bombs over page 2

1/27/2006 7:42:37 AM

I'm curious to know how they're going about starting/restarting their program. There are a bunch of ways to make a nuclear explosive, some easier than others. But initial stage nuclear explosives are quite bulky and cumbersome, not to mention very fragile. Remember how big our first nuclear weapons were? Plus, comparatively they wern't very powerful. It took the US and Russia many years after their first successful bomb and extensive testing to produce a weapon that was both powerful, reliable and sturdy.

I don't see an Iranian nuclear weapon being much of a threat to the US anyway. They've got no airborne delivery vehicle capable of getting a warhead to us qucikly. ICBMs aren't exactly easy to make, and for a country like Iran they'd be harder to reasearch and build than the nuclear weapons themselves. They aren't going to load it into a bomber and fly it over US soil. The military tends to notice things like big foreign cargoplanes/bombers flying our way. To even get a warhead in the air would require a large plane due to the mass of the bomb, so no Cessna's or similiar private aircraft.

So realistically the only way for Iran to independantly get a warhead to US soil is to secretly load it on a boat, paddle over here, secretly unload it from a boat (that's after they somehow got through customs without anyone noticing a bigass bomb), put it on a truck, drive it to the target, and make it go boom. The bomb, being at ground level, would have its yield significantly reduced. This is assuming a flat, unobstructed target area. Set the thing off in the middle of manhattan, with its many highrise buildings, and the area of effect would be much smaller.

Please note: The intent of my rant isn't to brush aside the devistation that a nuclear weapon set off on US soil would produce. It would suck. Many many people would die. Nor am I saying it's impossible. The point I strive to make is that it's highly improbable, and its effects would more than likely not be as monsterous as most people think. In my opinion, doing something like this would not be in the best interest of Iran, hince why I think it would not happen. If a bomb went off somewhere in the world, everyone is going to know about it, and it's not hard to figure out where it came from. The response of the world would be the extreme pwntation of the creator of said bomb. But that's what you get when you're irresponsible with nuclear toys.

1/27/2006 1:49:18 PM

i don't think we're so worried about New York

as we are about Tel Aviv

1/27/2006 2:08:44 PM

Quote :

"So realistically the only way for Iran to independantly get a warhead to US soil is to secretly load it on a boat, paddle over here, secretly unload it from a boat (that's after they somehow got through customs without anyone noticing a bigass bomb), put it on a truck, drive it to the target, and make it go boom."

No need. Just ship it to the US via a friegher destined for New York Harbor, wait for the ship to dock, and even before the customs people come aboard set it off. A nuke is a nuke. It would easily kill 100,000 without ever setting foot on US soil and the only way to stop it would be to begin inspecting cargo before it enters US waters.

1/27/2006 2:49:52 PM

fuck 'em up.

1/27/2006 2:54:51 PM

Quote :

"It would easily kill 100,000 without ever setting foot on US soil and the only way to stop it would be to begin inspecting cargo before it enters US waters."

Eeh... not really. I believe that cargo/freight ships putting into New York actually dock in NJ. Most of them do. They'd have to get lucky and get routed to either the Booklyn or Red Hook Terminal. Plus the population density at a terminal site isn't very high. Lots and lots of shipping containers and warehouses.

Little boy was about a ~12-15kt nuclear bomb. Detonated at the optimum altitude, it had a blast radius of 2km (1.21 miles). Detonate the same bomb in the steel hull of a ship at ground level, and you're going to lose a lot of the blast.

Again, not saying no one will die. It will still be horrible. It's just not going to be as bad as most assume. Your bomb in harbor example would probably not result in 100,000 deaths. I doubt it would come close.


[Edited on January 27, 2006 at 3:41 PM. Reason : clarity]

1/27/2006 3:36:49 PM

Quote :

""

there's 2.5 million people in Brooklyn alone

1/27/2006 3:58:42 PM

sure, and unless they all live within ~3/4 of a mile from the port, they'll probably all be fine too

[Edited on January 27, 2006 at 4:04 PM. Reason : i'll be more specific]

1/27/2006 4:01:00 PM

There are 8 million people living/working on the island of manhattan. All on an island only 2.3 miles wide at its widest point.

1/27/2006 10:25:54 PM

Yes, however, there is not a port in manhattan.

The point ssjamind seemed to be making was that if a bomb went off in a ships cargo hold at one of the two ports in brooklyn, then all 2.5 million people in brooklyn would die.

This is simply not the case.

If a bomb was detonated on a Manhattan street, all 8 million people in Manhattan would not die. Most of them would live. The structures around the blast would absorb most of the force of the explosion, significantly limiting the radius of effect. From a starting radius of 1.2 miles unobstructed, you're talking about a blast of about .5 to .75 of a mile in diameter.

1/27/2006 10:52:16 PM

Quote :

"you're talking about a blast of about .5 to .75 of a mile in diameter."

how many city blocks in 0.5 miles?

1/28/2006 8:49:48 AM

I don't know. Figure it out yourself since you seem to think I'm wrong. Go find the population density of manhattan, then find the land area of manhattan, then figure out how many people would be inside the radius of a 0.5 mile circular blast.

I'll give you a hint... it's not 8 million.

1/28/2006 11:46:46 AM

So I decided to check behind you, and you're making up numbers. Manhattan doesn't have 8 million people. No where close dude. Even using a crappy source like Wikipedia:

Quote :

"According to an estimation by the Census Bureau, the population of New York county increased to 1,562,723 in 2004."

New York County and Manhattan being one in the same for those who aren't aware. It's total land area is 23.7 square miles. That's about 66,000 per square mile.

A blast with a radius of 0.5 miles would cover 0.785 square miles. You're looking at about 52,000 people dead. That's assuming an evenly distributed density of people.

I've been googling for a while, and I can't find anything that says what the average number of people in manhattan is on a weekday during 9-5. So, I don't know where you get 8 million from, but please stop pulling numbers out of your ass.

Not that all this really matters, since it's so unlikely to happen it's almost impossible.

1/28/2006 12:14:26 PM

8 million is the population of the entire city of New York
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml

[Edited on January 28, 2006 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ]

1/28/2006 12:43:01 PM

^ya but on a normal day theres at least 10-12 million people there

1/28/2006 12:47:23 PM

im just glad that the UN is more involved this time so we dont like a power hungry war monger

1/28/2006 12:54:55 PM

The problem is that the UN won't do shit.

Iran has China and Russia in its pocket, kinda like how Saddam had Germany and France in its pocket.

1/29/2006 3:36:30 PM

Quote :

"The problem is that the UN won't do shit. Iran has China and Russia in its pocket, kinda like how Saddam had Germany and France in its pocket."

Proof please?

In what way is China or Russia in Iran's pocket? What do they possibly have to gain from another country with nuclear weapons joining the elite club?

Once you've got nuclear weapons, general policy is you don't want anyone else to have them. No country has anything to gain out of this other than Iran.

1/29/2006 8:58:36 PM

^ Oil.

1/29/2006 10:40:26 PM

Quote :

"^ Oil."

You're going to need to do better than a one word answer, or else get out of the thread.

1/29/2006 10:44:23 PM

i'd say Russia really doesn't need oil from Iran. China, sure. When is India gonna jump in on this?

1/29/2006 10:46:07 PM

Remember Kerry's reccomendation during the election?...

Quote :

" I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel [to Iran]. Test them. See whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. "

Boy..were we lucky.

1/29/2006 11:00:53 PM

Russia has invested substantial sums of money into the oil infrastructure of Iran, they would like to get it back someday. Meanwhile, China would like to make use of the oil infrastructure of Iran.

Of course, none of this puts the two powers in Iran's pocket. It merely means that as long as alternative means exist, Russia and China will veto any proposal that damages the above interests. Nevertheless, this begs the question of whether or not alternative means still exist... I suspect they do, so Russia and China will act accordingly.

1/30/2006 12:10:15 AM

Quote :

"Proof please?"

Russia has a multi-billion dollar contract with Iran to build a nuclear reactor on their soil and supply it with enriched uranium fuel. They also have a multi-billion dollar arms contract to supply weapons to Iran's army.

China signed a 150 billion dollar deal for Iran to supply a sizeable portion of its oil and natural gas for the next 25 years. They suffer from frequent power shortages, which is why they have been aggressively buying and investing in oil holdings. Iran's deal with China is by far the biggest such deal in either country's history, and dwarfs any deals between Iran and the West.

Those deals are off if there is a regime change or major sanctions by the IAEA.

[Edited on January 30, 2006 at 1:31 AM. Reason : 2]

1/30/2006 1:30:30 AM

Quote :

"Prawn Star: Iran has China and Russia in its pocket, kinda like how Saddam had Germany and France in its pocket."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11105378/

Quote :

"China and Russia, longtime allies and trading partners of Iran, signed on to a statement that calls on the U.N. nuclear watchdog to transfer the Iran dossier to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions or take other harsh action."

Care to revise or amplify your statement?

1/30/2006 10:58:55 PM

It was only a matter of time before this went to the Security Council. The question is whether the UN will act on the IAEA's findings.

From your own link.

Quote :

"It is still not clear how Russia and China would vote if the questions of sanctions came before the Security Council."

I'd be surprised to see either country vote for sanctions. Either country could really fuck things up by vetoing the resultant UN measures.

I would love to see Russia and China prove me wrong.

[Edited on January 30, 2006 at 11:11 PM. Reason : 2]

1/30/2006 11:10:10 PM

^no you dont, b/c then you won't have a "France" to make fun of during this war.

1/30/2006 11:24:08 PM

I can make fun of France during every war.

And between every war as well.

1/31/2006 12:25:07 AM

1/31/2006 6:07:14 PM

A for effort.

2/3/2006 9:37:03 AM

YES:

Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Belgium, Canada, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India, Japan, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States, Yemen

NO:

Cuba, Syria, Venezuela

ABSTAINED:

Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya, South Africa

2/4/2006 5:23:57 PM

So pretty much nobody wants any new countries with nukes, except people that hate the US.

2/4/2006 5:27:54 PM

yeah... basically..

2/5/2006 12:48:42 PM