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 octotom
reply to post by antonia
Are you saying that the article in the OP is from the summer time? That's not true, it's from yesterday, February 6, 2010. The only time it mentions Israeli ships and the summer is from this sentence here:
According to the reports, one Israeli missile boat already passed through the Suez Canal in June and July of last year. In one case, the Israeli ship was said to have been accompanied by an Israeli submarine.
So last summer, one Israeli missile boat (and a submarine according to some reports) passed through the Suez canal. But the other day two more Israeli ships passed through the Suez Canal, bringing the total of Israeli ships that will possibly be in the Persian Gulf to four.
Originally posted by minkey53
reply to post by seism
Does Egypt own / control the Suez Canal?
Do they have the right to say who an use it?
Sorry if dumb question, just thought it was a free for all shipping lane!
Originally posted by Rentor
Like as I stated on page 3 on the thread. Iran president gave the okay to enrich the uranium to 20%. That's enough uranium to make a nuclear bomb the size of little boy. It would take three to four weeks to enrich it to 20%.
EDIT TO ADD Little boy killed over 140,000, when it was dropped. Small nuclear arm is still very deadly.
[edit on 7-2-2010 by Rentor]
The core of Little Boy contained 64 kg of uranium, of which 50 kg was enriched to 89%, and the remaining 14 kg at 50%. With enrichment averaging 80%, it could reach about 2.5 critical masses. "Fat Man" and the Trinity "gadget", by way of comparison, had five critical masses.
Originally posted by hans kammler
reply to post by smurfy
ah ok, if the ships went throuh the other day then i stand corrected.
but they went through last year and no war, and im betting they will be through next year too.
Originally posted by Israel Versus Iran
It's all coming together.. once this starts, you had better hold on, because this will be like nothing the world has ever experienced in recorded human history.
www.ynetnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Originally posted by Rentor
Iran ups enrichment to 20%
Do you know it only takes 20% enrichment to make a usable nuclear weapon. The Israeli ship movements come after as Iran president stated this. I take back what i said earlier...something is gonna happen...so thats why Israel and U.S. been putting important weapon assets everywhere.
Enriched uranium only needs to be 20% to make a small nuclear weapon.
Low-enriched uranium (LEU)
Low-enriched uranium' (LEU) has a lower than 20% concentration of 235U. For use in commercial light water reactors (LWR), the most prevalent power reactors in the world, uranium is enriched to 3 to 5% 235U. Fresh LEU used in research reactors is usually enriched 12% to 19.75% U-235, the latter concentration being used to replace HEU fuels when converting to LEU.
Highly enriched uranium (HEU)
A billet of highly enriched uranium metal
Highly enriched uranium (HEU) has a greater than 20% concentration of 235U or 233U.
The fissile uranium in nuclear weapons usually contains 85% or more of 235U known as weapon(s)-grade, though for a crude, inefficient weapon 20% is sufficient (called weapon(s)-usable); some argue that even less is sufficient, but then the critical mass for unmoderated fast neutrons rapidly increases, reaching infinity at 6%235U.
Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by Israel Versus Iran
For starters Iran has the capability to shut down the strait of Hormuz, which 20% of the worlds daily oil supply travels through, also the Iranian Revolutionary guards are a far more formidable force than was Saddam Husseins army.
Problems with this:
1. Iran can never match our Naval might, not by .001 percent. We can and we would clear the strait anytime we wish too
2. And as for the Rev Guards? At the time of the Iraq War, the same thing was said about Saddam's personal guard. You remember them? The ones that gave up when they first saw us?
I'm sorry, but as far as military might and tech goes, Iran would simple be a fly in our ointment in full on combat. Now the aftermath could be another story like in Iraq now.
Also understand I am NOT advocating any of this, nor do I particularly support any conflict with Iran, I am simply talking logistics here. Hope you understand..
Thanks
Semper
Originally posted by Rentor
reply to post by December_Rain
How effective would a 20% enrichment then wouldn't it be good have some kinda effective weapon compare to none?