Iran soon?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Good call!

To call the U.S. an illegitimate country that had just rebelled against Britain is inaccurate, since when Washington left the Presidency, the Revolutionary War had been over for 14 years. The nations of the world acknowledged it during that time, including Great Britain, making it legitimate.

Your statement about the U.S. being friendless (save France), powerless and defenseless is also inaccurate in its totality. During Washington and Adams' administrations, the United States and France became increasingly hostile to each other, and more pro-Britain. Towards the end of Adams' administration, in fact, there U.S. fought an undeclared naval war with France. Which the U.S. won. Within a few years, the United States was able to sustain a war in the Mediterranean against the Barbary Pirates. Granted, it wasn't a major war, like the ones being waged in Europe at the same time, but that's still far from home. Powerless countries can't do that.

Stoob's quotation of Washington is also inaccurate. Washington wasn't advocating neutrality, he was advocating not entering "permanent" or "entangling" alliances with other countries. He was all for temporary alliances that served a particular need should one arise, but a permanent alliance would tie the U.S. to other nations, which might become detremental to the U.S. later (as in the case with the alliance with France). His idea was not to promote American isolation from the world, but to let the United States "act for ourselves and not for others." (The next time the U.S. signed a treaty of alliance was 1949.)

Besides, it isn't as if neutrality and imperialism can't co-exist. For most of the Victorian Era, Great Britain remained largely neutral in European affairs, but during that same time, the British Empire expanded to cover 2/5 of the world's land area.

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

It sucks that there is the idea of a nuclear strike, even if as a bunk-buster, going through some people's minds.

What is somewhat comforting though is that some officers would resign if the option were used. I can't imagine public opinion ever supporting this either though, so at least it would be okay there as well.

Quote:

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

Never accept that idea. Challenge Styphon and others who know a lot (ie, Night Phoenix as well) or you'll never learn much. Having to figure out how to retort is better than just studying what they say. Thats just my opinion though.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

Agreed, though I'd argue that China could be called a superpower as well while it messes a lot less with world affairs.

China can have their say in world affairs through the UN or whatnot, but being able to act independently on these affairs is totally another matter. Thats what seperates a superpower, to say a reigonal power, which is probably what China is right now.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Stoob

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

Very good idea. Styphon's owned me in history so many times that it's practically an inevitability by now.

Honestly, I have NO clue why I talk about history outside of pure masochism. That, and a futile hope that ONE DAY I WILL BEAT LORD STYPHON IN A HISTORY DEBATE. ;_;

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

China can have their say in world affairs through the UN or whatnot, but being able to act independently on these affairs is totally another matter. Thats what seperates a superpower, to say a reigonal power, which is probably what China is right now.

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kenya, Brazil, Thailand, Australia, South Africa, Japan and South Korea, Morrocco, Argentina, etc.

They're all regional powers. I don't see any of them becoming world superpowers like China. Japan is already at its high and likely won't get much more powerful, and Brazil has the chance to rise, but it won't become a US or anything.

Regional powers are still very much alive and will survive, its not coming to an end really.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Stoob

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

There is actually still quite a difference between a reigonal power and a world power. With reigonal powers you can get away with only a brown-water/littoral navy. But in order to be a world power you'll need a blue-water navy. In addition you will need the means to project your power, done through America's some 12 aircraft carriers (not counting Marine carriers). We can simply park a carrier battle group off the coast of a nation and we'll instantly have a powerful naval and aerial presence in the area, which is more then enough to sway events in the reigon to our favor. Even after that you will need to have the means to sustain such a presence at any point in the world. Currently only the US has the capabilities to fullfill all of the above, thus the world's only world power.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

There is actually still quite a difference between a reigonal power and a world power. With reigonal powers you can get away with only a brown-water/littoral navy. But in order to be a world power you'll need a blue-water navy. In addition you will need the means to project your power, done through America's some 12 aircraft carriers (not counting Marine carriers). We can simply park a carrier battle group off the coast of a nation and we'll instantly have a powerful naval and aerial presence in the area, which is more then enough to sway events in the reigon to our favor. Even after that you will need to have the means to sustain such a presence at any point in the world. Currently only the US has the capabilities to fullfill all of the above, thus the world's only world power.

>.< I addressed the entire thing on page two.


Also, theres a difference between a world power and a superpower in some regards. You talked about the military aspect, although remember, military power is a difficult area. For example, the French and British both have remarkably powerful navies. No rivals of the US, but the French can still stick a CBG almost anywhere relatively quickly. The Charles De Gaulle is a formidable force. In addition, France has a formiddable strategic bomber force, nuclear force, and strong air dogfight capabilities. Yet, its not a superpower.

Distinctions are a bitch sometimes, aren't they?

How ya doing, buddy?

But hey, it's France.

I do understand what you're saying and agree, though. Just couldn't resist throwing in a jab at France for their military history.

How ya doing, buddy?

Well, the French, British, Russians, and Americans are probably the four most liberally minded when it comes to using their militaries nowdays. The French certainly don't hesitate when it comes to dealing with their former colonies and civil wars (read: Ivory Coast).

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The Charles De Gaulle is a formidable force.

Provided of course that the carrier works as intended once the carrier reaches its hotspot. There is a good reason why the French are considering to buy their next carrier from England instead of building it on their own.

Quote:

No rivals of the US, but the French can still stick a CBG almost anywhere relatively quickly.

I remember reading somewhere that the de Gaulle is actually slower than the carrier it replaced, the Foch. Of course its still quite fast, relative to slower than Foch ships.

However you are right about my word choice, should've used "Super power" instead.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Provided of course that the carrier works as intended once the carrier reaches its hotspot. There is a good reason why the French are considering to buy their next carrier from England instead of building it on their own.

Thats in general because the French have severe difficulties with all things nuclear it seems. They're nuclear deterrent (Force de Frappe) was and is the same bungled, absurdily expensive mess that the Chales De Gaulle is. Compared to the British version that is, which relies heavily on US designs such as the Trident missile.

Quote:

I remember reading somewhere that the de Gaulle is actually slower than the carrier it replaced, the Foch. Of course its still quite fast, relative to slower than Foch ships.

Probably, its a pretty large ship. Although if theres a zone thats about to go hot, you usually have a few days/weeks notice to move there at least. Point taken though.

I will commend the French though, the Charles De Gaulle remains the most capable carrier outside of the US Navy, in which the Nimitz decimate almost anything else.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Thats in general because the French have severe difficulties with all things nuclear it seems. They're nuclear deterrent (Force de Frappe) was and is the same bungled, absurdily expensive mess that the Chales De Gaulle is.

Its the massive nuclear clusterfucks like France has that seperates the real superpowers from the wanna-be superpowers, barring all other qualifications for superpower-dom.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

I will commend the French though, the Charles De Gaulle remains the most capable carrier outside of the US Navy, in which the Nimitz decimate almost anything else.

That I must agree with you, or at least until Britian finishes their new full-sized carriers.

FELIPE NO

Military nerds are so funny.

~

What about the claims that Iran HAS finished enrichment of Uranium? True/False/Dream?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

As far as I understand - enriched uranium is just one of the many steps required to produce a working atomic weapon. Through the use of various pieces of equipment, you seperate the U235 (middle weight isotope) from the mined uranium, usually by gaseous diffusion (uranium tetra-chloride), or centrifuges (iran is using the latter iirc).

Even though this is a major step - they are still far away from creating a working weapon - they still have to deal with obtaining the right weights for a critical mass, and perfecting the timers and explosives to the accuracy needed to acheive that critical mass. etc...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Just because they have a long way to go doesn't mean there is anything standing in their way.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Locke

As far as I understand - enriched uranium is just one of the many steps required to produce a working atomic weapon. Through the use of various pieces of equipment, you seperate the U235 (middle weight isotope) from the mined uranium, usually by gaseous diffusion (uranium tetra-chloride), or centrifuges (iran is using the latter iirc).

If I recall correctly, gaseous diffusion isn't being used anymore, unless the plants are already built. It's inefficient when compared to centrifuges or other somewhat still experimental methods.

Originally Posted by Locke

Even though this is a major step - they are still far away from creating a working weapon - they still have to deal with obtaining the right weights for a critical mass, and perfecting the timers and explosives to the accuracy needed to acheive that critical mass. etc...

Sadly enough, this is not entirely true. What Iran has is enriched uranium, not the usual plutonium which can be produced using U238, in very large quantities. This might look like a good thing, as less material means less bombs, but there are other differences between Pu239 and U235. I explain those in the next paragraph, skip it if you want, it's not absolutely necessary.

(During the production of Pu239 through neutron absorption in a nuclear reactor, a whole load of different nuclear reactions take place in the fuel. You have the fission of U235 itself, used to produce energy, but you have impurities in the fuel which might be tranformed into other elements, or even a minority of "unusual" reactions in the U238, U235 or Pu239. One element resulting of those reaction is a rather uncommon isotope of uranium or plutonium, I can't remember which. I *think* it's Pu240, doesn't really matter. Anyway, that isotope has a somewhat low half-life, meaning it's likely to desintegrate and release a number of products, including neutrons. Neutrons happen to be what is used to split U235 or Pu239 atoms in an atomic bomb. The process is essentially this, you'll have different masses coming together, forming a supercritical mass, meaning more neutrons are produced than lost, leading to a chain reaction. The longer the masses stay together, the more energy you'll have time to release. If the masses do not stay supercritical for long enough, the bomb will fail to work correctly. Now, the thing is, the neutrons liberated by the Pu240 are enough to make the reaction begin much sooner, when the masses are not completely together, or right after they've touched. Enough energy will be generated to separate the masses, but not much else. In the end, the bomb will fizzle out.)

Now, what this means is that to use Pu239 you need to have a much greater force holding the masses of fissile material at first. Those found in an implosion-type device are enough. Those in a gun-type device are not. However, U235 does not have this same problem, meaning a gun-type device will work with U235. And gun-type devices are a whole lot simpler than implosion-type devices. First of all, there's no need to worry about explosion timing, no need to worry about explosive lenses used to focus shockwaves at particular points and all the calculations that follow. Second, the masses of fissile materials don't have to be made as precisely. Figuring out how much you need isn't the toughest thing ever. There are calculations to be made, of course, but they're not complex when compared to other things you encounter in physics or engineering.

This is somewhat similar to the path South Africa followed. They want to get a bomb, any bomb. It doesn't matter if it's inefficient and that they can't make it into an H-bomb afterwards. And they want it soon. Of course, there are other circumstances; unlike North Korea, Iran doesn't have a reprocessing plant or any other source of plutonium, and they're not building an arsenal capable of destroying the US, as the USSR was, so they have no reason NOT to make a gun-type device if they want a bomb.

Most amazing jew boots

I have a question, you may be able to answer it.

What is between ANY country and the building of a nuclear weapon, really? The technology CANNOT be that tough - the US got it right many many years ago.

Isn't there like tons of literature on it too?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Depends.

First of all, there isn't much litterature on nuclear weapons per se. Not technical litterature anyway, meaning you can have a good idea as to how a bomb works, but you won't necessarily have any idea how to make all the calculations. However, a large number of physicists have pretty much all the knowledge you need, so it's possible to fill the holes. For an H-bomb, then it's a whole different matter. Even the non-technical litterature is somewhat scarce. The basic principle is somewhat simple, but the actual "implementation" is harder.

As for what stands between a country and nuclear weapons, it depends on the country. One of the things is secrecy. Quite often, you don't want to tell the world you're making a bomb. If you're a somewhat powerful country, think G7 member, then it's likely easier for you as you already have a large nuclear industry which you can use as a cover for your activities. If you're a smaller country, then anything large is likely to be noticed by someone. Even if you're a walled hell-hole like North Korea, it'll be noticed. That means you're restricted in what you purchase and the size of your program.

Now, secrecy wouldn't be as much of a problem if not for what is essentially the biggest obstacle: obtaining fissile material suitable for bomb construction. Here, you have two options: Highly enriched uranium 235 or plutonium 239. Both have advantages, both have drawbacks. Though in both cases, you'll need large-scale facilities to do the processing. That's one of the biggest challenge. I assume here that no black market for such materials exist, and I think it's fairly safe to assume so (though if there is, any seller is welcome to PM me for offers...). The size of the facilities themselves are one issue, but the actual equipment you need is probably even worse. First, it's expensive. Not much of an issue if you don't mind starving your people to the death, though. Second, it's restricted. Unless you already have a nuclear industry, or are building a large one from scratch, people will wonder why you need those 800 separation centrifuges. There's no reason for you to enrich your own fuel, it doesn't make sense if you have one nuclear plant. Same goes if you choose plutonium instead of uranium; it doesn't make sense for you to have a reprocessing plant for your one nuclear plant. You could try to make the equipment locally, or even develop new methods specifically geared to produce a small amount of material of bomb-grade material, which I think is what Saddam did in the 80s. Or attempted, anyway. But the equipment we're talking about is often quite complex and you'll still need some high-grade material from other countries. Something else you need to add if you don't have a local uranium source is importing the actual ore, which might arouse suspicion too.

Then you have the IAEA and the like. Since you probably can't conceal your facilities, you might decide you want to try to conduct your enrichment or reprocessing in broad daylight and camouflage the whole thing as a civilian operation. For reprocessing, it's somewhat difficult to judge what you'll do with the plutonium you extract, so you shouldn't have much trouble. But the simple fact you built the plant in the first place means everyone know you're full of shit, unless you already have a real nuclear industry. If that is the case, then you're likely going to be able to proceed to the next step. If instead you build an enrichment plant for uranium, then your concerns are different. If you don't have a nuclear industry, then people know you're full of shit. If you do have a nuclear industry, or are building one, then you have yet another problem. Typical civilian fuel is 20% U235. For a bomb, you need at the very least 90%. Whether you obtain one or the other depends on how you configure your centrifuges. Feed the output of each centrifuge in the next until you reach the last and you get a small amount of bomb material. Make 5 centrifuge groups in the same way and run those in parallel and you get a large amount of civilian-grade material. But the problem is, the people inspecting your enrichment plant will know what you're doing. If you throw them out, then you're back at square one, since you wanted to camouflage your operation, except now everyone suspects you.

You got fissile material? Good! Now it's time to make the bomb. If you managed to get uranium, then you might actually be able to make a bomb easily enough, as I've said in my previous post. Congratulation. If you got plutonium, then your physicists will have fun with various calculations involving shockwaves and explosive lenses. It's much more complicated, requires precision and you might even have to develop a number of different technologies along with it. Not to mention you'll have to test it. A uranium bomb is relatively simple, and there probably won't be any need to test it, but not testing a plutonium bomb is insane. Unless you have access to a supercomputer of reasonable power.

So there you have it, this is what stands between a country and the bomb. How hard it is for a particular country, as I said, depends. One with a source of uranium will have an easier time. One with a decent industrial capacity will be able to do so faster than a seventh world agrarian people's republic. Lots of things factor in.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I stand massively corrected.

Still, your major point was that the biggest problem for a country is secrecy. Well, the cat's already out of the bag, so there's no sense in them even worrying about secrecy. As far as obtaining materials, aren't the Russian more than willing to sell nuclear technology? Weapons are their biggest export right now.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

Still, your major point was that the biggest problem for a country is secrecy. Well, the cat's already out of the bag, so there's no sense in them even worrying about secrecy. As far as obtaining materials, aren't the Russian more than willing to sell nuclear technology? Weapons are their biggest export right now.

Yeah, but Russia isn't exactly interested in doing the tango with the US Government either. Russian nuclear facilities are also secured in large part by US money, there was a fund set up if I remember correctly after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I forget its name. Regardless, the US helps secure it, so it would be hard to conceal it in any case.

Russia depends on the US too much to be willing to lose that relationship over selling weapons to nations like Iran. Theres too much at stake.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Yeah, but Russia isn't exactly interested in doing the tango with the US Government either. Russian nuclear facilities are also secured in large part by US money, there was a fund set up if I remember correctly after the fall of the Soviet Union, but I forget its name. Regardless, the US helps secure it, so it would be hard to conceal it in any case.

Russia depends on the US too much to be willing to lose that relationship over selling weapons to nations like Iran. Theres too much at stake.

But at the same time the US is looking after itself by halting nuclear proliferation. We give the Russians money to lock up all of their old nuclear warheads nice and tight and to keep detailed records of where each warhead is so that none of it makes it to the black market or into the hands of terrorists and the like.

However just because we give them money to do this doesn't mean the Russians aren't going to deal with whatever country we don't like. In fact its never stopped the Russians from selling weapons to Iran before.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

The US is quite unfortunate when they trust thier allies with military technology... Isreal screwed them pretty bad too I heard.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Say what?

How did Israel screw the US over?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Quote:

Say what?

How did Israel screw the US over?

Ever wonder why Iran needs a nuclear weapon? Yeah - Israel has a good 200 of them.

Ever wonder why a majority of the Middle East is pissed off at the US? Yeah - blatant support of Israel.


Israel is the biggest reason the US won't win the hearts and minds of the Middle East. It either needs to become more balanced in its foreign policy, or enjoy the status quo.

Most amazing jew boots