomb to hit the ground with little damage. The fourth arming device — the pilot’s safe/arm switch — was not activated preventing detonation. The second bomb plunged into a muddy field at around 700 mph (300 m/s) and disintegrated.

Its tail was discovered about 20 feet (6 m) down and much of the bomb recovered, including the tritium bottle and the plutonium. However, excavation was abandoned due to uncontrollable ground water flooding.

Most of the thermonuclear stage, containing uranium, was left in situ. It is estimated to lie around 180 feet (55 m) below ground. The Air Force purchased the land and fenced it off to prevent its disturbance, and it is tested regularly for contamination, although none has so far been found.[28]

emphasis added

I have to believe the Soviets lost at least the same number of weapons if not more. The bigger scare is the fissile material or just dangerously radioactive stuff that's floating around, one of the Wiki entry mention that Georgian soldiers were walking around with a c-137 pellet in the pocket of a shared jacket. The pellet was part of training equipment that had been lost and unaccounted for. How many of those pellets are still unaccounted for? I suspect more than enough for a bunch of dirty bombs

[jamiebk]

It appears there are 11 missing U.S. nukes including the one you reference (it was actually a B-47) We've lost 2 nuke subs and the Russians lost 5, presumably all had some sort of nuke weapons, we know the U.S. subs had W34 nuke torpedoes. Most of the nuke weapons appear to have been lost at sea but at least one was lost on land in Greenland

The good news is that with all our resources, if WE can't retireve the stuff...probably NO ONE can. As for the subs, well, they remain in their watery grave and probably will for ever. Placed where they are, salvage would be virtually impossible...therefore the materials are of no risk down there...except to the fishies if they start to leak.

[Shapley]

I believe one of the two lost subs sank during sea trials, so it probably was not armed at the time.

The Soviets have lost a few subs, including one in relatively shallow water in the Atlantic, If I recall. The crew evacuated, and it sank during towing operations. I do not know if the nukes were recovered, or even possible removed prior to towing. That's not the sort of information the Soviets were fond of sharing. (To be fair, we're not fond of it, either.)

I'm doubtful that the terrorists have yet obtained the capabilty to conduct deep sea or deep ice recovery. The troubling thing is simply that there is so much bomb-grade material out there. I have no doubt they know it is out there, but I don't believe they are mounting any serious effort to recover it. More likely, they are looking for any material that may come available on the market if they are, in fact, seeking to obtain bomb-grade material.

[dai bread]

So, do you reckon Homeland Security is monitoring the Bulletin Board yet?

I hope not. Otherwise I won't be allowed into the country.

[jamiebk]

So, do you reckon Homeland Security is monitoring the Bulletin Board yet?

I hope not. Otherwise I won't be allowed into the country.

Oh Hell, Dai, just come in through Mexico...everyone else does.

[Haggis@wk]

tick…tick…tick…

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

[dai bread]

The news media have no sense of security.

[Haggis@wk]

Iran Cancels “Aid” Ship to Gaza

As I told you a while back, they’re not going to take on Israel by sending ships — with or without the Revolutionary Guards — to challenge the Gaza blockade. The details are delicious.

Iran Cancels “Aid” Ship to Gaza

Iran has cancelled sending an aid ship to the Gaza Strip which had been scheduled to set sail for the Palestinian territory on Sunday, state news agency IRNA reported. Skip related content

“The trip is not going to happen,” Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the “Palestinian” Intifada, an Iranian body set up by parliament, told reporters on Thursday, IRNA said.

He said the ship had originally been due to depart on Thursday, but “due to restrictions from the occupying Zionist regime, it was decided that this ship would leave on Sunday. But now the trip is not going to happen.”

Sheikholeslam, speaking in the northern Iranian city of Rasht, said that the aid supplies that had been collected for the voyage will be sent by other means to Gaza.

“The Zionist regime has made the blockade a political issue and we do not wish to politicise this kind of humanitarian aid because the most important thing for us is to break the blockade of Gaza,” he said.
He said the voyage was cancelled as Israel “had sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on that regime and
it will confront it,” IRNA quoted him as saying.

“In order to deprive the Zionist regime of any excuse, the aid collected for the oppressed people of Gaza will be delivered to them by other means without mentioning the name of Iran.”
That’s clear enough, isn’t it? Israel said that if any Iranian ship tries to enter Israeli waters, it will be treated as an act of war. So the Iranians bagged it.

Now ask yourself this question: how would the regime react if the tough guy in the White House said, “If we find any evidence of Iranian support for the terrorists killing Americans in Iraq or Afghanistan, we’ll consider it an act of war and will react accordingly”?

Which Bushitlercheney should have done years ago. It’s still the right thing to do.

Lots of lessons here:

1. They talk a lot but they’re afraid, profoundly afraid (can you imagine the RG generals talking to the Supreme Leader? “But Excellency, they will kill us all…”);

2. They will not risk direct confrontation, because any defeat will encourage the Iranian people to bring them down;

3. They talk a lot about the glories of martyrdom, but the martyrs they have in mind are the Arabs they send into battle or on suicide missions against us;

4. The trouble with American leaders is that they want to be loved, whereas a healthy dose of fear will do wonders for the region.

Sigh. Dare I say it? Yes I can: Faster, please.

[Haggis@wk]

Nuking Westphalia: Obama’s Deep Convictions Point to War With Iran.

In spite of what some conspiracy-minded critics on the right think, mainstream journalists like Time’s Joel Klein do not often agree with Fidel Castro. That both Klein and Castro think the chances of war between the United States and Iran have increased recently is worth noting. I happen to think they are right.

Color me.....unpersuaded. Granted, I may be looking through my freely acknowledged hypocritical glasses and missing the point of the opinion but I have seen nothing from this president that would lead me to believe that he will do anything but whine and whinge while Iran builds a bomb. God knows on this issue I would love to be wrong.

Anyone else have a different opinion or POV that I'm missing?

[dai bread]

Woodrow Wilson came to the party in WW1 did he not? Late, but there, thank goodness. Otherwise there'd be precious little of either Germany or Britain left. Both of them were fighting a war of attrition.

We have been moving towards a world government since 1945 and the establishment of the U.N. Not through that organisation, but through bilateral and multilateral trade and other deals. The European Union is simply the most prominent example. We and the Aussies have CER (Closer Economic Relations), and have had for years. It's easy for us; our two countries are virtually interchangeable. The U.S. has NAFTA, and there are plenty of other agreements around the world.

Something we don't think about, but I've referred to it before, is that the nations that used to be part of various Empires have continued the development initiated during their colonial periods. The result is that many of them, notably India, are now serious nations in their own right. The world has changed. It is no longer an Anglo-Saxon fiefdom. Iran is simply a belligerent example, driven by a President with a bad case of Small Man Syndrome.

The linked article makes no mention of the well-reported fact that the Iranian regime doesn't enjoy universal support in its country. Sooner or later it will be brought down by its own people.

[Haggis@wk]

he world has changed. It is no longer an Anglo-Saxon fiefdom.

But the Anglo Saxons spawned the richest nations in the world. The English speaking world is pretty wealthy

[analog]

Woodrow Wilson came to the party in WW1 did he not? Late, but there, thank goodness.

Wish i knew my history better. What little i know of Wilson is from a one man play by that name. He was portrayed as somewhat of a pacifist who worried himself to death trying to make the world orderly with his League of Nations. Might even be largely fiction...

He won the 1912 election . Teddy Roosevelt was miffed at Taft and ran as third party splitting the republicans.

US didn't enter the war for four more years when Germany resumed unrestricted submarine war in 1917.
Lusitania sinking in 1915 had set up a smoldering public sentiment. That's what had ended their first submarine shoot=em-up...
Gen Pershing was chasing Pancho Villa in Mexico so there was anti Mexican sentiment here too.
Last straw was that crazy Zimmerman telegram from Germany to Mexico offering to give them Arizona, New Mexico and Texas if they'd help Germany whip us and entice Japan into the fray too.. congress declared war within weeks and Wilson signed.

http://www.cityofart.net/bship/u_boat.html
http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/U-boat ... uary,_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram

hmmmmm.. american interests getting blown up in unrest overseas, substantial antiwar sentiment at home, tensions with Mexico, overtures to S America, a world governance type president , tea party splitting repubs and rumors of Hillary splitting the dems,
..... history doesn't repeat but it sure rhymes...

i don't think Obama would do it unless Congress forced his hand which they won't IMHO.

Or Iran was crazy enough to blow up our carrier that's just off their coast.
Hmm, it's the Truman... what's in a name?


end of ramble....

a.

[Haggis@wk]

Or Iran was crazy enough to blow up our carrier that's just off their coast.
Hmm, it's the Truman... what's in a name?

Interesting philosophical question; if we would go to war over a carrier (and I believe we would) would we go to war over a smaller vessel? A destroyer or a non-combatant vessel like an oiler?

[piqaboo]

Sort of: we know what we are, now we're just haggling over the price?

It is a good question. We do talk ourselves out of taking offense actively very often.

[Shapley]

Remember the Maine!