Posted on 08/17/2010 9:05:24 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Gee, Bolton’s really going out on a limb here.
Did anybody really think that an individual named Barack Hussein Muhammed Obama was going to support democracy in the mideast, europe and AMERICA?
Thanks, Nostradamus. ;-)
Thanks, John. I love ya, but we all know Obama holds his Muslim/Persian brothers in higher regard than Americans.
I can almost hear soetoro yelling, ¨Allahu Akbar!¨
I’m pretty well convinced this world will “end” through a nuclear winter. Once they get the nuke they’ll use it on Israel. Then what happens. Then again, other nations may be afraid to retalliate. I know we won’t.
The radioactive inventory of the fuel does not increase simply because it has been loaded into the reactor. The reactor will not sustain a chain reaction for some time after the fuel loading begins. The radioactive inventory will not begin to increase until the reactor starts producing power (has a sustained chain reaction).
” I’m pretty well convinced this world will “end” through a nuclear winter. “
There’s more than one kind of ‘winter’...
It’s become politically-incorrect/taboo to mention this, but a nuclear-armed Iran is in a position to coercively control a more-than-significant portion of the world’s oil production....
We could all be huddled in the cold and dark, if the ‘international community’ doesn’t get its collective head out of its collective a$$.....
I think he means that once the fuel rods are in or near the reactor, the danger of bombing becomes greater due to possible radioactive contamination.
Time to come out of the closet - girly man.
Methinks Bolton jumped the shark
.
that’s like saying that the Pittsburgh Pirates will not be going to the World Series this season....110% certainty!
I disagree with Bolton’s claim that bombing the power plant will necessarily release radiation. There are plenty of non-nuclear parts that could be bombed — substation, cooling towers, generators, etc. Knock out enough to prevent the plant for operating for a few months, then bomb again when the damage is about to be fixed.
My point is that this assessment is incorrect. The fuel can be sitting in the reactor, but, as long as the reactor has not sustained a chain reaction, the amount of radioactivity is minimal.
When the reactor starts producing power, the radioactive inventory will increase, but, until then, the danger of wide-spread contamination is nil.
Besides, you want to disable the plant? Take out the turbine building with a few well-placed bombs. Unlike the reactor containment building (which is several feet of reinforced concrete and is designed to keep bad things outside from getting in and bad things inside from getting out), the turbine building typically has sheet metal exterior walls. Geez, some plants in the USofA, particularly in hurricane-prone areas, don’t even have walls of any sort.
Turbines take a long time to replace, particularly if the turbine building has been collapsed.
If the plant doesn’t have a turbine, then it cannot produce power (pesky thing, that law of conservation of energy).
Alternatively, take out the switch-yard. If you can’t send the power off site, then you can’t generate it.
I suspect that Ambassador Bolton knows these things.
We'll be open to a whole new world of funny with a nuclear-capable Iran. Nuclear blackmail is going to become very common very soon. Unfortunately, threatening to nuke the iranians right back won't impress them much.
I think it was Gulf War I, but we dropped something like shredded carbon on Baghdad substations which effectively shorted out the power station. I thought it was a particularly clever way to disable the city's power while maintaining the infrastructure for later use (i.e., when GI Joe rolled into town).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.