Five Thirty Eight

[jcl]

yes the next war will be iran under the pretext of wmd

like it was in iraq

The next war will probably be Afghanistan (again). The war after that could be Iraq (again) or the border regions of Pakistan depending on what happens in Afghanistan.

As I recall, the strategy for Iran was to promote liberalization or a (peaceful) revolution. The next Iranian presidential election is next summer and it looks like there'll be at least one liberal(ish) candidate on the ballot with a chance of winning (Karroubi or ex-president Khatami), so I imagine nothing will happen until at least late '09. Though I don't expect anything to happen at all.

[jcl]

Or we could hope that like every other country that obtained the ability to make nuclear weapons since the end of WWII, once they have one they'll discover they can never use it. The retaliation would be destroy their country. Let's cross our fingers!

That's the realistic option. It's not really that difficult to design and build an atomic bomb. A smart college student could do it. A couple smart college students did do it.

[JDoors]

Theoretically:

... the bomb that they were designing wouldn't, of course, actually be built ... decided to assume that their fictional Nth Country had already obtained the requisite plutonium ...

They didn't build it, therefore they don't know if it would actually work (though the design was successfully tested to see if it would, theoretically, work), and they didn't have plutonium nor did they make any attempt to produce or aquire it.

It's easy enough to make a car, throw a bunch of parts together, but the entire process and the ability to make one that meets all the necessary design goals? Not easy.

[jcl]

They didn't build it, therefore they don't know if it would actually work (though the design was successfully tested to see if it would, theoretically, work), and they didn't have plutonium nor did they make any attempt to produce or aquire it.

Their bomb was more complicated than it needed to be. Little Boy was a gun-type U-235 bomb. No plutonium, no implosion mechanism, etc. It worked rather well.

It's easy enough to make a car, throw a bunch of parts together, but the entire process and the ability to make one that meets all the necessary design goals? Not easy.

But people still manage to do it -- including most of the countries with covert nuclear programs.

[JDoors]

Their bomb was more complicated than it needed to be. Little Boy was a gun-type U-235 bomb. No plutonium, no implosion mechanism, etc. It worked rather well.

But people still manage to do it -- including most of the countries with covert nuclear programs.

They chose to create a theoretical verison of the more powerful later bomb just to complicate things. The "weaker" (uh-hem) bomb that would have been easier to replicate would, of course, still cause untold damage if someone were to create an actual bomb. Saying "it worked well" is misleading since it had to be created using vast resources, tested theoretically, tested again after one was created, and only then did it work, and that was never guaranteed.

People do create cars of all kinds all the time, but it's extrememly difficult to create one that meets thousands of specific standards. A car might get you from place to place, but may not meet even the minimum safety or reliability standards. If you apply that criteria to nuclear weapons, sure, maybe the triggering mechanism might work, but the nuclear reaction may never be initiated.

-----

Edited October 14, 2008 by JDoors

[jcl]

Saying "it worked well" is misleading since it had to be created using vast resources, tested theoretically, tested again after one was created, and only then did it work, and that was never guaranteed.

The Little Boy design wasn't tested. The Trinity 'gadget' was a plutonium implosion bomb.

People do create cars of all kinds all the time, but it's extrememly difficult to create one that meets thousands of specific standards. A car might get you from place to place, but may not meet even the minimum safety or reliability standards. If you apply that criteria to nuclear weapons, sure, maybe the triggering mechanism might work, but the nuclear reaction may never be initiated.

It doesn't need to be reliable. It doesn't even need to work since you're never going to use it.

[JDoors]

... It doesn't even need to work since you're never going to use it.

Good point, IF it's never used.

[bobbynichols]

And still another timely quote:

Statistician: A man who believes figures don't lie, but admits that under analysis some of them won't stand up either.

- Evan Esar

When it comes to election prognostication, history shows that statistical analysis is not, and never will be, an exact science (reference: "The Bradley Effect", et al)... but it's still cool to watch CNN with their fancy touch screen computer deely-bob trading red states for blue states, blue states for red states, in search of trends from data which may or may not be reliable.

i notice the right wing

posters in force with this thread

I don't have any wings (yet) Marty, but here's a poem I created a while ago:

WARranted

Righteous men

pointlessly meet

A glorious

bloody hell

Bullets rage

onwards

mass graves

Honour but

poignant memories

5-4-2006

bobbynichols

Vote your conscience... and bejeebies to the polls... but DO vote.