Nuclear Iran?

Feb 2011
82
7
New Jersey, USA
Nuclear Iran?

I agree with those who think the Iran agreement should be supported, first because nothing better seems to be available, second because I suspect that technological means of supervision (to avoid a global catastrophe), are available in the USA. Here is what I have just posted on that subject, at an Internet forum for physics teachers:

" ... How can one detect the strongly-enriched uranium, placed either inside or outside of a bomb? I am sure that nuclear physicists have been addressing this problem, in the context of inspecting vessels arriving to our ports, or crossing our borders.

One possible approach is to irradiate a suspected object with a source of slow neutrons (for example, a Cf-252 source surrounded by pure graphite or paraffin). The slow neutrons, in turn, would induce fission; fission fragments would be gamma radioactive and gamma rays would be detectable from outside the suspected material. ... " The idea is simple, but it presents some practical difficulties, as always. For example, how can one distinguish gamma rays emitted by fission products in the enriched uranium from the gamma rays emitted by fission products in the Cf-252 source? Will the method work despite the presence of the cosmic background?

Ludwik Kowalski, a retired nuclear physicist (see Wikipedia)

http: //csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.htmlz
 
Oct 2012
2,384
437
NC
I'm not sure if you are just naive or terribly uninformed.

do you remember when they took our hostages in the 1970s for some 400 days. US hostages. there was no controlling what they did or didn't do then. it will be the same with this. if they decide they want to build nukes, they will. they only respond correctly when they are looking down the barrel of our guns.


"Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action.

-Hassan Rouhani
 
Last edited:
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
I'm not sure if you are just naive or terribly uninformed.

do you remember when they took our hostages in the 1970s for some 400 days. US hostages. there was no controlling what they did or didn't do then. it will be the same with this. if they decide they want to build nukes, they will. they only respond correctly when they are looking down the barrel of our guns.


"Saying 'Death to America' is easy. We need to express 'Death to America' with action.

-Hassan Rouhani

Okay....unless the actions within Iran are seen, they cannot be acted upon. Step one must be to see what is happening and this agreement (while inadequate) increases the chances of this ability. An example of the "Something is better than Nothing" concept. Should Iran decide to play it's usual games, it is likely well aware the world is watching closely and will do very bad things to it when found out.

It seems to me that the alternative would be to just do these "Very Bad Things" on assumption. I do not wish to see the results of such a thing. If there is a better idea out there I would LOVE to hear it.
 
Jul 2009
5,893
474
Port St. Lucie
In any case, the ideas that a nuclear Iran would actually be a threat to the world is ludacris. Iran wants nukes for the same reason Israel got them, the Arabs keep trying to kill them (though the image of Israel getting nuked polls well for the Israeli/American right). The REAL reason the West opposes a nuclear Iran is that it would make Iran immune to military action (a possibility Israel fights tooth and nail to prevent) and prompt SA to build it's own nukes.

The solution to that isn't to act aggressively toward Iran, it's to not advocate war and start challenging SA's nuclear threats. This deal takes care of the 1st part, now we just need to put those IS loving Saudis in their place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Top