Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Iran, not Israel, faces an existential threat


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#16    DarkHunter

DarkHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 190 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:09 PM

View PostDark_Grey, on 06 May 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:

Sources for that info?

http://en.wikipedia....tes_foreign_aid

I know Wikipedia is not the best or most reliable source of information, but all its numbers can be confirmed by individuality checking each nations aid from the US with a quick Google search, with the exception of Afghanistan which seems to have conflicting back up information and that seems to be mostly from what different people or groups consider aid going to Afghanistan but it seems most websites are putting the yearly amount of aid at $5 billion, with a few going it seems as low as about $2.5 billion and others as high as $12 to $16 billion.


View PostCoffey, on 06 May 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

1 Nuke would easily wipe out Iran.... The Fallout would do the job. Do you not understand the power of a full scale nuclear strike?!

If you honestly think 1 nuclear weapon can destroy Iran you are just delusional about how powerful a nuclear weapon is and how they are designed.  First the most powerful nuclear weapons only have blast radius of about 10 km, unless thermonuclear weapons are used, but even then the blast radius of the largest thermonuclear weapon ever used was 58 km but due to its size and weight it is not a viable weapon to be used so the blast radius of thermonuclear weapons that are actually viable weapons is about a blast radius of 35 km.  So even if Israel would use a thermonuclear device on Iran the amount it would need to destroy Iran is just a ridiculously large amount of thermonuclear weapons.

Second your understanding of fallout from nuclear and thermonuclear devices is just plain wrong.  While the first two atomic bombs used where not that clean in terms of fallout each successive generation of nuclear weapons became far cleaner in terms of fallout.  They where made to reduce fallout for a very simple reason, the more fallout a nuclear weapon creates, the less powerful the blast of the nuclear device was because that is less of the nuclear material that is radioactive being used to create the blast.  With current nuclear weapons even though they do create radioactive fallout the amounts they create are far less then the ones used in WW2.  As for thermonuclear weapons they create even less fallout then nuclear weapons because the main fuel for the thermonuclear weapon is not radioactive, actually the only radioactive part of a thermonuclear weapon is the nuclear device that is used to start the fusion process and that only requires a nuclear device about the side of a tactical nuclear weapon so the radioactive fallout they produce is even less then that of current nuclear weapons.  The only type of nuclear weapon that produces enough fallout that you seem to be predicting from a nuclear strike is a neutron bomb.


#17    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,670 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:35 PM

View PostDarkHunter, on 06 May 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

http://en.wikipedia....tes_foreign_aid

I know Wikipedia is not the best or most reliable source of information, but all its numbers can be confirmed by individuality checking each nations aid from the US with a quick Google search, with the exception of Afghanistan which seems to have conflicting back up information and that seems to be mostly from what different people or groups consider aid going to Afghanistan but it seems most websites are putting the yearly amount of aid at $5 billion, with a few going it seems as low as about $2.5 billion and others as high as $12 to $16 billion.




If you honestly think 1 nuclear weapon can destroy Iran you are just delusional about how powerful a nuclear weapon is and how they are designed.  First the most powerful nuclear weapons only have blast radius of about 10 km, unless thermonuclear weapons are used, but even then the blast radius of the largest thermonuclear weapon ever used was 58 km but due to its size and weight it is not a viable weapon to be used so the blast radius of thermonuclear weapons that are actually viable weapons is about a blast radius of 35 km.  So even if Israel would use a thermonuclear device on Iran the amount it would need to destroy Iran is just a ridiculously large amount of thermonuclear weapons.

Second your understanding of fallout from nuclear and thermonuclear devices is just plain wrong.  While the first two atomic bombs used where not that clean in terms of fallout each successive generation of nuclear weapons became far cleaner in terms of fallout.  They where made to reduce fallout for a very simple reason, the more fallout a nuclear weapon creates, the less powerful the blast of the nuclear device was because that is less of the nuclear material that is radioactive being used to create the blast.  With current nuclear weapons even though they do create radioactive fallout the amounts they create are far less then the ones used in WW2.  As for thermonuclear weapons they create even less fallout then nuclear weapons because the main fuel for the thermonuclear weapon is not radioactive, actually the only radioactive part of a thermonuclear weapon is the nuclear device that is used to start the fusion process and that only requires a nuclear device about the side of a tactical nuclear weapon so the radioactive fallout they produce is even less then that of current nuclear weapons.  The only type of nuclear weapon that produces enough fallout that you seem to be predicting from a nuclear strike is a neutron bomb.


I researched what you said and you are right, my bad.

I always thought the bigger the nuke the more fallout. lol

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#18    DarkHunter

DarkHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 190 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:50 PM

View PostCoffey, on 06 May 2013 - 08:35 PM, said:

I researched what you said and you are right, my bad.

I always thought the bigger the nuke the more fallout. lol

For some reason a lot of people seem to think that bigger nuclear weapons mean more fallout, unless someone knows a bit about physics it would seem to make sense that a bigger nuclear weapon would create more fallout and it doesn't help how Hollywood uses nuclear weapons either.  

From rereading my post it seems that I was a bit more aggressive then what I normally aim for, I think finals week is starting to get to me a bit.


#19    Coffey

Coffey

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,670 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Norwich UK

  • "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." - Winston Churchill

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:54 PM

View PostDarkHunter, on 06 May 2013 - 08:50 PM, said:

For some reason a lot of people seem to think that bigger nuclear weapons mean more fallout, unless someone knows a bit about physics it would seem to make sense that a bigger nuclear weapon would create more fallout and it doesn't help how Hollywood uses nuclear weapons either.  

From rereading my post it seems that I was a bit more aggressive then what I normally aim for, I think finals week is starting to get to me a bit.

I know a bit about physics, but not that area of physics. Yes Hollywood is famous for doing that with many things. lol


It's cool no harm done. Good luck with your finals. :tu:

When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.

#20    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,520 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2013 - 08:57 PM

Actually, DH was almost right, if I may, I know he was enforcing my argument, but still, thermonuclear bombs, or Hydrogen bombs (H-Bombs), do use radioactive material to accomplish nuclear fusion, and that is tritium, which is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. A thermonuclear bomb fused together deuterium and tritium (both isotopes of hydrogen), using nuclear fission reaction (either split of plutonium or uranium atoms) to reach the needed temperatures to start nuclear fusion reactions. So actually, each thermonuclear bomb, or H-Bomb, include an atomic bomb inside it, as a trigger.

Just a bit more info on my behalf.

Posted Image

"We live in a world where when Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade; When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre; When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel. Nobody cares"

#21    DarkHunter

DarkHunter

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 190 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:11 PM

I thought the main fuel for thermonuclear weapons was solid lithium deuteride and that tritium was used in the initial nuclear weapon that is used to start the fusion process.


#22    Erikl

Erikl

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,520 posts
  • Joined:23 Feb 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Israel

Posted 06 May 2013 - 09:29 PM

View PostDarkHunter, on 06 May 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

I thought the main fuel for thermonuclear weapons was solid lithium deuteride and that tritium was used in the initial nuclear weapon that is used to start the fusion process.

Lithium deuteride is used as it is easier to handle and shape than a gas mixture of deuterium and tritium, however, the lithium deuteride itself doesn't undergoes fusion. Instead, when bombarded by neutrons originating from the fission device exploded, it produces tritium, which then undergoes fusion with the deuterium present in the mixture. So still, the thermonuclear fuel is, tritium and deuterium.

Posted Image

"We live in a world where when Christians kill Muslims, it's a crusade; When Jews kill Muslims, it's a massacre; When Muslims kill Muslims, it's the weather channel. Nobody cares"

#23    GoSC

GoSC

    Galatians 3:8,14 Ephesians 2:14, 3:6

  • Member
  • 2,578 posts
  • Joined:26 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Silver Mountain

Posted 25 May 2013 - 03:48 PM



Church raptured? Ephesians 3:9-11,21
9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.

#24    Yamato

Yamato

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,362 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 26 May 2013 - 09:55 AM

View PostErikl, on 06 May 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

What a laugh. Israel has about 8 million people residing in it, and the majority of them residing a 70km long coastline (roughly the Tel-Aviv and Haifa metropolitan areas). It's entire area, is 22,072 km2.
Well maybe they shouldn't be living there then.   Jews don't need Israel.   Jews aren't defined by Israel.  Jews aren't confined by Israel.  Jews aren't lessened in any way for hating Israel.

Israel apparently needs Jews though, per the Zionist brainwash.  

Come to America where fear mongering isn't a daily habit of life.  Of course we have the occasional Zionist ranting and raging about all manner of stupid or fake little problems half the world away from their lives and livelihood, but that's America.  So good over here, we need to make up our problems over there.

"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users