It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT
And you know they still have to test it.
Once they test a nuke it's not like next day they are firing at people.
Why do they have to test it?
I think America and Russia did enough testing.
Nukes do work.
No cause you have to test your design.
There design for a weapon will be diffrent so they have to test its viable.
Look at North Korea they had to test theres and there first test was almost a failure,
Iran could spend billions on builing nukes and they could all end up duds if they dont test.
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT
And you know they still have to test it.
Once they test a nuke it's not like next day they are firing at people.
Why do they have to test it?
I think America and Russia did enough testing.
Nukes do work.
No cause you have to test your design.
There design for a weapon will be diffrent so they have to test its viable.
Look at North Korea they had to test theres and there first test was almost a failure,
Iran could spend billions on builing nukes and they could all end up duds if they dont test.
Actually it's even more complicated than that. Once the nuclear device is created, the hardest part is to miniaturize it. You have to miniaturize & stabilize the device so it can fit on a missile, otherwise you just have a massive but delicate device. That's the part where North Korea is supposedly stuck.
You can still use a non-miniaturized version, but it would have to be like how the US did against Japan (but modern radar would make that nearly impossible). It could also be placed on some massive vehicle & driven to its target (lol) or used as a ridiculously dangerous trap. As in, once invaders get within range or have occupied a specific area, set off the nuke. But neither of those is likely.
In other words, Iran is very far away from being a nuclear threat. Not only would they have to enrich the fuel enough to make it usable in a weapon, but then they'd have to design & perfect the actual bomb, and then stabilize and shrink it to fit on a missile. Then they would be a nuclear threat to Israel (and the GCC).
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: SLAYER69
Well if there is intervention it should be lead by Israel as they are the ones with there panties in a twist.
They have a viable military.
They can do tne brunt of the dirty work for once .
the idea of a nuclear arms race in the ME disturbs me,
originally posted by: SLAYER69
Mother of God....
Are you seriously advocating Israeli intervention here? I'm sure many here will have kittens reading that.
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: enlightenedservant
originally posted by: crazyewok
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: IAMTAT
And you know they still have to test it.
Once they test a nuke it's not like next day they are firing at people.
Why do they have to test it?
I think America and Russia did enough testing.
Nukes do work.
No cause you have to test your design.
There design for a weapon will be diffrent so they have to test its viable.
Look at North Korea they had to test theres and there first test was almost a failure,
Iran could spend billions on builing nukes and they could all end up duds if they dont test.
Actually it's even more complicated than that. Once the nuclear device is created, the hardest part is to miniaturize it. You have to miniaturize & stabilize the device so it can fit on a missile, otherwise you just have a massive but delicate device. That's the part where North Korea is supposedly stuck.
You can still use a non-miniaturized version, but it would have to be like how the US did against Japan (but modern radar would make that nearly impossible). It could also be placed on some massive vehicle & driven to its target (lol) or used as a ridiculously dangerous trap. As in, once invaders get within range or have occupied a specific area, set off the nuke. But neither of those is likely.
In other words, Iran is very far away from being a nuclear threat. Not only would they have to enrich the fuel enough to make it usable in a weapon, but then they'd have to design & perfect the actual bomb, and then stabilize and shrink it to fit on a missile. Then they would be a nuclear threat to Israel (and the GCC).
Exactly
I was just trying to keep it simple for our audiance.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
If you honestly think Ayatollah controlled Shia Iran have been backing Sunni MOSS... Hamas, sorry, Hamas...
You might need to think again!
"Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus today.
According to Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran. Iran also supplies Hamas with military weaponry. Technologies provided include Fajr-5, M-75, and M-302 rockets, as well as drones.
originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
So the leader of Iran says they do, A leader in Palestine says they do.
You say they don't.
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
The leader of Iran is hardly a trustworthy source among these boards...
originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Do you not think it's become the Twilight Zone in this thread that all of a sudden Khameini and Saudi Arabia are now go to sources for what's happening in the Middle East?