Iran May Be Close to a Plutonium Bomb, German Defense Experts Warn, page 3

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

---

Then why doesn't the US just lead by example removing ALL of their nuclear arms from the stockpile?

The Russian Federation is the short answer to your question.

Do not take this wrong but... do you honestly believe it is that simple?

No Nukes has been a popular meme for 70 years but naive "wouldn't it be great if.." ideology is always contradicted by the reality that we are an aggressive species by nature.

Conflict seems to be a deeply embedded, universal character trait of mankind. Nuclear weapons are just the latest human expression of a sharp stick and a bigger pile of rocks to throw than your neighbor in the next cave over.

Nuclear weapons will continue to exist and proliferation will be a concern until a technology evolves that can successfully render them obsolete.

After the total collapse and fragmentation of the Soviet Union, the newly formed Russian Federation found itself burdened with a conventional war machine that dwarfed the U.S.( and all of NATO ) and a nuclear arsenal of some 25,000 warheads with no way to continue to pay for it.

Have you heard the story about the VVS Colonel that traded a complete MIG-23 for 100 lbs of beef?

Having no way to fund a conventional force on par with NATO, Russia let her conventional forces rust but maintained as much of her nuclear capability as possible. Sino/Russian relations have been poor for sometime and the stratospheric rise of the Chinese economy and modernization of the PLA has the Russia's attention.

Although there is some superficial cooperation with military technologies, the trade on Russian behalf is one of necessity not of choice.

Did you know that China and Russia use different railway gauges? A train car travelling from Russia to the PRC has to be lifted with a crane and different wheel bogies installed. Do you know why?

Russia sorely misses being a superpower and the inheritance of the Soviet Union's complete massive arsenal of warheads, delivery systems and logistic infrastructure is a guaranteed ace in the hole to remain a relevant player influencing global security.

In contrast, the U.S. nuclear arsenal has no functional purpose and has become a cumbersome liability for the military since the end of the Cold War.

The U.S. would be more than happy to reduce their nuclear capability to a minimum ( say 200 warheads) if the Russian Federation and the PRC were willing to do the same.

It is a relic that serves no functional purpose other than to counter the Russian nuclear arsenal (and to a much lesser extent PRC) with the promise of mutually assured destruction if they were to resort to first use of their nuclear weapons in a direct conflict.

Nuclear weapons are logistically complex and expensive to maintain. The U.S. spends 40 billion dollars a year maintaining her nuclear arsenal, approximately 7% of the total DOD budget ( and equal to the entire Russian defense budget last year). The DOD could readily use that amount in other sectors, 40 billion would buy something like 3 complete CVBG's or 200 F-35's.

Nobody is really sure how reliable the stockpile is because the U.S. hasn't conducted a nuclear test since the Divider shot at the NTS in 1992. Nukes aren't like conventional bombs that can sit on a shelf for years unattended.

There has been enough information leaked to the public domain to know that there have been problems maintaining the weapons because some of the components that are degrading haven't been fabricated for years because few records had been kept and all the engineers that knew what to do have retired (FOGBANK)

The U.S. currently enjoys an enormous conventional superiority, both numerically and logistically. Disregarding the super secret ultimate Russian/PRC weapon of the week, conventional U.S. military forces have near total hedgeonomy of the air, sea or land.

The U.S. also has developed a credible, proven effective (and most importantly deployed) ABM capability versus theater ranged weapons in the THAAD, SM-3 and PAC-3.

The Ground Based Midcourse Defense System system effectively neutralizes the strategic threat posed by the PRC's limited ICBM arsenal and comfortably insulates the CONUS from the limited but growing intercontinental capability of the DPRK or the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In summary, the U.S. doesn't need them any longer to guarantee national security.

Here is a link to a paper written in 2005 that addresses the Russian issue well...

This paper discusses the official nuclear policy of the Russian Federation and the evolution of Russian thinking on the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century.

It seeks to explain the importance of nuclear weapons for post-Soviet Russia; the post-Cold War deterrence strategy; the development of the nuclear forces structure and their missions; as well as Russia’s approaches to nuclear arms control and nuclear proliferation.

Finally, the paper examines the place and role of Russia in the multipolar nuclear constellation of this new century

For the post-Soviet Russian elite, nuclear weapons play a major politico-psychological role as one of only two remaining attributes of their country’s great power and global status (the other being a permanent seat on the UN
Security Council).

Over the past 15 years, Russian leaders have been repeatedly “reminding” others, in particular the United States, that Russia is still a nuclear power on par with the U.S. In reality, by doing so they have been reassuring themselves that not everything is lost and that Russia will make a comeback as a major world player.

Nuclear weapons are a symbol of Russia’s strategic independence from the United States and NATO, and their still formidable capabilities alone assure for Russia a special relationship with America.

In military terms, with the serious decline of Russia's conventional forces, capabilities and readiness, nuclear weapons alone provide deterrence.

Even in the absence of credible external threats of appropriate caliber, this
works to reassure the high command and the political leadership that the country is adequately protected against any hypothetical large-scale attack.

In October of 2003, President Putin called nuclear deterrence forces “the main foundation of Russia’s national security”, both for the present and the future. This form of reassurance, undoubtedly, is a positive contributing factor in the overall Russian decision-making process.

Russia’s Nuclear Policy in the 21st Century Environment

Another bit of reading regarding annual U.S. nuclear expenditures....

Total appropriations for nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs in fiscal year (FY) 2008 were at least $52.4 billion, according to the best available data (see Figure 1).

This does not include costs for air defense, antisubmarine warfare,classified programs, and most nuclear weapons–related intelligence programs. The total costs borne by the Department of Defense (DOD) to deploy and maintain nuclear forces are partially estimated and therefore may be too low.

Even so, this amount is far larger than most officials would acknowledge. When these officials consider nuclear weapons costs, they generally do so only from the perspective of their respective department, agency, or jurisdiction.

By way of comparison, the 2008 nuclear weapons and weapons-related “budget” exceeds all anticipated government expenditures on international diplomacy and foreign assistance ($39.5 billion) and natural resources and the environment ($33 billion).

It is nearly double the budget for general science, space, and technology
($27.4 billion), and it is almost fourteen times what the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated for all energy-related research and development.

Moreover, the allocation of funds among the five categories reveals troubling realities about current government priorities in the nuclear arena.

NUCLEAR SECURITY SPENDING ASSESSING COSTS, EXAMINING PRIORITIES

I hope this helps to clarify your question.

Originally posted by jhn7537
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

---

What makes the US (Mind you that I'm from and still live here) so special to be able to own them when where the ONE country that's used it?? You can't ignore history and you can't just chalk it up to the times...

The fundamental impasse here is you cannot judge history through the context of a modern perspective.Hindsight is 20/20.

How much do you know about the reasoning and decision to drop the bomb? All 5 of the cities initially targeted by the raids were legitimate military targets.

They certainly weren't nearly as ethically questionable in their validity as a military target as the firebombing of Dresden's refugee packed streets.

The Potsdam declaration threatening total destruction of the mainland had been received by the Japanese government without response and the civilian population were warned to evacuate via thousands of air dropped leaflets .

The shipyards of Kure Naval Arsenal, Hiroshima built the Yamato and Musashi. Both the 2nd General Army Headquarters Fifty-Ninth Army headquarters were located in Hiroshima.

Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and supported a wide array of Japanese wartime industry such as Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works.

"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs.

These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.

America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war.

We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."

Originally posted by jhn7537
When the US used the nuclear weapons on civilian populations it wasn't some unknown, the US new exactly what they were doing and it was a reckless tactic to say the least.

???

The bombs were the 2nd and 3rd atomic detonations in history, actually it was a huge unknown whether they would even work.

The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on August 9th and on the 15th Emperor Hirohito gave the now famous we must endure the unendurable speech.

The formal surrender was on Sept 2nd.

Operation Downfall, the invasion of mainland Japan, was scheduled to begin landings in October.

The cost of life from the invasion of mainland Japan was estimated to be near 500,000 allied soldiers and 5-10 million Japanese troops and civilians.

The casualty figures for both nuclear attacks combined was approximately 200,000.

A mindbogglingly catastrophic number however would you find it more acceptable in your world view to have avoided dropping the bomb at the guaranteed cost of millions more dying from a rifle bullet or bayonet point?

Of historical note is that there were more immediate casualties from the Tokyo firebombing raid of March 9/10 1945 than from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

I'll ask again, how is this acceptable...


But this is a moral atrocity?


Read Harry Truman's biography and then please explain how the decision to end the war and stop the prolonged hostilities through any means possible was "reckless"?

There were a myriad of factors considered, including the Soviet Red Army entering the Pacific theater. Are you in any way familiar with the utter brutality unleashed upon the war ravaged German civilians by the occupying Soviet forces?

Originally posted by jhn7537
Now with Iran you seem to be basing all this information off the Govts. who DO lie constantly to it's citizens. Obviously Israel, USA and Great Britian and many other nations will argue against them making any progress technologically or militarily speaking.

I have provided far more sourced fact to support my position in this discussion than yourself thus far. If you disagree or can legitimately refute anything I have contributed, please do. Otherwise, resorting the the tired mainstay of the uniformed by tossing out the blanket statement you posted above is intellectually lazy.

Facts are facts regardless and will stand or fall on their own merit. Please be specific as to what information you feel is incorrect otherwise perhaps your position isn't as strong as you seem to believe?

Dispute the facts, not the source.

Originally posted by jhn7537
I will never get how people can defend that it's okay for us, but not them... If anything, we (USA) are more reckless and aggressive when it comes to our military, more so then any other country and we constantly try to dictate how everyone should act.

I believe my last two posts already answered this question in some detail.

reply to post by FlyingFox

---

I call nonsense.

From the article:

Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time.

ehh whhaa?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by FlyingFox

---

I call nonsense.

From the article:

Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time.

ehh whhaa?

edit on 1-12-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Yeah, that really explains how they work, if you don't know wtf your on about of course... It lost its credibility right there.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by FlyingFox

---

I call nonsense.

From the article:

Although light water reactors are not designed to produce weapons-grade plutonium, the design can produce large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium in a short period of time.

ehh whhaa?

It helps if you actually read the entire article before calling shenanigans.

Directly after the part where you probably stopped reading for a classic ATS "gotcha"moment...

In a light water reactor, which is operated with low enriched uranium (four percent), the fuel remains in the reactor up to 60 months when the reactor is run at maximum power generation,. But it takes only a few months to produce plutonium 239, that is, weapons-grade plutonium. … In the 1970s a British company had shut down a light water reactor prematurely. The result was around 450 kilograms of plutonium, or material for about 70 bombs.

It also helps to learn a little about a topic before forming an opinion about what something does/can or does not/cannot.

Do you know the difference between a light water and heavy water reactor? Why do you believe the Bushehr light water reactor cannot produce plutunium?

All reactors that use U-238 as a fuel produce Plutonium as a byproduct of the U-238 being bombarded with neutrons from the fission process.

LWR's just arent as efficient in lending themselves to the process as HWR's...

To achieve the high percentages of Pu-239 required for weapon grade plutonium, it must be produced specifically for this purpose. The uranium must spend only several weeks in the reactor core and then be removed. For this to be carried out in a LWR - the prevalent reactor design for electricity generation - the reactor would have to be shut down completely for such an operation; this is easily detectable.

Federation of American Scientists/Plutonium Production

reply to post by Drunkenparrot

---

Thanks for clearing that up... Not that I really knew much about it to start with.

reply to post by ecapsretuo

---

Originally posted by ecapsretuo
Rhule's stances are grossly pro Israeli and hawkish and is cited frequently by pro Israel blogs and papers.

It is BS to make it sound like "Germany says so." .

Very true. Good analysis and objection.

Thanks for adding this info to the thread, although it seems like it was largely ignored.

reply to post by FlyingFox

---

They only have A bomb. Singular. Russia and the US could threaten Iran, and scare the # out of them. But still, a nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb, and it can be launched to anywhere in the world.

Originally posted by ArbiterOfTheiPhones
reply to post by FlyingFox

---

They only have A bomb. Singular. Russia and the US could threaten Iran, and scare the # out of them. But still, a nuclear bomb is a nuclear bomb, and it can be launched to anywhere in the world.

Good quote from a cack film 'The Peacemaker'.

I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one.

Israel and the Upcoming Nuclear War - The "Unthinkable" is Now Inevitable
  Posted 11 days ago with 28 member flags

Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN - Is he going to declare war?
  Posted 1 days ago with 21 member flags

Turkey says it is prepared for possibility of war with Israel
  Posted 10 days ago with 15 member flags

IDF general: Likelihood of regional war growing
  Posted 18 days ago with 14 member flags

Full-scale Middle East war is \'imminent\', warns Israeli general
  Posted 17 days ago with 10 member flags

I can see a scenario taking place which is fulfulling biblical prophecy.
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags

Netanyahu: Palestinian Statehood Bid \'Doomed\'
  Posted 4 days ago with 9 member flags

US Boots on the Ground in Libya, Pentagon Confirms
  Posted 11 days ago with 8 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: