Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Harlequin
they maybe `one fo the safest forms of energy` but if you blast open the core , then all sorts of isotopes will spew forth

The core is protected by metres of concrete, at the first sign of danger you scram the control rods and the reactor is safe.
You dont need to blast open the core, just screw up the coolant system.
Once that goes down they have to fix it or scram the reactor.

or let it go critical and melt down - blaming it on being bombed.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Harlequin
- look at wormwood (chernobyl) , even now there are many areas that you just cannot go anywhere near - suit or otherwise.

Why does everyone try and use that one?
Do you even know why chernobyl happened?
If so you would know that it has nothing do with this topic.

yes i do know what happened at chernobyl thank you very much - that was an experiment that went wrong , too much power with a deactivated cooling system , coupled with a positive coefficient for the cooling jacket - meaning the steam actually helped propagate the neutron reactives and not slow them down, it has everything to do with the topic - IF the iranian core is running and the core gets bombed (and the cooling system fails) then there could very well be a similar situation

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Harlequin]

Originally posted by Harlequin
or let it go critical and melt down - blaming it on being bombed.

They wouldnt do that...

yes i do know what happened at chernobyl thank you very much - that was an experiment that went wrong , too much power with a deactivated cooling system , coupled with a positive coefficient for the cooling jacket - meaning the steam actually helped propagate the neutron reactives and not slow them down, it has everything to do with the topic - IF the iranian core is running and the core gets bombed (and the cooling system fails) then there could very well be a similar situation

Actually it was because they combined western and eastern nuclear reactor technology AND most of their technology was faulty AND if they turned off the reactor the entire eastern side of russia would lose power. They ethier let the power fail which included hospitals etc or try and fix the problem.

Originally posted by Harlequin
they maybe `one fo the safeest forms of energy` but if you blast open the core , then all sorts of isotopes will spew forth - look at wormwood (chernobyl) , even now there are many areas that you just cannot go anywhere near - suit or otherwise.

This may seem nit picky but, no not all sorts of radioactive isotopes will spew forth, most of those would stay in the reactor as they did at chernobyl, but the gamma rays released and dust containing beta particles would be a problem. NBC suits aren't going to stop gamma rays, that takes lead.



But anyway, no invasion of Iran is going to come anytime soon at least. Iraq and Afghanistan are going to have to be completely sorted out before any new operations. ( particularly considering the royal Navy's announcement the the other day)

As i was reading recetly in New Statesman, Iran is a completely different nut to crack to Iraq. The people in Iran would put up major resistance o any invasion.No easy takeover like in Iraq, only facing a few hundred republican guard men. It would take a serious operation, with land sea and air units, and most probably with a coalition of the USA and its "Commonwealth Allies" (UK, NZ, Oz, Canada).France only ever cared about its own skin anyway. There would be none of this only using airstrikes crap (a la Kosovo). It is a fact that boots on the ground, the infantry, when conflicts, not technology (although that can definitely help). In a country the size of Iran, its going to take a lot of troops. We do have the bonus of Iran and Afghanistan as mounting points though.

Side note: Would be a good test for HMS Ocean and the Royal Marines.

The other thing to worry about would be whether to take out Iran or NK first. NK potentially can strike at the US West Coast at any time with a nuke. It is more of a threat, but at the moment deterrents are doing their job. A campaign against old Kim may just push him over the edge though.he must be set to peg it soon though. Maybe some kind of covert assassination is in order.

The main beef most people in Britain have with the Bush wars isn't actually to do with push. Its because they didn't understand that 45 minutes meant tactical battkefield weapons, not strategic, stirke at Britain weapons. I'm fully with sorting out these scumbag regimes, Saddam needed to be taken out, i'm glad a reason was found for finishing what should have been done in'91 (if it wasn't for all those other countries in the UN)

[hey DW, they're naming you after an Arthur character now. You may want to stop that]

edit-i flopped with some italics

[edit on 16/6/05 by minimi]

I'm trying to ask how are you going to know what to hit with the other 18 targets?
Satalite pictures?

Yes satellite Photos and images and GPS satellites, by using GPS satellites and spy satellites you can get the position and guide bombs anywhere on earth.

Yeah that would sort them, but further inland will be difficult.

Yeah, the deep inland Anti aircraft and radar instillations would just have to be hit by aircraft, using GPS guided cruse missiles and HARM missiles.

All I have to say is that this would be one big aZZ complicated air strike they would require months of planning and it would have to be carried out exactly as planed or it will just not work. Not to mention all the different type of system that would have to be used, it would be difficult but not impossible.


[edit on 16-6-2005 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes satellite Photos and images and GPS satellites, by using GPS satellites and spy satellites you can get the position and guide bombs anywhere on earth.

That would be fine for the nuke sites, for the bases it wouldnt be.
I'm guessing thier mobile, well most.

Yeah, the deep inland Anti aircraft and radar instillations would just have to be hit by aircraft, using GPS guided cruse missiles and HARM missiles.

All lowers the level of bombs being carried and increases the number of aircraft needed, and with more aircraft a bigger area covered so more missiles needed, etc etc.

All I have to say is that this would be one big aZZ complicated air strike they would require months of planning and it would have to be carried out exactly as planed or it will just not work. Not to mention all the different type of system that would have to be used, it would be difficult but not impossible.
[edit on 16-6-2005 by WestPoint23]

Yeah thats what I thought.
Imagine how MORE complicated it would be if they used SF units!

Minimi , huh?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

I cant believe you people fighting a war with Iran, are you young games playing people, if you are do it on your play station, the cost of fighting the war with Iraq is going to bankrupt America so a second front in Iraq is insane unless you go nuclear. Fighting wars on a computer is my recommended way of doing things.

"Everybody wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran."

Realistically, the US military is quite capable of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities more precisely, though maybe more a restrained one than an all-out strike. A nuclear reactor plant isn't the real target for the USAF (but can be a symbolic crippling of an Iranian reactor plant that can be easily rebuilt). The real targets are most likely Iran's nuclear development/design installations, military/science bunkers and air defense batteries around or near Iran's nuclear facilities. Assessing the weakness of Iran's air defense, observing the mobility of Iran's national defense, gauging the Iranian people's reactions, and exposing the depth of Iran's nuclear weapon development in details may be all the actual goals of the US strategic planning.

So no ground invasion of Iran is expected... unless everything else suddenly change for the worst.