UN trying to create report that says Iran is working on developing nuclear weapons.

[fskimospy]

Your first paragraph is beyond dispute IMO. No terrorist group will ever have the resources or expertise to build a nuclear weapon.

I'm more interested in your second - that any nuclear weapon supplied to terrorists by a government could easily be tracked back after it is detonated. I can see there being good circumstantial evidence based on the general type of bomb used (i.e. uranium vs. plutonium) and its yield, but since the bomb is atomized in the explosion, can there be conclusive evidence?

- wolf

Generally you track the fissile material (as that's the unique and most important part). It's called nuclear forensics: http://cstsp.aaas.org/files/Complete.pdf It requires international cooperation and some time, but generally the answer to the question of 'can there be conclusive evidence?' is: yes.

There's been a lot of hand wringing about our declining nuclear forensics capabilities in recent years, but I have zero doubt that if someone were to actually nuke a major country that these resources would be put back into play immediately. This would most likely only apply to uranium bombs anyway, as plutonium bombs are a whole extra step more difficult to make.

 

[fskimospy]

One does not need to have a properly working weapon.

As stated both in my first and last sentence that you quoted.
If it does not exist; then there is no trail. (that is the official position w/ respect to Iran)
If it does not work perfectly; but something happens; it will accomplish the intent. (that is the aim of the terrorist leadership)

From the terrorist viewpoint, retaliation has no bearing as long as it is not on their head directly. we have seen how the leadership of Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah (Arafat) cry for protection when ever Israel threatens them;

If the Russians and Pakistani's can be bribed for information/technology, why are the Iranians so special.

A working bomb is not needed with all the precision machining to get a maximum yield.

Just the enriched material and a way to disperse it will cause the desired effect.

This is really naive.

1.) There is always a trail.

2.) It's true that a dirty bomb would be effective in creating chaos, but nowhere even close to that of a successful nuclear weapon.

3.) Hamas, Hezbollah, etc's actions against Israel mean zero as compared to the international reaction to a terrorist use of nuclear weapons. They mean less than zero.

I will repeat: no nuclear armed country will hand off a bomb or fissile material to a terrorist organization. They know better.

 

[woolfe9999]

Generally you track the fissile material (as that's the unique and most important part). It's called nuclear forensics: http://cstsp.aaas.org/files/Complete.pdf It requires international cooperation and some time, but generally the answer to the question of 'can there be conclusive evidence?' is: yes.

There's been a lot of hand wringing about our declining nuclear forensics capabilities in recent years, but I have zero doubt that if someone were to actually nuke a major country that these resources would be put back into play immediately. This would most likely only apply to uranium bombs anyway, as plutonium bombs are a whole extra step more difficult to make.

Thanks, that was the kind of information I was looking for.

 

[xBiffx]

I will repeat: no nuclear armed country will hand off a bomb or fissile material to a terrorist organization. They know better.

This is really naive.

Your words, not mine.

 

[fskimospy]

Your words, not mine.

Glad to see you're contributing your usual insightful commentary. I care even less about your ideas on nuclear proliferation than I do about most other things you write.

That's not easy to do.

 

[xBiffx]

Glad to see you're contributing your usual insightful commentary. I care even less about your ideas on nuclear proliferation than I do about most other things you write.

That's not easy to do.

Great comeback. Simply pointing out that you call others naive yet you are willing to through logic out the window and presume to know what the future holds. I'm gonna go cry now since you don't care what I say.

 

[fskimospy]

Great comeback. Simply pointing out that you call others naive yet you are willing to through logic out the window and presume to know what the future holds. I'm gonna go cry now since you don't care what I say.

If you think that the line of thought that gets to states not handing nuclear weapons over to proxy groups involves 'throwing logic out the window', you're just exposing how little you know about nuclear proliferation.

Terrorist groups might get weapons from disintegrating states, they might get them by taking over a state that has them, and they might even steal or buy a stolen one. They will not get one from a nuclear armed state otherwise. (barring the nuclear state being overrun by a hostile foreign power I guess, but in that case they are probably using them anyway so who cares.)

 

[xBiffx]

If you think that the line of thought that gets to states not handing nuclear weapons over to proxy groups involves 'throwing logic out the window', you're just exposing how little you know about nuclear proliferation.

Terrorist groups might get weapons from disintegrating states, they might get them by taking over a state that has them, and they might even steal or buy a stolen one. They will not get one from a nuclear armed state otherwise. (barring the nuclear state being overrun by a hostile foreign power I guess, but in that case they are probably using them anyway so who cares.)

Yeah, China clearly does nothing for the highest bidder. Clearly they care what happens to the world around them. Of course I don't profess to know everything, so I could be wrong about China.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah, China clearly does nothing for the highest bidder. Clearly they care what happens to the world around them. Of course I don't profess to know everything, so I could be wrong about China.

China?

.....China?!

Oh jesus christ, stop posting.

 

[xBiffx]

China?

.....China?!

Oh jesus christ, stop posting.

Tell me you know what China is thinking. Please amuse me, I mean enlighten us all knowing one. China was just an example. Since you seem to know what every country is going to do I guess I see why you aren't worried.

 

[fskimospy]

Tell me you know what China is thinking. Please amuse me, I mean enlighten us all knowing one. China was just an example. Since you seem to know what every country is going to do I guess I see why you aren't worried.

I also don't know if there are aliens orbiting Alpha Centauri waiting to zap me with a death ray, and if they exist I most certainly don't know what they are thinking. However since I have a functioning brain, I don't spend my day worrying about it, and I don't think I'll be wearing my anti-death ray hat out tonight.

You think major and rising economic and military power with intercontinental ballistic strike capabilities and heavy economic ties to most of the developed world might want to give nuclear weapons/material to proxy groups in order to detonate a weapon that would at a minimum trigger a major regional war and at most might cause the collapse of international trade and therefore their economy.

Gee, you're right. There's probably a good chance they're thinking about doing that, how foolish of me to doubt them.

 

[xBiffx]

I also don't know if there are aliens orbiting Alpha Centauri waiting to zap me with a death ray, and if they exist I most certainly don't know what they are thinking. However since I have a functioning brain, I don't spend my day worrying about it, and I don't think I'll be wearing my anti-death ray hat out tonight.

You think major and rising economic and military power with intercontinental ballistic strike capabilities and heavy economic ties to most of the developed world might want to give nuclear weapons/material to proxy groups in order to detonate a weapon that would at a minimum trigger a major regional war and at most might cause the collapse of international trade and therefore their economy.

Gee, you're right. There's probably a good chance they're thinking about doing that, how foolish of me to doubt them.

I don't spend my day thinking about this either but I also don't live in the world of impossibilities. Be prepared, great motto that applies to just about anything. Should the scenario play out with China selling a weapon, you honestly believe without a doubt that we would know about it before it was too late? Your trust is placed into what would happen if they got caught. Say they don't. No, I choose to live in the world of possibilities, where the earth ceases to be flat and the moon isn't made of cheese. A world where I can't know everything and know almost nothing of the future.

Monkeys might not fly out of my butt but I'm always ready with a net in case they do.

 

[Brovane]

I also don't know if there are aliens orbiting Alpha Centauri waiting to zap me with a death ray, and if they exist I most certainly don't know what they are thinking. However since I have a functioning brain, I don't spend my day worrying about it, and I don't think I'll be wearing my anti-death ray hat out tonight.

You think major and rising economic and military power with intercontinental ballistic strike capabilities and heavy economic ties to most of the developed world might want to give nuclear weapons/material to proxy groups in order to detonate a weapon that would at a minimum trigger a major regional war and at most might cause the collapse of international trade and therefore their economy.

Gee, you're right. There's probably a good chance they're thinking about doing that, how foolish of me to doubt them.

You are absolutely correct. It will not be the end of the world if Iran becomes a nuclear power. At the state level China, Pakistan, Russia etc are not going to hand a nuclear weapon off to a terrorist group. It could be stolen etc but as a delibarate national policy it isn't going to happen. The blowback would be to great for the nation state that alloweed it to happen.

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html

This essay is good at talking about the changes that result from a non-nuclear power becoming a nuclear power in its decision making and foreign policy.

 

[xBiffx]

You are absolutely correct. It will not be the end of the world if Iran becomes a nuclear power. At the state level China, Pakistan, Russia etc are not going to hand a nuclear weapon off to a terrorist group. It could be stolen etc but as a delibarate national policy it isn't going to happen. The blowback would be to great for the nation state that alloweed it to happen.

http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html

This essay is good at talking about the changes that result from a non-nuclear power becoming a nuclear power in its decision making and foreign policy.

Same rational is used to assure people that gun laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Clearly the threat of breaking the law to get a gun stops criminals from getting them. Of course, we will do something after they are found with it, hopefully before they kill someone with it.

 

[Brovane]

Same rational is used to assure people that gun laws prevent criminals from obtaining guns. Clearly the threat of breaking the law to get a gun stops criminals from getting them. Of course, we will do something after they are found with it, hopefully before they kill someone with it.

I don't see the rational in bringing up this example. The essay itself has several clear examples in world history of how non-nuclear states act more rationally after they have developed and deployed a nuclear detterent. Also in your example involves 1 person making a decision. With nation state it usually doesn't involve one person. Even a dictator has multiple people he needs to please to make sure that he stays in power. Iran is not a dictatorship and the ruling council of Iran isn't going to decide one day that it is worth it to mess around and have their country destroyed. A full scale nuclear attack doesn't destroy your country like a coventional attack would. It can literally wipe everything out in the blast zones.

Iran is seeking to be a regional player and a counter balance to Israeli who already has nuclear weapons. Who are we to tell Iran that they cannot do this? I really don't see where we as a country can dictate to another country what weapons they can and cannot develop.

 

[xBiffx]

Iran is seeking to be a regional player and a counter balance to Israeli who already has nuclear weapons. Who are we to tell Iran that they cannot do this? I really don't see where we as a country can dictate to another country what weapons they can and cannot develop.

I completely agree with you, I'm just saying that all of your reasons for thinking this is going to turn out just fine are pretty nearsighted. Iran will likely acquire nukes and nothing you say will make me think this is a good thing or even and OK thing. Nothing we can do about it but prepare for two nuclear states to go at it in the Middle East. Hopefully this doesn't happen and hopefully they don't use those nukes but we might as well be prepared for it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

If it is OK for Iran to develop a nuke; then why are the other countries in the area so concerned.

They do not trust Iran with a nuke! these are people with the same mindset, not the infidel/Westerners

 

[Anarchist420]

If it is OK for Iran to develop a nuke; then why are the other countries in the area so concerned.

They do not trust Iran with a nuke! these are people with the same mindset, not the infidel/Westerners

The other countries in the area are concerned only because of lies.

You don't seem to realize how easily some people are tricked.

 

[fskimospy]

The other countries in the area are concerned only because of lies.

You don't seem to realize how easily some people are tricked.

You are a moron. They are concerned because it alters the strategic balance in their region.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Most countries in the area have been concerned with Iran & Iraq for the past 20-30 years.

Well before the 9/11 issues developed