The Nuclear Iran Situation

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ArcadiaGP

    Wanderer
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Jun 15, 2009
    31,729
    113
    Indianapolis
    Report: Iran navy sends destroyer, another vessel to waters near Yemen amid Saudi-led strikes.

    Let's get this inevitable Iran-Saudi war party started before the nukes are built.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,218
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    Delivery systems is what thwarts most nuclear powers, even today. Iran is a,long way from the bomb, and even further away from being able to drop it where they want. I'm of the opinion that the possession of the bomb makes everybody safer, as long as the international community stays vigilant.
    I'm of the opinion you're wrong on both counts: 1) "Delivery systems" no longer implies ballistic missiles as it used to in the 20th century. Al Qaeda proved that a "delivery system" can be improvised from an ordinary jet liner - or even a private plane. Smuggling is an ancient art and nuclear devices are no longer necessarily the size of "Fat Boy," requiring an "Enola Gay" to deliver them. 2) And, of course, our southern border is wide-open; any number of nuclear weapons could be "delivered" via cargo van or semi-trailer. 3) Vigilance on the part of the international community didn't work to give us a clear picture of Saddam Hussein's nuclear/chemical weapons program, apparently, nor did it managed to contain the North Korean's nuclear ambitions, despite their relative poverty compared to Iran. I seriously doubt that the "international community's vigilance" is going to prevent Iran from getting a nuke or deploying it, if they're willing to accept the retaliatory consequences - which it appears they are willing to accept in furtherance of their stated goals.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    I'm of the opinion you're wrong on both counts: 1) "Delivery systems" no longer implies ballistic missiles as it used to in the 20th century. Al Qaeda proved that a "delivery system" can be improvised from an ordinary jet liner - or even a private plane. Smuggling is an ancient art and nuclear devices are no longer necessarily the size of "Fat Boy," requiring an "Enola Gay" to deliver them. 2) And, of course, our southern border is wide-open; any number of nuclear weapons could be "delivered" via cargo van or semi-trailer. 3) Vigilance on the part of the international community didn't work to give us a clear picture of Saddam Hussein's nuclear/chemical weapons program, apparently, nor did it managed to contain the North Korean's nuclear ambitions, despite their relative poverty compared to Iran. I seriously doubt that the "international community's vigilance" is going to prevent Iran from getting a nuke or deploying it, if they're willing to accept the retaliatory consequences - which it appears they are willing to accept in furtherance of their stated goals.

    Ill stop short of saying it's impossible, but it is an extremely remote possibility that somebody is going sneak enough radioactive material on a plane, and use that as the delivery system. They DO check for that.
    Nevertheless, Iran, again, has not proven itself to be irrational in its dealing on the world stage. They certainly aren't nearly in same realm as the nutcases in North Korea, who I will remind, actually does have the bomb, and an extreme hatred for Japan.
     

    D-Ric902

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 9, 2008
    2,778
    48
    Ill stop short of saying it's impossible, but it is an extremely remote possibility that somebody is going sneak enough radioactive material on a plane, and use that as the delivery system. They DO check for that.
    Nevertheless, Iran, again, has not proven itself to be irrational in its dealing on the world stage. They certainly aren't nearly in same realm as the nutcases in North Korea, who I will remind, actually does have the bomb, and an extreme hatred for Japan.


    WE check for that. Iran has been flying non stop to Venesuela, small flight to Mexico, coyote across the border.

    Easy peasy
     

    longbow

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 2, 2008
    6,903
    63
    south central IN
    A crude "gun barrel" nuke device with all the timing circuits and controllers would easily be under 8,000 pounds based on what was done in WWII, I can think of a lot of ways to ship that in many different types of planes. To be honest they could get the physics package down to 4,000 pounds based current technology and easily get an 8 to 20 KT yield. The Norks got a 4 to 8 KT yield with crap worse than what Iran is playing with.
     

    D-Ric902

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 9, 2008
    2,778
    48
    A crude "gun barrel" nuke device with all the timing circuits and controllers would easily be under 8,000 pounds based on what was done in WWII, I can think of a lot of ways to ship that in many different types of planes. To be honest they could get the physics package down to 4,000 pounds based current technology and easily get an 8 to 20 KT yield. The Norks got a 4 to 8 KT yield with crap worse than what Iran is playing with.


    An ADM (Atomic Demolition Munition) is man portable. Lot very large (about 1/3 kt) but enough.

    M422 is purely mechanical (no electronics) weighs 242 lbs

    M423 is electronic and weighs 290 lbs but much more difficult to get a reaction without firing it.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    A crude "gun barrel" nuke device with all the timing circuits and controllers would easily be under 8,000 pounds based on what was done in WWII, I can think of a lot of ways to ship that in many different types of planes. To be honest they could get the physics package down to 4,000 pounds based current technology and easily get an 8 to 20 KT yield. The Norks got a 4 to 8 KT yield with crap worse than what Iran is playing with.

    So if it's that easy (and I'm not disagreeing, btw), why hasn't someone used one of these devices?
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    AWKward. Lol'ing at chlorine gas v. nukes. :)

    Just to clarify (I'm pretty sure you understand the point, but for others who may be confused), it comes down to path of least resistance. If a tango (or fiscally conscious nation-state) is doing a feasibility analysis on the most effective weapon to use to create a mass casualty event, there are MUCH easier ways to accomplish it than nukes.
     

    Kutnupe14

    Troll Emeritus
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 13, 2011
    40,294
    149
    AWKward. Lol'ing at chlorine gas v. nukes. :)

    Just to clarify (I'm pretty sure you understand the point, but for others who may be confused), it comes down to path of least resistance. If a tango (or fiscally conscious nation-state) is doing a feasibility analysis on the most effective weapon to use to create a mass casualty event, there are MUCH easier ways to accomplish it than nukes.

    But apparently, to "wipe (someone) off the map," you have those who are willing to wait until they have a nuclear weapon, lol. I guess it's the international version of "keeping up with the Jones's."
     

    T.Lex

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Mar 30, 2011
    25,859
    113
    But apparently, to "wipe (someone) off the map," you have those who are willing to wait until they have a nuclear weapon, lol. I guess it's the international version of "keeping up with the Jones's."

    Oh, without a doubt.

    Iran does have more resources to bring to bear on the situation, though. Kinda like the arms race a century ago to build bigger battleships (or any capital ship), a nuke can be considered a strategic investment.

    But, not every nation-state has the resources or commitment to do it.

    There are much cheaper alternatives.
     

    D-Ric902

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 9, 2008
    2,778
    48
    So if it's that easy (and I'm not disagreeing, btw), why hasn't someone used one of these devices?


    Getting a couple hundred pounds of enriched uranium is a stumbling block. Chemical/biological is much easier to do

    Give a "martyr" Ebola by way of certain countries, send him to NY and have him walk around Times Square and spit, sneeze, wipe his bodily fluids on as many things as possible before being discovered and dying.

    even if it isn't very effective, the panic will do more damage than the disease
     
    Top Bottom