Iran may have acquired Nuclear War Heads.

DeltaV · Post by **DeltaV** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 3:01 pm

Iran has successfully launched a second domestically built satellite into orbit

Meanwhile, the US cable news networks (including Fox, "Fair and Balanced"?) spend more than half their time on... Weiner.

Worthless.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 5:23 pm

If a terrorist nuke goes off somewhere, would we be able to tell if the nuke was made in Iran? I know we can generally tell where the fissile material came from, but I am not sure how true this is generally and with newer members/potential members of the nuclear club.

See my comment about intelligence. I think that if Iran has a nuke, we will know and if it is handed over to some terrorist organisation, we will also know. Nukes can be rather small these days, but making them small takes a set of skills that Iran most likely wont have for the first few it produces (if they ever get there). So transporting an Iranian nuke somewhere does take more than a suitcase. I would be surprised if it was much smaller/lighter than Fat Man.
So, intelligence should be able to track it. But quite honestly, I would not let it come that far to begin with.
Also, how many idiotic suicidal countries with nuclear abilities are there that could provide terrorists with nuclear weapons, hu?
I can think of 3, of which one currently has no nukes at all (Iran) and one has only had two tests that fissled (N. Korea).
The third one is Pakistan, my greatest worry of all. They have operational nuclear weapons and Al Quaida is having a field day in that country. An explosive mixture, if you excuse the pun.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:23 pm

Since this discussion has (in my opinion) degraded into nonsense, I thought I would post a little more.

And for the Next Presidential campaign:

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Skipjack wrote: See my comment about intelligence. I think that if Iran has a nuke, we will know and if it is handed over to some terrorist organisation, we will also know.

I was asking more of a forensics question. I was assuming that the bomb can be quite easily delivered. This is kinda what I was more curious about.

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com ... planted-it

Skipjack wrote: Nukes can be rather small these days, but making them small takes a set of skills that Iran most likely wont have for the first few it produces (if they ever get there). So transporting an Iranian nuke somewhere does take more than a suitcase. I would be surprised if it was much smaller/lighter than Fat Man.
So, intelligence should be able to track it.

Bold statement. On what do you base this? Cargo containers are quite plentiful in the world.

Skipjack wrote:But quite honestly, I would not let it come that far to begin with.

Yes, you would.

Skipjack wrote:Also, how many idiotic suicidal countries with nuclear abilities are there that could provide terrorists with nuclear weapons, hu?
I can think of 3, of which one currently has no nukes at all (Iran) and one has only had two tests that fissled (N. Korea).
The third one is Pakistan, my greatest worry of all. They have operational nuclear weapons and Al Quaida is having a field day in that country. An explosive mixture, if you excuse the pun.

The more untraceable the act is, the less suicidal the act becomes. This is why I asked the question in the first place. And, since you are pointing it out, the more potential suspects, the less suicidal the act becomes.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 7:23 pm

This is kinda what I was more curious about.

Well, you got your answer. It is a good one too. I did honestly not know that, but it sure will help.

Bold statement. On what do you base this? Cargo containers are quite plentiful in the world.

Cargo containers can be tracked. They are big enough to be picked up by statellites and to follow their movements.
It should also be possible to see their movement from further away (see spies).

Yes, you would.

No I would not.

the more potential suspects, the less suicidal the act becomes.

Well luckily there are not that many, are there?

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:05 pm

I do not believe that finding out that Iran is supplying a nuke to terrorists and then tracking the nuke is as easy as you think it to be. The resolution of satellite cameras is not the issue.

Skipjack wrote:
Yes, you would.
No I would not.

In these contexts when we say "you" or "I" we are usually speaking for our countries because you or I cannot do anything individually. My response was based on the fact that your country would do/could do nothing.

Skipjack wrote:
the more potential suspects, the less suicidal the act becomes.
Well luckily there are not that many, are there?

I don't know. You said they are crazy but not suicidal. I don't know when a crazy person would stop considering nuking Israel/US suicide. I am not crazy though.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:07 pm

Skipjack wrote:
This is kinda what I was more curious about.
Well, you got your answer. It is a good one too. I did honestly not know that, but it sure will help.

I just don't know that we know anything about the signature of their fissile fuels. Do we? Is there any data gathered by UN inspectors? This is my question.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:15 pm

I do not believe that finding out that Iran is supplying a nuke to terrorists and then tracking the nuke is as easy as you think it to be. The resolution of satellite cameras is not the issue.

Well, I am 100% sure that at any time there are several US and Israeli spies closely monitoring the Iranian nuclear facilities. Dont forget that the Mossad is the best secret service in the world. Once Iran actually has a nuclear weapon, things will intensify even more.

In these contexts when we say "you" or "I" we are usually speaking for our countries because you or I cannot do anything individually. My response was based on the fact that your country would do/could do nothing.

Ok, that makes more sense. It is not entirely true though. My neutral country has been involved with several (peaceful) interferences with nuclear weapons issues. Vienna has served as a host for quite a few negotiations too.
Now of course that is not comparable to an active role the way the US or Israel would most likely persue, but it has its place.

I don't know. You said they are crazy but not suicidal. I don't know when a crazy person would stop considering nuking Israel/US suicide. I am not crazy though.

Look, my take is that they are most likely not suicidal. I would be very suprised, if they were. They have to much to loose as well.
Anyway, we are still at a stage where they dont even have a single nuke and are still even longer from testing it and after that it would take more time to make a test article into an actual, practical weapon.
Many steps that they have to do with the rest of the world watching. Right now they still claim their nuclear programme to be peaceful (Ok, even I have my doubts about that...)

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 9:19 pm

I just don't know that we know anything about the signature of their fissile fuels. Do we? Is there any data gathered by UN inspectors? This is my question.

I assume that we know the signature of all the others. At least I would assume that in the light of becoming the main suspect, the others would let UN inspectors have a look. The exception being NK, maybe. But then, it is not even sure that NK has functioning nukes, let allone enough of them to use them on Israel (which NK would have little motivation to do, they would rather bomb SK, or the US).
Even withtout the full signatures, there would be clues. Combine that with intelligence (as the article mentions) and a clear picture emerges.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:53 am

Back on this topic:

Giorgio wrote:Religion is based on faith, Engineering is mainly based on verified knowledge.
I always considered the two as being on diverging roads.
I have never been able to understand how some engineers can reconcile both. Maybe someone can share his experience, it could be an interesting discussion.

An atheist's take: "Does God Exist?"

The case for reconciling the scientific with the divine -- and against the anti-religion of Richard Dawkins By Alan Lightman

A quote I find interesting: "As a scientist, I find Dawkins’ efforts to rebut these two arguments for the existence of God — intelligent design and morality — as completely convincing. However, as I think he would acknowledge, falsifying the arguments put forward to support a proposition does not falsify the proposition. Science can never know what created our universe. Even if tomorrow we observed another universe spawned from our universe, as could hypothetically happen in certain theories of cosmology, we could not know what created our universe. And as long as God does not intervene in the contemporary universe in such a way as to violate physical laws, science has no way of knowing whether God exists or not. The belief or disbelief in such a Being is therefore a matter of faith."

http://life.salon.com/2011/10/02/how_sc ... h_coexist/

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:10 am

rjaypeters wrote:And as long as God does not intervene in the contemporary universe in such a way as to violate physical laws, science has no way of knowing whether God exists or not.The belief or disbelief in such a Being is therefore a matter of faith."

As long as one does not try to impose his faith on another one NON faith I think the above is acceptable.
Even if the acceptance of something only because we cannot disprove its existence is not a concept I like too much.

rjaypeters · Post by **rjaypeters** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:25 am

Giorgio,

Well...I don't think we get to choose whether it is possible to prove a negative. But we do get to choose whether to like it.

BTW, I don't think it is possible to impose faith (something which is completely within your own mind*) upon another person, but it is certainly possible to impose the external evidence (e.g. did you go to Mass on Sunday?) of a faith upon another person, which is what I think you mean...

In any case, if the last few hundred years are any guide, and they should be, imposing a religion on a resisting person just makes the imposer a hypocrite. I will quote Larry Niven: "No cause is so noble that it won't attract fuggheads."

Further, the futility of forced conversion is ubiquitous. Die Gedanken sind frei!

*Brain scanning technology is getting better all the time.

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:20 am

rjaypeters wrote:And as long as God does not intervene in the contemporary universe in such a way as to violate physical laws, science has no way of knowing whether God exists or not.

That does not compute. There would be no way to tell whether it was really "God", or some unforeseen natural phenomenon.

There is no arguing religion/faith. I personally (as an ex-engineer) don't see a need to reconcile.. Because the two never crossed path, as needed to conflict with one another.

I don't think it is possible to impose faith (something which is completely within your own mind -- Brain scanning technology is getting better all the time) upon another person

But you could deeply condition someone to behave some arbitrary way.. If you find purchase enough on the right parts of their psyche. As those perfidious animals - women - do. ...Right?

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:51 am

rjaypeters wrote:Giorgio,

Well...I don't think we get to choose whether it is possible to prove a negative. But we do get to choose whether to like it.

Fair enough.

rjaypeters wrote:BTW, I don't think it is possible to impose faith (something which is completely within your own mind*) upon another person, but it is certainly possible to impose the external evidence (e.g. did you go to Mass on Sunday?) of a faith upon another person, which is what I think you mean...

No, I really mean imposing one's faith upon others. My experience in life thought me that generally people with strong faith will tend to impose their view upon people of different faith or no faith at all. This was probably the biggest issue that made me reconsider religions as a whole.
I also met people minding their faith without caring or invading other people beliefs, but the were only a fraction of the other kind.

rjaypeters wrote:In any case, if the last few hundred years are any guide, and they should be, imposing a religion on a resisting person just makes the imposer a hypocrite. I will quote Larry Niven: "No cause is so noble that it won't attract fuggheads."

Further, the futility of forced conversion is ubiquitous. Die Gedanken sind frei!

You are right if we apply your words to places like Europe and USA, but things gets quite different when you go in places like Sudan, Nigeria, and similar were access to basic needs like food and water is many time conditioned to the acceptance of a particular faith.

Giorgio · Post by **Giorgio** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 10:52 am

Betruger wrote:But you could deeply condition someone to behave some arbitrary way.. If you find purchase enough on the right parts of their psyche. As those perfidious animals - women - do. ...Right?

I sense a personal experience here!