IAEA Safeguard Inspector assess Iran

[Skybird]

And I am talking about a Drive-the-Jews-into-the-ocean strike. Nothing else it all is about.

[ikalugin]

For reliable counter value you may also want more weapons, such as the 1 R36M2 scenario that I have provided (Russia currently has 46 of those).


For example in the recent book on the nuclear war (THE 2020 COMMISSION REPORT ON THE NORTH KOREAN NUCLEAR ATTACKS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES A SPECULATIVE NOVEL) 7 deliverable 200kt weapons were not sufficient to deter an adversary.

[Skybird]

A single 10 kt device already would make Europe pay any sum of money demanded if threatened with this device being brought to explosion in any European major city.



And what do you get if you have for example wind from north to south and you detonate a dirty 10 kt bomb over the beach in the North? Look at a map, then you know what would happen. Radioactive fallout travelling 100 km and more with the wind is nothing mysterious. This scenario would contaminate most of the vital Israeli state and economy and supply infrastructure and most of the currently inhabitated areas. The econiomical heart of Israel is in the North - where it is the smallest in West-East-spanning.



Consider nuclear contamination moving with south-bound wind when occuring durign an explosion in Haifa, travelling 100-120 km.


(map is gone)


Must not be further explained, I think. The map speaks for itself. Scale in the top left corner.




Why these academic finger exercises, ikalugin? It leads nowhere. For a small country like Israel, already a single small nuclear detonation is absolutely life-threatening.

[ikalugin]

I think we have different understandings of the nuclear weapon effects.


The radiation clean up, while non trivial, would be simpler than the historical cases (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) due to the new technology and much simpler than significant powerplant failures (Chernobyl) due to the smaller scale and well within the means of a developed country.

 

Same logic applies to the direct casualties, while they would be significant, they would still be less significant than the casualties from a major war, ie compare this with the war in Syria in terms of both absolute and relative casualties.


In essense I think you over estimate, even mystify the effects.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And I am talking about a Drive-the-Jews-into-the-ocean strike. Nothing else it all is about.

I don't think that will happen at least not with nuclear weapons. Y'all have been talking a lot about the physical applications of war and the impact that the use of nuclear weapons would have, but we are talking about an area of the world that is Holy to the Jews and to the Muslims and to the Christ followers.

If Israel were to be nuked it would keep it from being Holy for 99 years minimum and start looking like Chernobyl looks like today with no vegetation.

The Palestinians would suffer, the Jews would suffer, the entire region would suffer for decades.

With that in mind lets talk about the leaders of Israel and the leaders of Iran are the real problems. I have enough problems with spell check and their names, but you know what I mean, right?

The leader of Israel has bumping this threat to attack Iran for years and the leader of Iran has warned that if you do we will destroy you.

Iran can't afford to attack first due to the retaliation from Israel ... Iran already has a small civil war going with discontent of the younger generation complaining that too much money is being spent on the military and terrorism and basically hatred of the state of Israel.

That leaves the leader of Israel to attack first and he is already under attack by his own countrymen for bribes and payoffs and accused of being dishonest.

I don't think either side will do each other the disfavor of attacking first, but I could be wrong. Iran certainly is up to no good in Syria and inching closer and closer to a land war supplying rockets to Hamas in the Gaza strip.

Plus if there was a war what would Russia and America do? Stare at each other in disbelief and shrug.

I don't think so

We can't afford a war ... heck America can't even afford another hurricane. Russia isn't ready yet (even though they act like it) to finish off the human race with an all out nuclear war over Israel/Iran problems.

Let it slide ... we have all been here before. Wasn't there a movie where the two leaders duked it out at the end. That's what I would like to see ... get these two leaders into a ring together and let them duke it out.

Winner takes all instead of killing off 1/3 of the human race

[Skybird]

We are talking about religion, Mr. Quattro. Religion is irrational, Muhammad encouraged martyrdom, and Islam dispises Jews since Muhammad'sdays. And Palestinians - outside their lovely little piece of land they are absolutely disliked in the Arab world, since their little intermezzo in Jordan at the latest. Other Arabs instrumentalise them, but they do not like them nor want to support them.

Muhammad did want Jerusalem for just one reason: because the others also wanted it, and he wanted to deny it to them. That simple.

Anyhow, a people that has suffered the attempted genocide of the holocaust hardly will base its fate on good faith and the hope that the others will not commit any mean acts against them. And who would call them out for that? Considering the also mentioen ddnager of proliferaiton of nculear devices and tehcnology, that is another argument to deny Iran nukes. Two Pakistans and North Koreas are two bad nukie-guys enough already. We must not repeat that mistake a third time.

I am not certain that Israel can strike Iran all by itself. But I would certainly wish it could. And who onoiws, others are hostile to Iran as well and the locla reigmes have learned that said reigmes are not threatened in their exiostence by Israel at all. Israel might find unexpected allies if going for Iran.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I think we have different understandings of the nuclear weapon effects.


The radiation clean up, while non trivial, would be simpler than the historical cases (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) due to the new technology and much simpler than significant powerplant failures (Chernobyl) due to the smaller scale and well within the means of a developed country.

 

Same logic applies to the direct casualties, while they would be significant, they would still be less significant than the casualties from a major war, ie compare this with the war in Syria in terms of both absolute and relative casualties.


In essense I think you over estimate, even mystify the effects.

I think you best raise only YOUR family in that kind of contaminated environment, not anyone else's.


In the 60s they seriously thought a nculear war could be won. Somehow I am reminded of this now.


Again, as said before, I am not just about blast and fire radius, but contamination, with critical matter being carried several kilometers high into the air.

[ikalugin]

By 1960s quantities and qualities of nuclear weapons were greater than 5 10kt weapons.


I have already discussed fallout, it is manageable (in the 1-5 10kt weapon scenario), especially compared to the historic experience where it was managed.

So I think you are mystifying the simple weapons that they are.

[nikimcbee]

IAEA Safeguard Inspector assess Iran

I mis-read it and thought it said IKEA inspectors.
Weaponized Swedish meatballs maybe?

[ikalugin]

More like "Do it yourself nuclear reactor" I would say.


With the good old delivery

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I mis-read it and thought it said IKEA inspectors.
Weaponized Swedish meatballs maybe?

Dammit man, I was going to make that joke!

[Catfish]

Ikea's Köttbulllar fallout is literally breathtaking, but the half-value time is around two days.

While radioactive fallout is good to last for some hundred thousand years.

If i see Ikalugin write about "manageable fallout", "handling" and "removal" of radiocative material (sorry, not possible) i'd be interested in a description of a "limited nuclear war" as well as some hints in handling the worldwide raise of radioactivity after those glorious nuclear strikes and those atmospheric atom test days.
(Which b.t.w. make those pre WW2 ship wrecks and their steel so interesting for modern science. It is impossible to produce steel without radioactive contamination after 1945 due to radioactive isotopes in the atmosphere. Clean, non-contaminated non-radioactive steel is mandatory for certain scientific instruments.)

Anyone remembers the A10 Warthog 'fart' cannon firing uranium bullets for better tank penetration? The soil in the Kosovo region, in the middle east and in certain training facilities of the US are polluted for the next hundred thousand years, too. Or sinking nuclear ractors in the sea and lending the Novaja Semlja area to norwegian fishing trawlers.

Only a dumbhead not bothered by any physics education, or a one-sided military-mind, or a politician could think about a nuclear strike at all, let alone think about calculating a war in a densely populated area.
The fact that "reasonable" (lmao) people even think about that speaks volumes. Oh Trump, Putin, Erdoghan.. i see. I rest my case. Mankind is dumb and will most probably kill itself soon anyway.


On the other hand.. why do scientists and educated people let such sh..-heads kill people and pollute and destroy the earth? Why does mankind let just of all the idiots get in those positions and passively accept their neanderthal behaviour and ignorance? Why don't we just destroy them? Only joking. Of course.

[ikalugin]

There is a difference between removing radioactivity totally and managing it to workable levels. The later is quite possible, people are living in Hiroshima right now.


The problem with discussing nuclear warfighting is that people 1) have radiophobia (irrational fear of radiation) and 2) project US-Soviet nuclear warfighting (which would have had dire consequences) onto limited scenarios.

[Catfish]

^ Of course. And what do you think happens with the radiating material that you "managed" or "removed"? Think it to the end, please.


The fallout of those two relatively small bombs have dispersed across the whole world, and it still is easily measurable everywhere. Add atomic atmospheric tests, all this stuff has dispersed and spread.

Add civilian applications of nuclear energy or its "recycling" efforts like in Windscale/Sellafield with its marine contamination no one directly sees, Harrisburg, Chernobyl, Fukushima, those four german reactor failures no one talks about here, or the french LaHague nuclear "recycling" works, and you get a constant rise of that background radiation worldwide. Small but lasting. What you do in Siberia (e.g.) influences and contaminates the whole world.
The situation at Fukushima is still developing, and far from being 'contained'. And this is not like blowing radiocative stuff in the atmosphere with an atomic bomb. Even small local dirty bombs are still dirty, and the stuff used stays for a long time, here or there. Depleted uranium ist still radiating. And the stuff is also toxic.

Some people have irrational thoughts of radioactivity and how long radiation really stays. Thinning and dispersion does not mean the stuff magically vanishes. The general background radiation is rising, and after exposing this stuff there is no possibility to reverse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-background_steel.
Up to now you can consider all this rather as impurities than heavy contamination, but i cannot see any effort to limit the general rise.

Apart from the inherent problems there are external problems. You can never rely on human rationality or sanity, when managing or planning anything. For example take the responsibility of those so-called specialists trying to test whatevers at Chernobyl, just so.

Transfer this already human dumb handling of situations and events to nuclear device handling of brain-dead world leaders. Do you rely on Putin's scientific education, knowledge and ethics? Or Trump's, for that matter?

[ikalugin]

And what do you think happens with the radiating material that you "managed" or "removed"? Think it to the end, please.

Depends on a number of factors bust mostly being burried.

Remember, the most active elements tend to be the most short living, in fact the bulk of Chernobyl's radioactive contamination is no longer active due to the short half lives. For the nuclear weapons (unless salted) this is even more the case.


Regarding the world wide background radiation - humans were built by nature to withstand much higher levels of radiation than the current average background and historically lived in areas with high natural background radiation just fine.