enriched uranium

LafayetteBear

All-American
Nov 30, 2009
33,287
8,502
113
yea, it's hard to have a reasonable back and forth when the first thought is about denigrating trump as opposed to the discussing the post.
Wait, wut?! Denigrating Cheeto Pedo is ALWAYS a good thing. He deserves all of the opprobrium that we can muster, and more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dpic73

LafayetteBear

All-American
Nov 30, 2009
33,287
8,502
113
The more outraged the drama queens become, the smarter they believe themselves to be. Then the anger, and then it's, Nazis!!! It must be so tiring to constantly talking down to others pretending to be better than others. Oh, and the empathy they have, especially the Whites towards Blacks. Always telling them how dumb they are, and they couldn't possibly use a computer or get an ID. I wonder how they get into the Obama library without an ID.
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."
 
  • Like
Reactions: nytigerfan

ANEW

All-Conference
Jul 7, 2023
2,179
3,084
113
"Little Boy" was dropped from a plane over Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I'm not sure which. (It could have been Little Boy 1 and Little Boy 2, which sounds like it was in honor of JinxyPat.)

Your post notes that it would require "heavy aircraft" to deliver such a bomb. Assuming Iran has any airplanes remaining, particularly "heavy aircraft" (I'm thinking C-130), what do you suppose are the chances that such aircraft gets more than 500 feet off the ground? I'm thinking there are three chances: slim, none, and fat.

All of the foregoing assumes that Iran can readily dig up all of this enriched uranium from the bomb crater overlying it, and that the bombing did not destroy, alter, or scatter it.
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:
  • Like
Reactions: TigerGrowls

Fac

All-Conference
Jun 5, 2001
1,406
1,612
113
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."
My uncle would have referred to you as a dickhead. So you got that going for you.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,172
4,202
113
Do we know what the details of the now defunct Iran Nuclear Deal were? I don't have any feel for:
  • If Iran was in compliance with the deal while it was still active
  • If the terms were sufficient
I suspect the answer to both of those is "yes" and that this is entirely a problem of Trump's own creation but I carry my own biases into this, obviously.

Edit: Cursory research suggests that my assumptions were correct and this whole thing is Trump's fault
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.
 

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,172
4,202
113
well, if all of this is accurate, and I have no doubt it is, then Iran should have no trouble accepting the same or similar restrictions before Trump ends their civilization.

It's really a shame that when one president, be it Democrat or republican, comes up with a plan - like the Iran nuclear deal- that members of both parties can't analyze the details before the opposition party automatically declares it to be bad.
Nuclear or not there's little doubt that Iran has been the world's biggest state sponsor of terror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,287
3,360
113
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.

Don't you see how this is basically a permission structure to bomb anyone we don't like at any time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,287
3,360
113
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,270
3,815
113
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....
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdgan

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,287
3,360
113
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.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,270
3,815
113
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....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe and Fac

nytigerfan

Heisman
Dec 9, 2004
10,278
13,191
102
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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,287
3,360
113
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....

I feel like being positive would be misguided based on what we know about this administration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,270
3,815
113
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?
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....
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,287
3,360
113
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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: yoshi121374

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,270
3,815
113
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
 

FLaw47

All-Conference
Dec 23, 2010
3,287
3,360
113
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.
 

Moogy

All-Conference
Jul 28, 2017
5,058
3,410
113
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
Trump will cut that victory by 1000%, 600%, 500%, even 1500% ... numbers that are not even thought to be achievable ...
 

PalmettoTiger1

Heisman
Jan 24, 2009
12,494
12,271
113
well, they have to get at it first. And from experts say, it's embedded underground, entrances closed and under tons of debris, with a distinct likelihood that the canisters have been damaged and are toxic. That's not my analysis, i'm just reporting what supposedly knowledgeable have reported.

Some of these same experts question whether it will ever be recovered, uncovered or useable. Again, I don't know, just re reporting

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
 
  • Like
Reactions: ANEW

bdgan

All-Conference
Oct 12, 2021
4,172
4,202
113
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
I think the war was a mistake. It was a terrible political mistake for Trump to attack before the midterms. That said Iran admitted they had enough enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs. The IAEA pretty much confirmed that. We've also learned that Iran had lots of long range missile capability.

You seem be believe the "Don't" strategy was effective.
 

baltimorened

All-Conference
May 29, 2001
5,270
3,815
113
I think the war was a mistake. It was a terrible political mistake for Trump to attack before the midterms. That said Iran admitted they had enough enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs. The IAEA pretty much confirmed that. We've also learned that Iran had lots of long range missile capability.

You seem be believe the "Don't" strategy was effective.
I'll put out a thought that I'm sure will be debatable.....so Iran isn't stupid, they understand our political system. ..It's going to take them years just to get back to a system they they had before Feb 28th....it will take years to recover, repair or replace their enrichment capabilities...years to recover economically....so why not agree to whatever the US wants...we'll lift sanctions,, they get money, they get time, they can stabilize their political and economic systems, and ...the key...they know trump will be gone in 2 1/2 years...there's a 50-50 chance democrats regain power, Democrat administrations have been much more favorable - dovish - in dealing with Iran's nuclear agenda. So just agree, reconstitute, so to speak, and wait for an American administration more willing and then go back to their old ways...

what do you think?
 

PalmettoTiger1

Heisman
Jan 24, 2009
12,494
12,271
113
I'll put out a thought that I'm sure will be debatable.....so Iran isn't stupid, they understand our political system. ..It's going to take them years just to get back to a system they they had before Feb 28th....it will take years to recover, repair or replace their enrichment capabilities...years to recover economically....so why not agree to whatever the US wants...we'll lift sanctions,, they get money, they get time, they can stabilize their political and economic systems, and ...the key...they know trump will be gone in 2 1/2 years...there's a 50-50 chance democrats regain power, Democrat administrations have been much more favorable - dovish - in dealing with Iran's nuclear agenda. So just agree, reconstitute, so to speak, and wait for an American administration more willing and then go back to their old ways...

what do you think?

An alligator is an AMBUSH PREDATOR

The alligator sits stealthily in the weeds not moving and then boom when it feels it is the moment strikes

Watched it many times so I get what nature teaches man to do as a strategy


Iran if I were advising them would be to Take the strategy that China takes that stretch out the schedule and wait for the right moment to strike

China is waiting for the right moment to strike

COUNT ON THAT