View Full Version : IAEA obtains Iranian Nuke Warhead Blueprint

31st May 2008, 17:31
IHT: 'Alarming': IAEA obtains Iran blueprint for nuclear warhead (http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_iran0194_05_30.asp)

LONDON — The International Atomic Energy Agency has briefed its members on Iran's blueprint of a nuclear warhead.

Western diplomats said the agency was given an Iranian government document that illustrated a technique to mold uranium metal into the shape of a warhead. They said the agency determined that the blueprint was genuine and demonstrated Iran's interest in nuclear weapons.

"IAEA professionals are convinced that Teheran, at the very least, wants to learn how to make nuclear warheads," a Western diplomat said. "The agency is not willing to say that this proves that Iran is actually making the warheads." On Thursday, the agency briefed member-states on the latest developments in Iran's nuclear program. IAEA deputy director-general Olli Heinonen was quoted as terming the finding of the Iranian warhead blueprint "alarming."

Today's briefing showed strong reasons to suspect that Iran was working covertly and deceitfully at least until recently to build a bomb," U.S. delegate to the IAEA, Gregory Schulte, said after the briefing. During his closed briefing, Heinonen said Iran must now prove to the agency that the Islamic state was not seeking to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran has dismissed the warhead blueprint as a fabrication.

Over the last year, diplomats said, 10 members of the IAEA board of governors supplied intelligence information on Iran's nuclear program. They were said to have included Britain, France, Germany and the United States. The intelligence information has been included in the latest IAEA report on Iran, circulated to board members on May 26. The IAEA board was scheduled to discuss the report on June 2.

Diplomats said the agency report cited Iranian government documents that discussed the production of high explosives that could be used to detonate an atomic bomb. Another document referred to an Iranian project to design a missile re-entry vehicle, a key component of any nuclear warhead.

The latest report determined that Iran was operating 3,500 gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment. The agency said Iran could reach its goal to operate 6,000 centrifuges by July 2008.

IAEA also determined that Iran was testing advanced centrifuges, said to be three times more productive than the Pakistan-designed P-1. The agency said only several advanced centrifuges entered the testing stage.

31st May 2008, 17:38
Sure and the WMD sounded genuine too.....why can't people calm down instead of trying to pick a fight and take the cowards way out by launching cruise misiles

31st May 2008, 17:44
Just put your hands over your ears, shut your eyes and keep telling the them to shut up. Then you'll be OK.

31st May 2008, 18:47
Im already ok (ish) thank you very much.

That could change though if people decide to lob missiles around.

31st May 2008, 18:53
a technique to mold uranium metal into the shape of a warhead.Would that be depleted uranium, as used by British and American forces to increase penetration?

tony draper
31st May 2008, 19:12
Mold into the shape of a warhead? WTF does that mean, yer nuke can be any shape you want as long as it fits inside the warhead it's like saying mold a petrol engine into the shape of a car,it makes no sense.
Besides you can probably download a blueprint for any kinds of nuclear weapon you want from dozens of websites.

Peter Fanelli
31st May 2008, 19:30
Would that be depleted uranium, as used by British and American forces to increase penetration?

We Australians of course have no need for such attachments to increase our um..penetration.


31st May 2008, 19:32
The clue is in the use of mold (sic) and metal IMO, implying that they are (planning) to shape projectiles (including rifle bullets) rather than create fissile devices.

(more at:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium )

31st May 2008, 19:44
No. The Shape of the sub critical mass Plutonium is extremely important to the triggering of Fission. People were killed, executed and glorified when it became apparent that yield, indeed inception, of Fissile events was a key obstacle to the creation of the weapon. But that was 70 years ago, and is available on the Internet TODAY, for goodness' sake. This "blueprint" was "HOT" stuff three generations ago, but a reasonably informed person sees this "news" for what it is, an attempt to frighten people into getting behind a pre-emptive "Blast" at the Persians. (Hint: General Cowboy, it's too soon yet, let WMD fade a bit further into the short memory of the softheads who take you seriously). Shape? Think LENS.

(With respect, Wikipedia has serious limitations. "A little knowledge..")


old,not bold
31st May 2008, 19:51
I wonder when the last printer in the world capable of producing "blueprints" was finally sent to the scrapheap?

I vaguely recall last seeing a "blueprint" in the 1980's, I think it was, and that had been printed some years before.

But then I'm not an engineer; perhaps "blueprints" are still being used? Do CAD programmes produce them?

31st May 2008, 22:14
Many years ago I was sales manager for an old established publishing house that used to publish The Boys Own Paper, although they had sold it to another publisher many years before I joined them. The art manager had been there for most of his working life and told me that when he first took on the job he had to illustrate an article in the BOP about how a nuclear bomb worked. The article was published and within 24 hours he had a visit from the "Vauxhall Omega" crowd asking him where he got the designs from. He explained that he had only tidied up the drawings given to him by the author. After about two weeks of investigation it turned out that all the author had done was to collate information available in the public domain. All of this was over 40 years ago. It really is no surprise that Iran also has this information today.

Having the theoretical knowledge and having the materials/technical capability are different things.

Life's a Beech
31st May 2008, 23:20
Do people really imagine that none of this has changed for 60 years? Or that different designs are not better for low-yield bombs that require relatively little enriched uranium, a difficult and time-consuming process? Why do said people think that nations still model or test nuclear weapons? Do said people think that Iran has a reason for holding such designs for any purpose that is not very threatening to world stability and the safety of all people in the Middle East, not least the Persian population themselves?

And G-CPTN, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Authority) are very specifically not interested in depleted uranium. Unless it can be converted into plutonium 239 (not a straight-forward process, and requires an extant nuclear power plant), depleted uranium (so-called because it is depleted in fissionable U235) is completely useless for releasing atomic energy either for generation of electricity or for generation of loud noises. In a long-rod penetrator or other shell the DU is to carry energy and concentrate it, not to produce it. So no, they are not talking about depleted uranium.

Denial. It's not just a river in Egypt. It's a remarkably common state of mind, often among people intelligent enough to know better.

1st Jun 2008, 00:24
Any volume of fissile material less than critical mass won't be, a, critical. Call it an "entry level" bomb if you like. There is a minimum size bomb and a maximum size bomb (talkin fission here). There is, alas, no requirement whatsoever for an "extant nuclear reactor" to develop fissionable mtl. sufficient to cobble together a "device". Think "yellowcake" and precision Aluminium (Brit) tubes to squeeze out of a centrifuge the naughty Plutonium. Are you trying to startle the soft heads, Sir? Bad Form.

tony draper
1st Jun 2008, 00:32
All I said was "Molding uranium into a warhead shape" was a daft statement ,if they mean critical mass geometry why didn't they say so,:E one is no fan of Iran, I wouldn't allow them to make flint arrowheads.

1st Jun 2008, 01:50
Mr. Draper, I knew that.

1st Jun 2008, 02:03
Ah, but critical mass on its own is no use, said mass must have critical density as well, hence shape does become important in allowing compression by conventional charges to attain said density (unless you just use the old gun-type arrangement, which is crude but still effective).

But then, as any fule no, being able to create the fissile material, and assemble it in such a way that it will go bang, is the easy bit.

Knowing whereabouts on the earth's surface, and when, it can be made to go off, now that's the tricky bit.

1st Jun 2008, 03:34
Knowing whereabouts on the earth's surface, and when, it can be made to go off, now that's the tricky bit.

No longer so tricky as one might think, sad to say. Tis another cheeshole in the DIY WMD connundrum that lines up rather easily these days, even for rank beginners.

1st Jun 2008, 05:14
Is it your meaning that the difficult portion of the "exercise" (potential) has to do with those who would be on the receiving end of such a weapon? Thought so; not so easy an undertaking, methinks. Throw "DirtyBomb" into the equation, and the danger is cubed, No?

1st Jun 2008, 06:10
airfoil, no, dirty bombs are a different, less destructive, and far simpler matter.

What I referred to, and as I believe arcniz commented on, was this; you can't just let off an atom bomb any old time and place you happen to feel like it. They don't work like that. The conventional trigger charges might go off whenever and wherever the button is pushed, true, but that doesn't mean that the newly-critical mass (and density) will undergo chain reaction decay just because.

The above process is subject to geographical, geological, gravitational, and linear time influences which affect the efficacy of detonation. A number of factors have to be satisfied before spontaneous chain reaction decay will occur. Certain places on the earth's surface have more "windows" where this is possible; Mururoa, Bikini, Arizona, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, are amongst such locations.

As an aside, MAD was always mostly propaganda, because it was never, and still isn't, actually possible in physical terms.

In the past, the number of people who knew of, and who understood, the process of determining precisely where and when a nuke could be made to go bang, were few, and those people were well chaperoned. It concerns me, but I suppose it isn't surprising, that with the passage of time, as arcniz intimates, the essential formulae may have become more widely known.

Edited to say that having re-read your post above, I now wonder whether you may have been getting at the same thing.

Brian Abraham
1st Jun 2008, 07:18
The above process is subject to geographical, geological, gravitational, and linear time influences which affect the efficacy of detonation. A number of factors have to be satisfied before spontaneous chain reaction decay will occur. Certain places on the earth's surface have more "windows" where this is possible; Mururoa, Bikini, Arizona, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, are amongst such locations.
Would you like to expand BlueWolf, preferably in a non nuclear kind of way? Know nowt.

1st Jun 2008, 07:33
No, lo siento, expanding on the above would probably require going outside the public domain, I'm not prepared to do that, but others may have ways of explaining it beyond my limited knowledge.

Board management have an understandable record of frowning upon matters being made public, wot shouldn't be.

I can probably recommend some publicly available reading, should you care to PM me for it.



1st Jun 2008, 07:35
The motley crew occuppying 1600 Penn Ave and its outbuildings until Jan next year have done irreparable damage in their cries of "wolf!!" over the Iraqi WMDs. Thanks to them, for how many years into the future, should something like this Iranian nuke 'blueprint' come into the hands of Western Intelligence and someone decides it should be made public, will a very large number of people simply shrug it off as another manufactured (false) crisis by Washington?

Sadly, should one such warning one day prove to be true, we'll all find out that it was after we wake up to a very different world - (that's those of us lucky enough to wake up to the very different world).

Highly recommended read: 'Fiasco - The American Military Advnture in Iraq' by Thomas E. Ricks.

1st Jun 2008, 07:47
I wonder when the last printer in the world capable of producing "blueprints" was finally sent to the scrapheap?

In the late 60's, when I first found myself in the essential core of a very large, complex computer company, I was astonished to discover the drafting and "repro" section of the business. In a single vast room, perhaps four hundred feet on each side of the square, was a near-endless array of hard-working draftsmen, each with a tilted table, t-square, pantograph, fluorescent light and stool with which to render pencil and ink drawings on four by 6 or 5 by 7- foot vellums of transparent gridded paper. The results of their labours were numbered, microfilmed, and then stored in a sealed-off repository that was temperature conditioned, fire-alarmed, and locked up so tight it squeaked.

Whenever any outside person required a drawing, they would go to a window at the side of the Kaba-like repository to request a copy. These were made, in real time, by running the original master with a piece of same-size blueprint paper through a large ironing-type machine with a bright light inside. It was quick, efficient, and copies were inexpensive. At the time, even in a place with just about every type of computer peripheral imaginable, there were no printers of blueprints. That was still the era of the 110 bit-per-second modem ( & thank heaven for it!)

Half the secret of making high-tech products is having a clear idea of what you're building before it's built. The other half is remembering what has actually been built so that repairs and spare parts can be made efficiently in time future.

Blueprints served well in this role because they were nearly always precise 1:1 copies of the originals, were very cheap to make, and quite durable if one kept them out of the sun and away from oxidizers. By the early 80's nearly all that had changed, and by the 90's the draftsmen and almost all that accompanied them had vanished for good.

1st Jun 2008, 07:54
BlueWolfs posts make my head hurt;)

wonder when the last printer in the world capable of producing "blueprints" was finally sent to the scrapheap?

I saw one in the CAD dept of a company that I worked for approx 12 years ago.

Big old thing that smelled of pi$$/ammonia.

1st Jun 2008, 08:11
Yeah, that's it. Ammonia was the developer and the fixer, too, so far as I recall. One could make'em dark blue on very light blue or purple on pink with the same process, IIRc. Technically I think that was the "diazo" process, or blueline, where the true blueprints were more denim-like, with white-ish lines on a deep blue background.

Once tried some of the blueprint paper to make sun-exposure contact prints from large silver-emusion b&w negatives my father had made. Result was remarkably fine gray-scale reproduction with only a little practice needed. Simple but effective.

1st Jun 2008, 09:24
Whatever the colour, when they (the drawings) made their way to the workshop floor, we'd all go into a huddle (the foreman, the charge hands, the senior tradesmen and the long-time contractors), and scratch our heads, and ask WTF do they want? :confused:

So we'd work out what we thought they wanted, starting from first principles, and come up with some ideas as to how this thing could actually be created, ie built in real life;

Then we'd build something, and give it to the junior engineers from upstairs to take away and test, and they'd come back with changes (usually after the "customer" (who quite often wore khaki) had had a go with it), and then we'd build something else, and when we'd got it right, they'd take it away and take it to bits and draw it, and the drawings would get printed out and the senior engineers and designers would sign them off, and they'd get all the credit.

....and if anything ever went wrong, it was inevitably a draughting or manufacturing problem. :hmm:

Brian Abraham
1st Jun 2008, 12:45
BlueWolf, the system won't let me send you a PM. You can get me at [email protected]
Many Thanks

Effluent Man
1st Jun 2008, 13:05
No need to worry about Iran and nuclear weapons.The solution will come in good time,the source of the solution won't be far from Tel Aviv.

1st Jun 2008, 13:28
"IAEA obtains Iranian Nuke Warhead Blueprint (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=4151102#post4151102) "

Well I'm certainly not surprised. If Sadam had got his hands on these weapons he would have used them for sure, just like Afterdinnerjacket will.

Peter Fanealli

"Not all of us need to be "chemically enhanced" to achieve the desired result, like you Australians!

Effluent Man

Oh, quiet agree. If the Europeans and everyone else continue to dither, they will most certainly do something about it.

1st Jun 2008, 15:08
I am assuming that Bluewolf is pulling one regarding the detonation of Nuclear devices being sensitive to location. (is this yet another Conspiracy Theory?)

Apart from the design possibly wasting excess material, the techniques for assembling a Uranium bomb are quite simple, and the critical masses, which depend upon geometry and whether solid or liquid, are tabulated in many places on the Web. It is as easy as banging one piece of enriched Uranium into another at very high speed to create a blob of over the critical mass.

Plutonium bombs, on the other hand, are quite sophisticated in the way in which shaped charges have to initiate a compression of the material.

1st Jun 2008, 15:10
The solution will come in good time,the source of the solution won't be far from Tel Aviv. I usually believe that all those undeclared WMDs located not "far from Tel Aviv" are part of the problem, not 'part of the solution'. Especially now, ever since GWB's former press secretary Scott McClellan published his memoirs (http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11455800)...? And it's become increasing clear that the true reason behind the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not WMD or the control of oil supplies, but something much more nobler: that of bringing democracy and peace to the Middle-east generally. So instead of the 10s or 100s of thousands of Iraqis targeted by Saddam Hussein and his regime for elimination, we've merely had a similar number of Iraqis who've lost their lives quite indiscriminately...from someone pursuing a personal fantasy 'to do better than his father' which has brought the Middle-east no closer to democracy, peace or even lowered oil-prices! :rolleyes:

Weird as it may appear, back in 2003, I was subjected to quite a bit of flak from colleagues for actually supporting the US invasion and getting rid of Saddam Hussein by any means. I should add that back in those days of the UN 'Food for oil' program and general trade sanctions, I was under the impression that 10s of thousands of Iraqi children were dying unnecessarily because of a lack of essential medicines and treatments getting through to them. So I thought that the collateral damage of a full invasion would surely represent a better exchange. I was wrong.

And it's high time that a great many other people who purport to know better, admit their own failings and exit centre-stage forthwith...?! :ok:

1st Jun 2008, 16:50
Tick-tock, tick-tock.

tony draper
1st Jun 2008, 17:14
Psssst! anybody wanna buy some CBU's.

1st Jun 2008, 19:15
Anyone can buy nuclear blueprints, remember Pakistani Mr.Khan's nuclear super market?

Nuclear bomb blueprints and manuals on how to manufacture weapons-grade uranium for warheads are feared to be circulating on the international black market, according to investigators tracking the world's most infamous nuclear smuggling racket.
Alarm about the sale of nuclear know-how follows the disclosure that the Swiss government, allegedly acting under US pressure, secretly destroyed tens of thousands of documents from a massive nuclear smuggling investigation.
More here...

Life's a Beech
1st Jun 2008, 20:57

What is the point of putting my name on your answer if it completely ignores what I wrote?

Where did I mention critical mass? I agree that there is a minimum size of bomb. My point is that the minimum size depends on the design of the bomb, and also on the quality of the materials used. there is an absolute minimum, of course, but design plays a part. The US has been criticised for making designs for new low-yield weapons recently. Why would that be, if the design was available on the internet?

I didn't say that making fissionable material requires an extant power plant (that would be ridiculous - how would you get the power plant in the first place?). I said that the only use for depleted uranium in production of power is to be made into plutonium 239 in a nuclear facility. If I recall correctly, this requires an extra neutron (and loss of an electron of course), only supplied in any useful quantity by a nuclear power plant. Without existing nuclear power U238 (the main constituent of depleted uranium) is of no use in releasing nuclear energy in large quantities (Iran is not a world player in pace-maker power cells), and so of no interest to the IAEA.

Therefore to suggest that the plans in question might be for a depleted uranium warhead (a relatively trivial, conventional design issue) is either ignorant or dishonest. Either case requires correction.

1st Jun 2008, 21:59
interpolated "shape" to mean Dep-Uranium ballistic ordnance. (A La Vulcan Banana Bullets in the Gatling equipped A-10.) My suggestion was that "shape" as applied to anything the IAEA would be interested in would have to do with the Plutonium sub-parts in a dependent reservoir in a fission weapon. I did not mean to link you with that part of my post, I don't think I did. Fissionable material (weapons grade) is generally "coalesced" from high temperature gas containing Uranium. I am unfamiliar with the recycling of depleted Uranium into (weapons grade) Plutonium in a nuclear Reactor. My apologies if you were offended.


Life's a Beech
1st Jun 2008, 23:16
I don't think they would. As I always understood it, it is usually spent fuel, i.e. enriched uranium that is used in a fast-breeder reactor. My point was that depleted uranium cannot be used to release atomic energy so is of no interest to the IAEA. I was simply anticipating the pedants who would say otherwise, by pointing out that while there is one way it could, it is irrelevant to Iran.

There are various ways of making weapons-grade material, depending on availability of technology and know-how. I understand that Syria is currently using gas centrifuges, taken out of Iraq shortly before the fall due to a slow response by the CIA (with accusations of political undertones, although I see cock-ups more easily than conspiracy). That is likely to be Iran's source.

7th Jun 2008, 09:10
Israeli threat to attack Iran over nuclear weapons (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/07/israelandthepalestinians.iran)

Israel "will attack" Iran if it continues to develop nuclear weapons, one of prime minister Ehud Olmert's deputies warned yesterday. Shaul Mofaz, a former defence minister and a contender to replace the scandal-battered Olmert, said military action would be "unavoidable" if Tehran proved able to acquire the technology to manufacture atomic bombs.

Mofaz is Israel's transport minister, but he is also a former chief of staff, privy to secret defence planning as a member of the security cabinet, and leads regular strategic talks with the US. He implied that any attack on Iran would be coordinated with Washington. "If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it," he told the Hebrew daily Yediot Aharonot. "The UN sanctions are ineffective."

Mofaz was born in Iran, giving his remarks extra edge after repeated threats against Israel from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has also denied the Nazi Holocaust. Ahmadinejad "would disappear before Israel does", Mofaz said.

Mofaz's remarks came at the end of a week of intense US-Israeli talks on Iran. They were also the most explicit threat yet against the Islamic Republic from a member of the Israeli government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should UN sanctions be deemed to have failed............

8th Jun 2008, 17:24
Iran & the Problem of Evil (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279291616353311.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries)

8th Jun 2008, 18:01
Finally, even tho this is JB, some REASON, and ACCEPTANCE. Thank you for posting what should be PEACE 101. Yes, Peace. Without a sense of History (If not its understanding), we will have perpetual War. It is the fluffy "Peaceniks" who are the War mongers, because they cannot see their denial for what it is. "Doomed to Repeat".....George Santayana.


tony draper
8th Jun 2008, 18:06
Indeed,good article Mr ORAC.

8th Jun 2008, 20:27
So what now? Watch the leaders muddy it up?

The day our country was attacked by terrorists, I knew the source of evil was Osama Bin Laden before it was announced. I feel just as vulnerable now--if not more so, than I did that day because he's still recruiting and Iran is ramping up. They aren't interested in diplomacy.

We should've just left a gaping hole where Afghanistan used to be. :}

8th Jun 2008, 22:43
I continue to admire the Israelis. The idea in the Mid is to tolerate what is known to be manageable, and less than insanely treacherous. In DC, the policy is formulated by clumsy big kids, who have no sense of perspective.Saddam invaded Kuwait? well by damgull durn, we'll teach his ass, and the Horse he rode in on. When jacketed hollow points get taken off the table in favor of mobilizing all the POWER in the Free World, and hey let's us democratt ize them whull werr adid, Holy Crap Hopalong, Four F-16's several jdams and back to Jerusalem for Tea. Cheeky Bastards

:ok: says Airfoil, secretary to Hillary in Hair Suit.

8th Jun 2008, 23:17

I see you are still spouting that Tinfoil Hat nonsense about windows etc

"The above process is subject to geographical, geological, gravitational, and linear time influences which affect the efficacy of detonation. A number of factors have to be satisfied before spontaneous chain reaction decay will occur. Certain places on the earth's surface have more "windows" where this is possible; Mururoa, Bikini, Arizona, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, are amongst such locations."

This is gibberish mate. If you believe this then you are certifiable.



9th Jun 2008, 00:02
I have been reluctant to ask you, Arizona has neer seen a detonation of any kind of Nuclear thingy. By "window" I take to mean a "space" in time, or an "opportunity", not really a window. But your prose relative to trigger vulnerability is ununderstandable. Expand?


tony draper
9th Jun 2008, 00:20
Our nukes are dial yield now,one punches in a number depending on how big a bang you want,from .2 kiloton up to 120 kt I believe, one has to be pretty certain one's nuke will popem wherever you dropem to include sophistication like that,only thing I ever read about local condition and nukes was the effect on re-enty vehicles not the business ends themselves.

9th Jun 2008, 00:34
of an artillery piece lobbing a .1 kt fissile warhead ~1.7 Miles. The logic escapes me. That's only 4 Daisy Cutters worth of conventional at 1000 times the cost, but then again, War is pricey. The Israeli business model makes more sense.

9th Jun 2008, 02:56
I think the IAEA are getting a bit upset because all along Iran has insisted that it requires nuclear energy for peaceful purposes only and now it has been discovered that they are researching missile technology, the ready availability of this technology has not been an issue.

Read a book by Tom Clancy years ago that gave a very interesting breakdown of the contents of a nuclear device and what happened when it went bang, may have been complete tosh but it was convincingly written..

9th Jun 2008, 03:05
Tom Clancy's books are no coincidence. He has contributors in high places. (several retired now)

9th Jun 2008, 04:31
Rightyo then Bill, certify me or prove me wrong. Ball's in your court.

Arizona, yes, mea culpa, I should have said "places where more tests were carried out than other places" instead of trying to be a smart-arse and relying on a demonstrably dodgy memory. And yes, I did mean a time-space opportunity.

9th Jun 2008, 05:12
TNT, U-239, Lithium Hydride. Wolf, you prove me wrong, I'll prove you likewise. Oh, and Pb, Cu, and a powerful delivery vehicle. No geological issues, no Geographical, Tempus Fugitus, Linear thought. You're too cryptic. Put down the Foster's mite.


(It was New Mexico. Alamagordo, New Mexico)

9th Jun 2008, 05:26
The day our country was attacked by terrorists, I knew the source of evil was Osama Bin Laden before it was announced. I feel just as vulnerable now--if not more so, than I did that day because he's still recruiting and Iran is ramping up. They aren't interested in diplomacy.

We should've just left a gaping hole where Afghanistan used to be.

The day our country was attacked by terrorists, I knew the source of evil was America before it was announced. I feel just as vulnerable now--if not more so, than I did that day because he's still recruiting and the US is ramping up. They aren't interested in diplomacy.

We should've just left a gaping hole where America used to be.

What is the more 'correct' version? Whose opinion is right in all this? My guess is neither....

9th Jun 2008, 05:36
With all due respect mate, You couldn't possibly remember the day you were attacked, because you weren't. And if you had been, our side would have been on your enemy like stink on a pile, take that to the mf bank.

Diplomacy? Ahhh..... Chamberlain, Neville.

9th Jun 2008, 05:49
Please back up your post with fact and some original thinking.

I've looked up your recent terrorism. Your country deported suspicious Islamic characters and the Greenpeace ship was sunk by French suspects.

9th Jun 2008, 05:54
That wasnt 'me' that was replying....It was a reply to highlight that that way of thinking, if flipped over to the 'otherside' can only result in more violence....

Do you really think the 'average' Iranian thinks 'Oh yeah, I think only the US and other more 'enlightened states' should have Nuclear weapons and technology because they are right- They are a force of good in the world as evidenced by their various crusades to bring their way of doing things to this part of the world'

Or would they think: "Who gives America (or any other nuclear state) the right to nuclear energy and not us? We arent evil, America is!- We dont trust them and we arent the ones invading and interferring in countries"


9th Jun 2008, 06:01
Indeed, the agents were French, and the ship was Dutch-registered and owned by a Canadian company, and the guy who died was Portuguese, and the only reason the Yanks didn't warn us about it was that they were understandably miffed about us welching on our ANZUS commitment, and the Poms did try to warn us but we were being too precious to listen.

9th Jun 2008, 08:02
Blue Wolf,

I can prove you wrong with three words - Nuclear Power Stations.

They completely disprove your theory.



9th Jun 2008, 13:20
Once again BHR talks a whole load of crap, roll in the hand grenade and then bugger off, quick smart, never the slightest sign of substantiation, as ever. Writing another Thesis BHR?

9th Jun 2008, 13:37
Mother of God, BHR, please explain to the board the differences between a nuclear power station and an atom bomb, and then, after you've done some research, tell me about how the locations of power plants aren't significant either.

Where do they find these people?

9th Jun 2008, 14:10

Nice to see you are keeping up your 100% record of having no worthwhile point to make but still feeling the need to post. Keep it up. Every time I feel sorry for myself I just tell myself, it could be worse, I could be Para!!!


You asked me to disprove that Nuclear Chain Reactions are time and location determinant. I posit that each and every operational nuclear reactor in the world disproves this. Ignoring the static reactors as being within your so-called “windows” what about the mobile reactors?

Of course you will say a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb. In that case, explain the differences that make a difference.

Man I love debating with people whose grasp on the subject is like that of a man who has fallen over a cliff, tenuous and increasingly hopeless.



10th Jun 2008, 00:34

The essential difference between a bomb and a reactor is that a bomb goes bang and a reactor doesn't. A bomb goes critical by going bang. A reactor goes critical by melting down and catching fire. The critical mass in the bomb goes bang because it has also achieved critical density, as we have touched on before. The mass in a bomb may be as little as 20 kilos. In a submarine reactor it may be 250 kilos. In a land-based power station it may be as much as 200 tons. Mass itself is not the only "critical" factor.

Both processes, which are similar but not identical, are "regulated" by certain external influences. Time and location are amongst these influences.

If you read what I have said on the subject, carefully this time, you will see that I stress the point that these influences affect the efficacy of the process. The long and short of this is that if you try to let off a nuke in the wrong place, you will (probably) still get a bang, but it may only be a little wee bang, and not the great big bang which you paid for and expected. Ditto time, and a few other things.

Fear not, these locations - and by that I mean "prime" locations - are plentiful. They occur in a regular and rather attractive pattern all over the surface of our pretty little planet. Time and other influences affect them all, some of them more so than others, due to other prevailing conditions.

Reactors are subject to the same conditions. Whether you know or believe this or not, the output from a reactor is not constant, and this is regardless of whether the reactor is fixed or on a ship or submarine. It varies, once again, with time and location. In a practical sense, as long as the reactor is making enough heat to produce usable power, this doesn't matter, but the process does need to be regulated by the judicious use of control rods and other procedures.

I have probably said enough now, but please feel free to continue hurling insults if you think it'll help.

10th Jun 2008, 04:33

Nice to see you are keeping up your 100% record of having no worthwhile point to make but still feeling the need to post.

Well BHR, if you were to do a search of all my posts, various user names, over the past twelve years, (first post March/April 1997), then I am sure you will find that you are, as usual, quite wrong.

But, as you say to others so often, "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story":)

10th Jun 2008, 08:13

I must admit to only having checked those you have posted under your current guise but I still stick to my assertion. :):)



10th Jun 2008, 12:05
No you haven't Bill, not all 665 or thereabouts! You haven't had the time! Enough anyway as we are way off topic!:)

10th Jun 2008, 16:05

You are quite right.

After 600 I gave up.

I figured that the difference between 91% full of sh1t and 100% full of sh1t was within the margin of error!!!