Text 15273, 262 rader
Skriven 2007-06-05 04:56:22 av Vorlonagent (1686.babylon5)
Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ehqr43tr0jh8a85um0gn5qv0uaqgbu3u0f@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 21:43:41 -0700, "Vorlonagent"
> <nojtspam@otfresno.com> wrote:
>
>>Untrue. A plutonium bomb casing is VERY difficult. That's *why* K got a
>>pop and not a boom. Whereas with a uranium bomb it's the refining that's
>>the hard part.
>>
>>NK no doubt got some useful information from their "pop" but until they
>>test, they don't know if they have it right.
>
> I don't know why their bomb fizzled, but they /did/ have the designs,
> which are the hard part of making a plutonium bomb, having purchased
> them from Pakistan.
I can give you an educated guess. They couldn't get the exact materials the
Pakistanis used and made/bought their own.
Plutonium is touchy stuff. For it to have any shelf life (say in a warhead)
you have to store it in small amounts. In order to get a nuclear explosion
you have to blast all those little pieces together at once. This requires
micro-second timing and very reliable, high-speed explosives. If the
explosive amounts aren't quite right or the timing is off, The pieces don't
all get there in unison, the first bits go off keeping the other ones from
getting close. You get a dirty bomb, not a truly atomic one.
..which is what happened.
There's three possible error conditions:
1. Poor or poorly measured explosives
2. Bad timing
3. Poorly enriched/stored plutonium
In a 3rd world rat-hole like NK, any or all of these are possible, but the
technologically hardest of these to get right is the timing, so I tend to
think their timing systems were imperfect.
> But, in the end, it doesn't make a difference. Even if there were only
> a 25% chance that a second North Korean bomb would take out Seoul or
> New York, it's more than enough, because we aren't going to take that
> risk if we can possibly avoid it.
Agreed. Unfortunately diplomatic constraints make the simple solutions
(bombing the crap out of NK reactors and known fissionables storage)
somewhat problematic. Neither the SKs nor the Chinese are thrilled with the
prospect of military force used against the NKs.
On the other hand, the chinese, at least, aren't thrilled at the prospect of
a nuclear Japan either and the NK threat pushes Japan in that direction.
Japan can have a nuke very very easily if they want one.
But the fact of the matter is that the NKs DO NOT have a workable bomb.
They may have ideas on how to build a workable bomb based on their test.
Without another test, they have a halfway nuke and nobody, not even the NKs,
will know better until/unless they test.
They're only probationary members of the nuclear club at this point. They
don't get the full prestige of being a nuclear power. Nor implied the
invulnerability that comes with having a bomb.
>>'In the master document, Iran talks about ensuring "full transparency"
>>and other measures to assure the U.S. that it will not develop nuclear
>>weapons. Iran offers "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization."
>>Iran also contemplates an end to "any material support to Palestinian
>>opposition groups" while pressuring Hamas "to stop violent actions
>>against civilians within" Israel (though not the occupied
>>territories). Iran would support the transition of Hezbollah to be a
>>"mere political organization within Lebanon" and endorse the Saudi
>>initiative calling for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
>>conflict.
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>...and you believe them?
>
> I don't think that's the real question. Iran isn't a monolith: they
> have doves and hawks, reformers and conservatives just as we do. We're
> popular with the Iranian public, and we know that there are voices in
> the Iranian elite who have been asking why they're still at odds with
> the United States when we've taken care of their worst enemies, Saddam
> and the Sunnis and Al Quada and the Taliban. And Iran took /our/ side
> after 9/11.
Who talked about "full transparency"? The iranian government? The best use
for the paper it's printed on would be either wiping one's butt or
firestarter (make sure you know which use you prefer and print on
appropriate stock)
The fact that the Iranian took our side after 9/11 means nothing really. We
were attacked by sunni extremists who are heretics in shia eyes. We removed
a sunni stronghold from one of their borders. The fact that iran took in
Al-Queda leadership refugees and now appear to be training and funding them
sheds much more light on their true sympathies.
Regardless of factins in Iran, the goivernment is in the hands of just one:
shia extremists. Saying they have doves and hawks like we do would give the
very false impression that the presence of these groups makes a difference
in how Iran forms its policy. By and large it does not. Iran is a true
theocracy and a very authoriatrian one.
That said, there are large factions in the Iran that prefer a more tolerant
society and ties to the US. What they have to say is of import. That why
bombing the crap out of Iran is unpalatable, because it drives undecideds
into the arms of the shia clerics. You will note back up this thread when I
answered what I would do in Bushs place, I did NOT advocate abombing run on
iran from the get-go and this was why.
Iran is vulnerable economically. they need to sell oil far more than the US
needs them to sell it (the US does not buy iranian oil itself but its
presence on the market factors into the price we pay nontheless).
> What we had here, I think, was a case of the reformers finding common
> ground with the conservatives, whose main concern was American
> military action.
>
> So the real question in my mind is not whether the Iranians were
> telling the truth, but whether the rational voices would prevail
> against the fading but still powerful hard liners. Now that our own
> hard liners have thrown a wrench in the deal, we'll never know.
You talk as if iran were a democracy where power could be handed over
peacefully. That's very wishful thinking. If anyone wants to wrest control
from the clerics they will have to fight to do it. And the way mideast
culture works, nobody will jump on the bandwagon until they are sure they
know who's going to win.
Nor can I think of any US action that has seriously jeopardized the chances
of a second Iranian revolution, up to and including the invasion of Iraq.
I've seen it put forward that the iranian seisure of a british ship was an
attempt to provoke a military reprisal specifically because the clerics are
having internal problems. If true, it puts the kibosh on any notion that
the US has messed up chances of a moderate revolution in Iran.
>>'Iran also demanded a lot, including "mutual respect," abolition of
>>sanctions, access to peaceful nuclear technology and a U.S. statement
>>that Iran did not belong in the "axis of evil." Many crucial issues,
>>including verification of Iran's nuclear program, needed to be
>>hammered out.'
>>
>>http://watandost.blogspot.com/2007/05/us-iran-relations-missed-opportunities.html
>>
>>It's easy to underestimate how fearsome we are: even with the army
>>near its breaking point, we could take out Iran and North Korea in the
>>blink of an eye, and they know it. From their perspective, the
>>acquisition of nuclear weapons -- or the threat of acquiring nuclear
>>weapons -- was a logical step.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>so is deneying them those weapons.
>
> Like we denied them to North Korea? We can't deny them the weapons,
> because we aren't willing to take the steps that would be necessary to
> do that -- stop the world from buying their oil or invade.
Point of order: the US does NOT buy Iranian oil. Not a drop. Europe does,
as does india and china.
We can bomb their (european-made) centrefuges. That's all we need do to
keep them from getting a nuke.
But you're right. the Left in the US and the world has done its level best
to erode any will to take that kind of action.
> We do have
> a chance to persuade them that they don't need those weapons, that the
> threat of limited military action and the limited sanctions we can
> manage outweigh any advantages the weapons would provide. All we have
> to do is make them feel secure. And that's what this proposal allows
> us to do. It gives us most of what we want -- hell, it's a wet dream
> of a proposal -- and that would allow us to let them off the hook.
You are completely misundertanding Iran. They think we don't have the guts
to do what it takes to stop them. That certainly was what Al-Queda took
away from "Black Hawk Down".
You are making the classic Neville Chamberlain mistake of looking for what
will "satisfy" an enemy. They'd take all the bennies we offer and wait a
few years and start developing nukes again. NK just got through doing
exactly this to us.
As long as the clerics are in power iran **is** a member of the Axis of
Evil. NOT just A member but THE PRINCIPAL member.
>>But -- and this is where I think the Adminstration let us down:
>>
>>'Instead, Bush administration hard-liners aborted the process. Another
>>round of talks had been scheduled for Geneva, and Ambassador Zarif
>>showed up - but not the U.S. side. That undermined Iranian moderates.
>>
>>My jaw fairly dropped when I read that.
The US has been letting the Europeans take the lead in dealing with Iran.
For all the good it has done.
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>
>>You could only be disappointed if you thought the Iranians were being
>>genuine.
>>
>>You're projecting your own viewpoint onto the Iranians.
>
> No, see above. And if the Iranians weren't genuine, so what? We'd be
> no worse off than we are today.
Yes we would. By playing useless diplomatic games we let Iran play its
not-so-diplomatic games, such as through hezbollah, last summer against
Israel.
I see no point in useless talking since it delays what needs to be done
instead of working toward it.
> That's one of the reasons this administration makes me cringe. They're
> so arrogant that there's no possibility of success, no possibility of
> progress. We alienate our allies, we lose opportunities to reach
> agreements with our enemies, and as a result, we keep ending up on the
> losing end of the stick. They've taken an overwhelming military,
> economic, and moral advantage, and left us treading water in the
> middle of the Atlantic. It's like Caligula sending the Roman legions
> to conquer a marsh. It's like a tyrannosaur sinking in a tar pit. It's
> like whaling with Ahab.
Better that that letting Hitler and Stalin divide Poland.
Better that than blaming ourselves for Pearl Harbor.
Better that than backing down from the Barbary Pirates when they decided to
prey on US merchant ships.
This is a time to fight.
--
Q: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about
global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them
hope? What's the right mix?
Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is.
In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of
unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any
discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't
think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is
appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how
dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to
what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve
this crisis.
Al Gore, Grist Magazine, 2006
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|