Posted on 04/28/2006 4:35:11 AM PDT by EastCobbRules
Gotta tell ya, that's not how I understand things.
First, there is some "minimal" amount of material underwhich, a chain reaction cannot be created/maintained. (This reaction is what causes nukes to go "boom.") Although said material is not the only component to any bomb, it is sufficiently small that it could readily become a "suitcase" sized bomb. Remember, we had mass quantities of nuke artillery shells. Bigger than breadbox, yes, but much smaller than a footlocker (not to mention, two). Each a completely self-contained bony-fidy nuke.
Are there such things? Beats me, but they are emminently feasible. And that minimal amount is small enough that it could be readily exceeded (for engineering safety/viability margins) and still qualify as "suitcase" sized.
Secondly, nuke maintenance. Fascinating subject, one with relatively few experts. And they're not sure. Unclassified sources have claimed life span of a non-minimalized (so there's a safety margin of material that'll go boom, when required) at about 29 years. Which creates a whole slew of strategic issues/questions, given that Clinton essentially closed our last plant.
My understanding, however, is that recent attempts to verify/refute that 29 year number leaves the question somewhat open. Apparently some nukes checked were still good. So the true experts are back examining their models and numbers to see what the real figure should be.
To return to the "suitcase" maintenance issue...bottom line is we don't truly know how they were all made (if at all), don't truly know what their life-span would be (for same reason), and so cannot reliably conclude they "cannot exist." They could exist. And last I checked, no one sufficiently intelligent to make one, had made one such that it would have to be used within 1-5 years or be useless.
Skittish oil speculators.
Every time Iran threatens war, the price of a barrel of oil goes up a dollar.
Make a threat to make a billion.
... and ACRONYM DELETED didn't detect anything. Yeah ...riiiight...
I agree with much of what you said.
However, I guess it depends upon how you define "winning."
One of many related type links:
"Iran president paves the way for arabs' imam return"
http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_10945.shtml
"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/01/14/wiran14.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/01/14/ixworld.html
"The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return."
"Their sneaking suspicion is that Iran's president actually relishes a clash with the West in the conviction that it would rekindle the spirit of the Islamic revolution and - who knows - speed up the arrival of the Hidden Imam."
That just might be a win, in Ahmadinejad's book.
I have been thinking the same thing. In fact a few of us were saying this very thing on this thread right here at FR on 19 Apr:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617805/posts?page=19#19
bump
I'd laugh if the so called "hidden Imam",like there's really such a thing,would turn out to be a Jew.
Sources: Center for Defense Information and Natural Resources Defense Council.
Davy Crockett bazooka-type
missile with W54 nuclear warhead
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.