• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Russia to start Iran's 1st nuclear plant next week

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Tehran alone has 17 million people. The nuclear energy will go a long way.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What will happen if Israel drops a bomb on them? Cause thats what looks like might happen :(
There's no evidence that Iran is developing nukes, other than suspicions at this point. UN inspections have turned up nothing. We went into Iraq believing fake evidence despite UN inspections declaring Iraq nuke-free, and I don't think we should do that again.

If Israel thinks it can determine regional policy and starts bombing Iran, then it should be prepared to face the consequences.
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There's no evidence that Iran is developing nukes, other than suspicions at this point. UN inspections have turned up nothing. We went into Iraq believing fake evidence despite UN inspections declaring Iraq nuke-free, and I don't think we should do that again.

If Israel thinks it can determine regional policy and starts bombing Iran, then it should be prepared to face the consequences.
WRONG.

Iran has flat refused to allowed inspectors to interview some scientists and visit certain sites. This is STRONG evidence Iran is hiding something. Also ... Certain Iranian govermental scumbags have said Iran has the right to "SPECIAL" weapons.

There is evidece. If Israel bombs, Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran will deserve what the get.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WRONG.

Iran has flat refused to allowed inspectors to interview some scientists and visit certain sites. This is STRONG evidence Iran is hiding something. Also ... Certain Iranian govermental scumbags have said Iran has the right to "SPECIAL" weapons.

There is evidece. If Israel bombs, Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran will deserve what the get.
Nuclear material for a generator is only about 20% pure. For it to be useful for a nuclear weapon, it must be 95% pure.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
There's no evidence that Iran is developing nukes, other than suspicions at this point. UN inspections have turned up nothing. We went into Iraq believing fake evidence despite UN inspections declaring Iraq nuke-free, and I don't think we should do that again.

If Israel thinks it can determine regional policy and starts bombing Iran, then it should be prepared to face the consequences.
I'm going to have to agree with Vader here. Unlike Saddam and his Iraq, there isn't the pressure to play the "I have them-No I don't" game. Furthermore, Iran is pulling some of the same moves that Israel did when it tried to hide its program. And there's no reason to spend huge sums of money on enrichment when they can get it relatively cheap and reliably from Russia unless they are trying to enrich to weapons grade. I don't disaree that Iran wants civilian power, but it also wants defensive nukes.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Nuclear material for a generator is only about 20% pure. For it to be useful for a nuclear weapon, it must be 95% pure.
That's technically not true. An implosion device utilizing uranium can make a nuke out of 20% enriched. It just would require a larger then normal number of reflectors and a larger then normal explosive amount of shaped charges to compress the uranium into a critical mass. Sure it's bloody hard to make it, but North Korea managed to make implosion devices with plutonium and they have been in contact with Iran.
 
Last edited:

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nuclear material for a generator is only about 20% pure. For it to be useful for a nuclear weapon, it must be 95% pure.
Iran is currently enriching material of their own. Since there are some sites Iran will not allow IAEA inspectors into ... I would say they are hiding the further enriched uranium there.
 

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
That's technically not true. An implosion device utilizing uranium can make a nuke out of 20% enriched. It just would require a larger then normal number of reflectors and a larger then normal explosive amount of shaped charges to compress the uranium into a critical mass. Sure it's bloody hard to make it, but North Korea managed to make implosion devices with plutonium and they have been in contact with Iran.
Actually, you are incorrect. Weapons grade unranium is ANYHING enriched beyond 90%.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other

Vader

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2005
Messages
8,260
Reaction score
1,064
Location
Whitewater, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's 85% to be technically called WGU.

Slovak arrests show shadowy market - World news - Europe - msnbc.com

But with sufficent compression, 20% should be adequate. That's going to be a big bomb though to hold that many reflectors and shaped charges.

Furthermore, I never gave a number on what percentage WGU is. So what are you referring to as "incorrect?"
You are incorrect sir.

A state selecting uranium for its weapons must obtain a supply of uranium ore and construct an enrichment plant because the U-235 content in natural uranium is over two orders of magnitude lower than that found in weapons grade uranium ( more than 90 percent U-235).
Source: Federation of American Scientists :: Uranium Production
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
What will happen if Israel drops a bomb on them? Cause thats what looks like might happen :(
Tehran alone has 17 million people. The nuclear energy will go a long way. :2wave:
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Nuclear material for a generator is only about 20% pure. For it to be useful for a nuclear weapon, it must be 95% pure.
And how do you do that?

TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said Monday it will begin building a new site to enrich uranium by March, moving ahead with a plan that defies international efforts to curb its nuclear development.

Uranium enrichment factories are used to create fuel for nuclear power plants but can also, if taken to extremes, produce the material for weapons.

The planned plant is among 10 new sites that Iran approved last year in what would be a dramatic expansion of its controversial enrichment program. The announcement on state TV said the locations for the sites have been determined but gave no details.

"Construction of a new uranium enrichment site will begin by the end of (the Iranian calendar) year (March 2011) or early next year," Salehi said.

"The new enrichment facilities will be built inside mountains ... any of these sites will be capable of meeting the fuel needs of a nuclear power plant the size of the Bushehr facility," he told the TV, referring to the 1,000-megawatt power plant in southern Iran built with Russian help.
The Associated Press: Iran official announces building of new nuke site

Mohamed ElBaradei caps his contentious and ultimately failed 12-year stint as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency today, having spent many years enabling Iran's nuclear bids only to condemn them in his final days in office. Mr. ElBaradei combined his rebuke of Iran with his familiar calls for more negotiation, but we'll take his belated realism about Iran as his tacit admission that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have been right all along. Let's hope the education of the Obama Administration doesn't take as long.

As if to underscore the point, yesterday the Iranian government ordered up 10 additional uranium enrichment plants on the scale of its already operational facility in Natanz, which has a planned capacity of 54,000 centrifuges. That could mean an eventual total of more than 500,000 centrifuges, or enough to enrich about 160 bombs worth of uranium each year. Whether it can ever do that is an open question, but it does give a sense of the scale of the regime's ambitions.
Iran, the Bomb and Mohamed ElBaradei - WSJ.com

160 nukes a year.......... think about that.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's technically not true. An implosion device utilizing uranium can make a nuke out of 20% enriched. It just would require a larger then normal number of reflectors and a larger then normal explosive amount of shaped charges to compress the uranium into a critical mass. Sure it's bloody hard to make it, but North Korea managed to make implosion devices with plutonium and they have been in contact with Iran.
That's something I wasn't aware of.... got any links?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
You are incorrect sir.
About what?

A state selecting uranium for its weapons must obtain a supply of uranium ore and construct an enrichment plant because the U-235 content in natural uranium is over two orders of magnitude lower than that found in weapons grade uranium ( more than 90 percent U-235).
Source: Federation of American Scientists :: Uranium Production
Which doesn't address my point. Is it easier to make a device with WGU or WGP? Absolutely. But that does not mean that lower enriched Uranium or Plutonium cannot be used as a critical mass. Nothing in your link refutes the use of larger then normal implosion devices to utilize low enriched uranium or Plutonium to make a nuke.

Look up how an implosion device works and you'll understand why I'm right.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
That's something I wasn't aware of.... got any links?
Do you understand how an implosion device works? I don't think it's possible to make a gun type work with 20% uranium.

I'm not saying this is easy. In fact, it's going to be astronomically difficult to take 20% enriched Uranium/Plutonium and compress it perfectly into a critical mass. The amount of 20% will have to be several magnitudes over normal amount of WG material. But with sufficient amounts of shaped charges and sufficient amount of reflectors, it can be done. The reason no one does it is because it is far, far, far, far, far easier just to get less WG uranium and build a gun type. Read Allison Graham, he recited an event where US engineers went down to their local Radio Shack and built a gun type device and showed it to Congress as to why we need better safeguards.
 

Crunch

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
4,063
Reaction score
890
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Do you understand how an implosion device works? I don't think it's possible to make a gun type work with 20% uranium.
Yes.
I'm not saying this is easy. In fact, it's going to be astronomically difficult to take 20% enriched Uranium/Plutonium and compress it perfectly into a critical mass. The amount of 20% will have to be several magnitudes over normal amount of WG material. But with sufficient amounts of shaped charges and sufficient amount of reflectors, it can be done. The reason no one does it is because it is far, far, far, far, far easier just to get less WG uranium and build a gun type. Read Allison Graham, he recited an event where US engineers went down to their local Radio Shack and built a gun type device and showed it to Congress as to why we need better safeguards.
Anyone with ½ a brain can build a crude gun type device in a 2 story house..... if they have access to WGU or PU, and say 40 or 50 people that want to meet their maker right quick.

I still have never heard of a successful implosion device that would work with 20%.... as far as I know it isn't even theoretically possible to compress the pit enough to allow the rapid disassembly of the device to become self sustaining.
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Anyone with ½ a brain can build a crude gun type device in a 2 story house..... if they have access to WGU or PU, and say 40 or 50 people that want to meet their maker right quick.
Pretty much. Which is why everyone should be behind Obama's campaign to reduce proliferation. Its not hard to build the weapon. With that in mind, we need to control the fuel.

I still have never heard of a successful implosion device that would work with 20%.
Because it's not cost effective. Or time effective. Or really any good reason to do it that way. I suspect the number of required reflectors and shaped charges needed would be sufficent to build several weapons with WGP. From that angle, it makes no sense to build an implosion with 20% enriched.

as far as I know it isn't even theoretically possible to compress the pit enough to allow the rapid disassembly of the device to become self sustaining.
Because? With sufficent quanities of 20% (and I'm meaning LOTS) it shouldn't be impossible to compress it to the point where self sustaining reactions occur. I don't think it would work with the normal amount of material used in enriched. But with sufficent amounts 20% and lots of shaped charges and reflectors, it should theoretically work. But at that point, deployment as a weapon is virtually out of the question. When your weapon is as big as a house, it's not really useful. But that does not make it impossible.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
How about who gives a ****? What is Iran going to do seriously? Wage war against a bunch of other people that got nothing but sand and bull**** around them?

We're Americans, and if there is ever a real threat to our nation, we'll be on them like stink on **** in less than 24 hours time so let them build their little science fair.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm going to have to agree with Vader here. Unlike Saddam and his Iraq, there isn't the pressure to play the "I have them-No I don't" game. Furthermore, Iran is pulling some of the same moves that Israel did when it tried to hide its program. And there's no reason to spend huge sums of money on enrichment when they can get it relatively cheap and reliably from Russia unless they are trying to enrich to weapons grade. I don't disaree that Iran wants civilian power, but it also wants defensive nukes.
"Defensive" nukes?

You mean weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear bombs. Last time I checked, no one releases 10^15 joules in microseconds for defense. They do it to kill huge numbers of people.

Since the only reason Iran feels threatened by anyone is their continued support of international terrorism, the best defense Iran could have is the assassination of their maniac leaders and the election of reasonable people that won't export terrorism.

Iran getting nuclear weapons is not a defensive move. Let us not pretend that just because sane nations in the past have used nuclear weapons in the final extremity only that Iran will become sane when it possesses nuclear weapons. There's no evidence of sanity in that regime.
 

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
"Defensive" nukes?

You mean weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear bombs. Last time I checked, no one releases 10^15 joules in microseconds for defense. They do it to kill huge numbers of people.

Since the only reason Iran feels threatened by anyone is their continued support of international terrorism, the best defense Iran could have is the assassination of their maniac leaders and the election of reasonable people that won't export terrorism.

Iran getting nuclear weapons is not a defensive move. Let us not pretend that just because sane nations in the past have used nuclear weapons in the final extremity only that Iran will become sane when it possesses nuclear weapons. There's no evidence of sanity in that regime.
The only nation to my knowledge to actually use nuclear weapons is United States and even then, one could debate it wasn't necassary.
 
Top Bottom