81Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Even if the Vela Incident is true, one test does not a nuclear arsenal make.Originally Posted by Dago
Several things.
AQ Khan's lab lost the Pakistani warhead production contract. It was not his warhead that failed. And while he may have access to both design and data, it was certainly not his fix that was implemented ... and 2001 was way too short of a time frame for the fix to come about.
You are assuming that Iran got hold of North Korean data. Something I strongly doubt since both China and Russia are watching them like hawks.
Aside from that, even the North Koreans don't know where they went wrong. They went from one bust to another. A sub-kiloton blast to a 1.3 kiloton blast when both tests were supposed to be in the 10-20 kt range. The data is worthless when even the designers don't know where they went wrong ... and most certainly, the Novemeber Kilos did not share their desigsn with either AQ Khan nor the Iranians.
On this, I do not think AQ Khan passed on the real data. Both the Pakistani and the North Korean tests were busts. Passing on data on failures was akin to telling the Iranians that they bought duds. AQ Khan's ego would not allow that.
Launching straight up and hitting your targets are two different things. Hitting the Pacific Ocean when aiming for Los Angeles is not going to do you a world of good.
And you are falling into the same trap I fell into. Over-reading their capbilities ... which is exactly what they want you to do.
Chimo
Even if the Vela Incident is true, one test does not a nuclear arsenal make.
Chimo
Does Pakistan have miniaturized nuclear warhead designs, are they implosion or gun type? And secondly, are Israeli devices uranium based? (I think they are, right?) And if so, why did they go that route and not plutonium? Also with the current reactor they have, didn't that produce plutonium and they just don't have the means to separate it?
Last edited by Dago; 07 Nov 11, at 05:09.
If Israel doesn't have a miniaturized design, implosion, then why develop the Jericho III or the Jericho all together?
The blueprints found in Geneva were half the size of the CICH-4 warheads and we know that the Pakistanis had guidance and the CICH-4 blueprints given to them by the Chinese.
Vanunu suggestted that Israel has implosion uranium and plutonium devices as well as thermonukes and neutron designs. At least he believes so. There's one photograph of a uranium warhead that lead to one US warhead maker to conclude that the Israelis must have tested.
There are suggestions that the Israelis got their designs directly from the Americans in much the same way the Pakistanis did from the Chinese. At least two former Assistant Secretaries of Energy made that accusation but thus far, no real proof has surfaced, not from the Russians nor the Chinese whom both are well depth in this sort of thing.
You have to make your own decisions on this. I am not comfortable stating anything more than Israel got gun type nukes.
Israel neither confirms nor denies she has nukes. That ambuguity serves her strategic interests extremely well ... except one thing. When the Soviets threatened nuclear war, Israel stayed silent.
Chimo
Israel does not want to sign.Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. So do not confirm you have it.
The timing is wrong unless your talking about post- NWS minituarized designs. The CIA felt Israel may have had 2 bombs in 67 which would imply French and British assistence if any.
[quote[Israel neither confirms nor denies she has nukes. That ambuguity serves her strategic interests extremely well ... except one thing. When the Soviets threatened nuclear war, Israel stayed silent.[/quote]
Well 2 things there- 10-20 warheads in 73 vs 10,000+ and the US was already sounding charge on the bugle and charging in and the Soviets got cold feet real quick. The Soviets hinted at direct intervention twice and both times the US saddled up and the Soviet's backed down completely perplexed that the US would burn the world for such a small piece of land. The Soviet failure in 67 and 73 in both providing winning armament and in providing effective political cover is seen as a major reason Egypt gave up on the endless wars and turned back to the West with Camp David.
I would not hold my breath waiting for iAEA to reveal something we did not know allready.
J'ai en marre.
I agree with OOE - I don't think it's likely that North Korea would share any data, even with Iran. They would want to keep everything secret, including data in which it could detail North Korea nuclear capability or possibly point out flaws of there nuclear design. I would think they would keep everything in house, especially with the IAEA. I just don't see them releasing anything about there capability.
Attack Iran for what? For trying to go nuclear? This is the same old tired scratched record being played all over again. When has any country been able to attack another for going nuclear? Sure there have been threats, but a singular lack of action on the ground.
This global policeman thing is getting really too much now. A lot of the financial mess the West finds itself in today is because going to war costs money. And no third party is going to foot that bill. So you need to make damn sure that the ends can pay for the means. And you need to make sure that you win. In this case the former is a definite yes. The latter not so.
The west need to take a break from its gun slinging for a decade or two. Its making the rest of the world uneasy. Irritated. And nations poorer all around.
Last edited by vsdoc; 07 Nov 11, at 07:35.
the answer to your second question is, as bigross pointed out ,1981, and iraq was not even really trying.
J'ai en marre.
..and also Syria.
Attack Iran for what? For trying to go nuclear? This is the same old tired scratched record being played all over again. When has any country been able to attack another for going nuclear? Sure there have been threats, but a singular lack of action on the ground.the answer to your second question is, as bigross pointed out ,1981, and iraq was not even really trying
There are probably a very select few people on Earth who believe that Iraq or Syria were attacked because thy were about to go nuclear.
There are similarly a very few select people on Earth who believe that Iran as a combatant would fall in the same league of Iraq and Syria were this "attack" to actually go down.
And for every Iraq and Syria, for what the "nuclear" bogey analogy is really worth, there is China and Israel and India and Pakistan and North Korea.
1) It looks really stupid to first impose sanctions on a country, and then court the same country as an ally and potential paying customer for your most advanced fighter jets.
2) It looks even more ridiculous to be all gung ho and attack one country, yet be on the brink of financial disaster and go to another looking for a bail-out. As China displayed recently, and rightly so, that's not going to happen.
nuclear or not nuclear if the soviets were willing to attack china , they would have done it.
they made 40.000 soldiers sterile by ordering them to stage a attack in the aftermath of a nuclear test , look it up before bringin up our gung ho retoric.
as for your nation, if pakistan and north korea is the benchmark you want to be masured against , more power to you.
J'ai en marre.
I would also question the attitude of this administration compared to Reagan. I doubt that Israel launched the Osirak raid without at least some idea that Reagan would privately be pleased. While Netanyahu has publically slapped down Obama, it is entirely another thing to launch something like this if you know that the Administration will privately & publically tear strips off you. Even Netanyahu might not be crazy enough to that. For all the jumping up & down on the right about Obama 'abandoning Israel' the administration has opposed Palestinean moves in the UN, including its UNESCO stunt. Perhaps there will be a private understanding that this is fine, though I wouldn't bet on it.
How would all this play into electoral politics in Israel? How id Netanyahu going in the polls, especially after the protests earlier this year & the prisoner swap? When is the next election? What might something like this do? Would a 'rally 'round the flag' response play into elections? Given that some high profile former military types have questioned this course of action, is there a risk that a botched op or effective Iranian retaliation might actually backfire on the govt? Curious for insight.
On the issue of Obama & electoral politics raised by others, I agree wiht the 'no way he will do this hoping for a poll bump'. Anything more than a limited strike will cost him supporters without winning any others. For those who already dislike Obama the story is already written - if he doesn't strike it is proof that he is a bad President who hates israel, if he does strike it is risking US lives for electoral gain. There is no political upside here.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: