One day, just one day, I wish a journalist would actually write about "The bomb" with some knowledge of it.
What bomb, exactly, is Iran supposed to be so close to? A U235 gun type weapon like Little Boy that was dropped on Hiroshima? A Pu239 implosion device like "Fat Man" that was dropped on Nagasaki? A Teller Ulam, a layer cake weapon? …
One day, just one day, I wish a journalist would actually write about "The bomb" with some knowledge of it.
What bomb, exactly, is Iran supposed to be so close to? A U235 gun type weapon like Little Boy that was dropped on Hiroshima? A Pu239 implosion device like "Fat Man" that was dropped on Nagasaki? A Teller Ulam, a layer cake weapon? These aren't minor distinctions. They are tremendously important.
For all practical purposes, the question is mooted at gun weapon vs implosion device, BUT, given that Dr Khan peddled so much nuclear weapon info, it's quite possible that North Korea sold Iran documents to allow the building of a fusion weapon. If so, that's a bigger problem by far.
But please, get someone to write who has knowledge.
So, if Iran nukes Israel with a U235 gun weapon modeled after Little Boy, do you think the Israelis are going to say "well, Professor Teller would have scoffed at this primitive firecracker, so we don't have to retaliate?" I mean, sure, it's more dangerous if they have a two megaton thermonuclear warhead as opposed to a 5 kiloton 1945 era warhead. But Iranian nuclear weapons are still dangerous, regardless of the design. No?
Well, a two megaton weapon would wipe out Tel Aviv and turn most of the area into a radioactive wasteland. A 5 kiloton weapon would do a tiny fraction of that damage. In either event, the reprisal would be brutal and swift.
However, the reason I want weapon discussion done is that it both educates the reader and informs them. I doubt Iran has megaton capability, for multiple reasons. An informed populace is one that makes better choices.
If my neighbor has a .22 long rifle pistol, that's one thing. If he has a full automatic .50 caliber machine gun, that is something very different.
So it’s pretty clear Iran is building an implosion bomb using uranium. It would be small enough to go on a ballistic missile. Both China and Pakistan have or had these weapons in their inventory. And of course Iran got much of its nuclear know how from Pakistan. Iran doesn’t have reprocessing capabilities and so can’t produce a plutonium weapon. It was building a small heavy water reactor at Arak so it seems a plutonium weapon was part of the plan. Iran was supposed to pour cement into the reactor vessel but it’s not clear if that happened.
The other general fault of the article is the use of generic "bomb" versus "deployable weapon"
It's an order of magnitude (maybe 2 orders) easier to make a bomb that is laid out on a workbench that fits inside a shipping container. Deployable weapons must be:
Correct/ I've already accepted that Iran probably has a few assembled gun weapons and possibly a dirty Pu239 gun weapon (not good for maximum damage but great for long term radioactivity spread in radioisotopes.) However, at this point, the mullahs would be fools to bring any nuclear device into play, as Israel would turn every major city in Iran into a smoking pile of ashes.
- you better expect to lose some on Iranian soil to strikes
- you may have launch failures
- you will lose some to Israeli ABM
- some may not detonate
In calculating its retribution, do you think the IDF is going to factor in your failures and give you a walk just because you didn't get a high order detonation over Haifa?
News for you: if their sensors get a whiff of Plutonium or Uranium in one of your duds, there will be glassy craters all over Iran.
One day, just one day, I wish a journalist would actually write about "The bomb" with some knowledge of it.
What bomb, exactly, is Iran supposed to be so close to? A U235 gun type weapon like Little Boy that was dropped on Hiroshima? A Pu239 implosion device like "Fat Man" that was dropped on Nagasaki? A Teller Ulam, a layer cake weapon? These aren't minor distinctions. They are tremendously important.
For all practical purposes, the question is mooted at gun weapon vs implosion device, BUT, given that Dr Khan peddled so much nuclear weapon info, it's quite possible that North Korea sold Iran documents to allow the building of a fusion weapon. If so, that's a bigger problem by far.
But please, get someone to write who has knowledge.
So, if Iran nukes Israel with a U235 gun weapon modeled after Little Boy, do you think the Israelis are going to say "well, Professor Teller would have scoffed at this primitive firecracker, so we don't have to retaliate?" I mean, sure, it's more dangerous if they have a two megaton thermonuclear warhead as opposed to a 5 kiloton 1945 era warhead. But Iranian nuclear weapons are still dangerous, regardless of the design. No?
Well, a two megaton weapon would wipe out Tel Aviv and turn most of the area into a radioactive wasteland. A 5 kiloton weapon would do a tiny fraction of that damage. In either event, the reprisal would be brutal and swift.
However, the reason I want weapon discussion done is that it both educates the reader and informs them. I doubt Iran has megaton capability, for multiple reasons. An informed populace is one that makes better choices.
If my neighbor has a .22 long rifle pistol, that's one thing. If he has a full automatic .50 caliber machine gun, that is something very different.
So it’s pretty clear Iran is building an implosion bomb using uranium. It would be small enough to go on a ballistic missile. Both China and Pakistan have or had these weapons in their inventory. And of course Iran got much of its nuclear know how from Pakistan. Iran doesn’t have reprocessing capabilities and so can’t produce a plutonium weapon. It was building a small heavy water reactor at Arak so it seems a plutonium weapon was part of the plan. Iran was supposed to pour cement into the reactor vessel but it’s not clear if that happened.
The other general fault of the article is the use of generic "bomb" versus "deployable weapon"
It's an order of magnitude (maybe 2 orders) easier to make a bomb that is laid out on a workbench that fits inside a shipping container. Deployable weapons must be:
- both shrunken, and
- hardened against shock/g forces
Correct/ I've already accepted that Iran probably has a few assembled gun weapons and possibly a dirty Pu239 gun weapon (not good for maximum damage but great for long term radioactivity spread in radioisotopes.) However, at this point, the mullahs would be fools to bring any nuclear device into play, as Israel would turn every major city in Iran into a smoking pile of ashes.
oh, and better make 10-20 because:
- you need a couple to demonstrate
- you better expect to lose some on Iranian soil to strikes
- you may have launch failures
- you will lose some to Israeli ABM
- some may not detonate
In calculating its retribution, do you think the IDF is going to factor in your failures and give you a walk just because you didn't get a high order detonation over Haifa?
News for you: if their sensors get a whiff of Plutonium or Uranium in one of your duds, there will be glassy craters all over Iran.