Wait, wut?! Denigrating Cheeto Pedo is ALWAYS a good thing. He deserves all of the opprobrium that we can muster, and more.
enriched uranium
- Thread starter baltimorened
- Start date
Captain Houseboat: I'm not one of those who is constantly calling you either "dumb" or "stupid." My mother taught me at an early age that it is in poor taste to punch down on the less fortunate, particularly those who are retarded. Now, my dad was a bit less empathetic. He would have referred to you as a "lemonhead."
Little boy hit Hiroshima was the gun type bomb. 15kt yield. Fat man was implosion type 20kt yield (all approximate)
Per AI. little boy used 64kg of uranium but only about 1kg underwent fission. Fat man was 6-6.5kg of plutonium. .
Edit: Argh. Made a mistake. Hiroshima got the first bomb Nagasaki the 2nd
Last edited:
My uncle would have referred to you as a dickhead. So you got that going for you.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence said that Iran was involved in covert activities and didn't disclose all of their locations. There was also concern about a buildup of long range missile capability.
The problem is we'll never know the whole truth unless Iran actually launches a nuclear weapon. Then it's too late.
Nuclear or not there's little doubt that Iran has been the world's biggest state sponsor of terror.
Don't you see how this is basically a permission structure to bomb anyone we don't like at any time?
That's not happening just like dpic saying ICE is coming down my street to disappear my neighbors isn't happening.
Get a grip
What am I missing? We just went to war with a country we didn't like after either lying about them not being able make nukes less than a year ago or being able to make nukes now. We were in a deal that they were in compliance with 8 years ago. All we have to do is say "we don't want them to have nukes" and we can bomb whoever we want.
you want Iran to have nuclear weapons? I don't know of any nation than wants that....
I will reiterate that we had a deal to prevent them from doing this that they were in compliance with.
My point though, is that this thinking means that we can bomb any country that we "don't want to have nuclear weapons". Which could be any country.
well so far, we've only bombed one...how do you know they were in compliance..according to one of their leaders they have enough 60% enriched uranium to make 11 nuclear bombs...now we can debate whether they were enriching during the Obama years or whether they started either during trump 1 or Biden...neither of us know. The only thing we know is what the Iranians said.
We are where we are..and we come back to the question, do we want Iran to have a nuclear weapon? We now know that they have missile capabilities to reach most of the mideast and Europe. In my opinion, at least, that is not a positive development for the world. So, do we wait until they have a nuclear weapon or do we nip the problem now....old ned expression...it's easiest to solve the problems when it's easiest to solve the problems. And it's easiest to solve this problem now, before it becomes a nuclear problem in the future.
We can debate whether or not just bombing them was better strategy than continuing negotiations. And, you and I might agree on that. But, we are where we are...might as well finish the job..can't put the genie back in the bottle.
think more Positively Flaw....
Ned, once again, Trump pulled out of the Iran deal in 2018. They mostly in compliance up to that point. They have had 8 years since then.
if they were not in compliance like Trump claimed, why did he not do anything about it in his last 2.5 years?
I feel like being positive would be misguided based on what we know about this administration.
not to be picky, but "mostly in compliance" means they weren't in compliance.
last 2 1/2 years, I don't know, maybe timing wasn't right....
nah, lots left to go in this little trump adventure. We could come out smelling like a rose...or not
I mean, I know that it could be alright. I just don't see any point in thinking that it will. From where I stand, things seem strictly worse than if we'd just kept the Nuclear Deal (and if that's the case, I can't offer Trump any credit for a 20% victory against a problem he's entirely responsible for creating).
how about a 100% victory. I'm not sure Iran's having enough uranium for 11 nuclear bombs is really a problem trump created...seems like the Iranians might have a hand in this
My thesis is that they wouldn't have that uranium had he not ended the Nuclear Deal. Sure, if this somehow ended up with Iran with no nukes and being a functional democracy that'd be pretty cool.
Trump will cut that victory by 1000%, 600%, 500%, even 1500% ... numbers that are not even thought to be achievable ...
With my work with nuclear fuel rods we had canisters that had no more than 1 pound of low grade uranium in the container separated by like 2 feet in a rack
if you put too much uranium together it will go critical and get really hot melting everything
buried under a mountain may be the safest place for the uranium especially if the canisters are fractured open