War with Iran.

[Simon C 0]

@Walker: I seriously doubt that any air force is going to be crazy enough to bomb a nuclear power plant, they'd probably send in a ground team with specialists to deal with the reactors.

[walker 0]

Hi Simon C

I was pointing out that Takko was not considering worst case, in fact he was being optimistic.

Hi Takko

No Where Near Worst Case...

(Some worst cases off the top of my head)

...Kind Regards walker

As to Israel not nuking an active nuclear power plant, it is certainly being considered and talked about by some hawks both in Israel and among the looney's in other countries. I dare say more rational and educated minds in governments have pointed out how badly that one could go just as I did in my very small way in that post.

As to an Israeli Special Forces Raid. I pointed out that the Middle East in general was aware that an Israeli troop ship went through the Suez Canal in my very first post, the one that started this thread:

...Egypt locks every one else out of the Suez Canal and guards its banks to let the USS Harry Truman fleet plus a crowded Israeli troop ship through...

I think the professional assesment by Professor Paul Rogers: “Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects†is probably the most accurate assesment of what may happen, based on the accuracy of his predictions on Iraq in 2003.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 16, 2010 by walker

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

Because the deck (or hangars) of an aircraft carrier is loaded with bombs and fueled up aeroplanes and aeroplane fuel.

It's one giant fireball just waiting to happen.

Unless of course it is an aircraft carrier that is not using it's aeroplanes, in which case it isn't. But er.. if you aren't going to fly any of the planes from it, you might as well leave it at home if you know what I mean.

The amount of chemical energy stored in that kind of ship is incredible. A cigarette lighter at the wrong time and place could even do it.

Every single U.S. aircraft carrier ever sunk. Just one bomb.

Hey! You, over there! Yes You, Dolt!. :232:

THEY HAVE A TON OF FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, AND THEY CAN PUMP WATER FROM THE FREAKING OCEAN. THE CARRIERS YOUR TALKING ABOUT ARE 70+ YEARS OLD. NO MODERN CARRIER CAN BE SUNK WITH 1 BOMB, UNLESS ITS A NUKE.

In case you still don't get it, let me speak in easily understandable terms.

those - carriers - were - made - over - SEVENTY (70) - years - ago. They - do - NOT - use - wooden - decks - anymore, - you - twit.

[Daniel 0]

A bit offtopic, but are you really trying to say nothing short of a nuke would sink a modern carrier?

Carriers operate in carrier groups with extensive anti-aircraft and anti-submarine escorts for the sole reason that they are extremely vulnerable.

Real life doesn't play out in line with what the specifications dictate. A lucky torpedo, bomb or anti-ship missile that made it through the counter-measures and AA screen could hit the magazine or deck munitions and boom. There's a good section of your twin-reactor powered carrier up in smoke. Soon to be followed by the rest of it depending on the extent of the damage and the crews ability to contain the blaze.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

No, what I'm saying is you can't sink a modern carrier with...

a single 300lb bomb.

or a molotov cocktail. By saying that you can SINK a carrier with a bottle of freakin vodka or cheap booze, he's revealing that he's just an idiot.

Yes, I know that if a torpedo or a silkworm get in past the excorts and CIWS/Sea Sparrows, that the carrier will be in deep shit, but it most likely won't sink from a single one. The downside is, those weapons are normally fired in volleys, so normally if 1 gets in, 3 get in.

[Daniel 0]

I think it was more use of hyperbole to demonstrate carriers aren't fortresses...

[maturin 12]

As to Israel not nuking an active nuclear power plant, it is certainly being considered and talked about by some hawks both in Israel and among the looney's in other countries. I dare say more rational and educated minds in governments have pointed out how badly that one could go just as I did in my very small way in that post.

Israeli hawks and loonies have talked about nuking Western Europe and annexing Jordan. Lets not take them much more seriously than Amahdinnerjacket and his ilk. If they're really that crazy, there's not much realistic foreign policy can do about it.

[walker 0]

Israeli hawks and loonies have talked about nuking Western Europe and annexing Jordan. Lets not take them much more seriously than Amahdinnerjacket and his ilk. If they're really that crazy, there's not much realistic foreign policy can do about it.

Hi maturin

As I pointed out Professor Paul Rogers': “Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effects†is probably the most accurate assesment of what may happen.

I was pointing out some worst case scenarios in reply to Takko's rather optimistic view.

Even in Israel Professor Paul Rogers paper is being discussed as the most likely result:

Israel may have to give up nuclear weapons instead of attack Iran, report says

Posted by RafiF on Jul 15, 2010

In a detailed report on the long term consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran, the Oxford Research Group has concluded that, in the end, the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran is to treat a nuclear Iran as inevitable, and follow it with a “process of balanced regional de-nuclearisation.†In other words, the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran is for Israel to give up nuclear weapons after Iran becomes a nuclear power herself.

The Oxford Research Group, it should be noted, promotes exclusively non-violent solutions to conflict. The group warns that an Israeli attack on Iran would trigger a long, drawn out war and fail to prevent the Islamic State from eventually acquiring a nuclear arsenal in the first place, concluding decisively that military action should be ruled out as a response to Iran’s “possible nuclear weapons ambitions.â€

“An Israeli attack on Iran would be the start of a protracted conflict that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it,†the report said...

http://www.worldofjudaica.com/jewish-news/israel/israel-may-have-to-give-up-nuclear-weapons-instead-of-attack-iran-report-says-2/422/58/

As always follow the link for the original text and full story

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 16, 2010 by walker

[stgn 39]

Hi STGN

I was talking about a reactor breach. Eg where the content of a working nuclear reactor is open to the outside, caused by say an explosion and or fire; you do know that Uranium, which is one of the things you get in a nuclear reactor, is Pyrophoric don't you? Uranium has chemistry as well as physics some people tend to forget this.

I am fairly conversant with what happens when a reactor breaches.

Cases.

Winscale

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

Five Mile Island

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Chernobyl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl

Of course each of these was a partial meltdown and took place in a country where there was an Infrastructure still in existence, eg not destroyed in air attacks, and thus able to mitigate the disaster. Also in each case, even in the case of Chernobyl the outer containment was only partially breached. In this case we are talking a major breach and fire caused by a deliberate attack.

The general factors involved in a meltdown are described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown

Of course I am only using Wikipedia as clearly I am too dumb to know more. :(

As you profess to know more about the subject than I; well I would be more than happy to enlighten me, :)

but I do not think you will because I do not think you do.

I was of course replying to Takko and his rather weak worst case with both some of my own assesments off the top of my head and a professional assesment by Professor Paul Rogers “Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effectsâ€

http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/military_action_against_iran_impact_and_effects

Kind Regards walker

First I wanna apologize cause I was rude. Second its really you who have to deliver a plausible explanation as to why blowing up a reactor is gonna spread nuclear waste all over Asia not me having to disprove it, but I am gonna try.

The problem I see is that you want it both ways you want to hit the reactor with a bomb, and you wanna build up energy and direct it upwards to scatter it all over the sky.

The reactor needs to be relatively intact to build up energy if the rods are not set up right the neutrons are gonna miss the other Uran atoms and you have effectively stopped the chain reaction, hitting ,with a bomb, the reactor I guess will effectively stop any ongoing chain reaction.

If you blow a big hole though to the reactor you are unlikely to build up pressure to blow out the material in to the sky, and you need the reactor to start an uncontrollable chain reaction at the same time. Of cause the bomb it self might be able to blow out pieces of radioactive material but I highly doubt that its gonna send Hugh amounts into the sky even if its a direct top hit, the top which is likely the best protected part to avoid a Chernobyl like scenario.

Uranium is able to ignite spontaneously with the air and so is zirconium but only if divided into small particles(same thing you see when you use a lighter, no there is not uranium in the lighter but its a similar reaction) otherwise as a metal, like the pellets they are stored in the fuel rods, they just oxidize kinda like iron rusting.

I don't think I said you where dumb. But if you know how please give a relatively detailed explanation of why hitting the reactor with a bomb is gonna cause the reactor to shoot very dangerous amounts of nuclear waste up in the sky. I don't think you have given a plausible explanation yet, the fact a nuclear reactor can melt down doesn't tell us much of whats gonna happen when you blow it up.

STGN

[Big Mac 19]

Actually, a Scud missile can hit a carrier. Evena satellite in space travelling at thousands of miles an hour. The Chinese have fitted their Scuds with Sunburn shipbuster missile guidance systems. They can not only hit carriers they can hit them from thousands of miles away. The U.S. Navy is terrified of these weapons and believe they have no effective counter to them.

But we aren't discussing Iran hitting carriers with Scud missiles, we are discussing them hitting carriers with Silkworms. Which are smaller than Scuds and easier to hide.

My mistake I thought you were referring to the attacking a carrier with a scud.The US Navy has a 3 tier AD set up that has been some what proven and I'm sure if need be they can rig up a patriot missile battery on carriers which has been proven to work against both scuds and aircraft and the UK sadly can attest to the latter.

Any bomb hitting a loaded flightdeck at all can completely destroy a carrier. A molotov cocktail even. Carriers are the most vulnerable of all ships to enemy fire. In WW2 every U.S. carrier that was sunk was sunk by a single 300lb bomb.

That right there is most idiotic statement I've heard in awhile. even during WW2 it took way more than one bombs to sink a carrier. Carrier's these days dont have their whole CAG on deck. Just the planes and choppers that are either on ready 5 or ready 15 and weapons are only brought on deck when they are being loaded.

Personally, I wouldn't be willing to bet thousands of American lives Big Mac's estimation of Russian technology. I'd just park my fleet well out of range and let the airforce do their job. One single U.S. carrier lost would be a loss of life greater than 9/11. Why risk it?

If you read what I said I specifically said "Second Hand" Russian tech which pretty much is the stuff that's either obsolete or the very low quality stock.

Because the deck (or hangars) of an aircraft carrier is loaded with bombs and fueled up aeroplanes and aeroplane fuel.

It's one giant fireball just waiting to happen.

The weapons and JP5 stockpile on a carrier is specially designed to prevent that very same thing you just mentioned.

Please do your research before you post.

Edited July 16, 2010 by Big Mac

[walker 0]

Hi STGN

All reactors are essentially a super-critical nuclear reaction controlled by a moderator, the insertion of fuel rods in a controlled fashion, and cooled by a cooling system, sometimes water, some times gas, sometimes something else such as sodium.

A well placed bomb may well just shut down the reactor, but is just as likely to take out the coolant or set fire to the moderator if it is something like Graphite as happened at Windscale or worse radically move the control rods. In each of these cases the possibility of a Prompt Critical event increases.

In such an occurrence temperatures rise substantially if the fail safe systems are damaged by deliberate bombing a Prompt Critical core coolant explosion results; and as air will be present as a result of outer containment breach then a chemical burn of solid or molten uranium would probably happen. That said the change from solid uranium to uranium oxide might act as one of the factors to moderate the core meltdown but of course the whole event would be accompanied by steam from the coolant and smoke and ash contaminated with complex radioactive elements out gassing through the breached containment.

As to your point about only small lumps of uranium spontaneously combusting in air I disagree with it but nibbling the hook for a second: an explosion that damages the core may well cause chunks of uranium to be exposed to air and then in turn ignite the graphite of the moderator.

Of course the first major uranium core fire took place in the early WWII German nuclear reactor attempts, causing them to think they had a chain reaction when in fact they had set fire to the uranium.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/germany/nuke.htm

A full explanation of uranium pyrophoricity can be found in this PDF here.

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp;jsessionid=7DF07D31E9B4835AD217C1DA8C9FF334?purl=/803044-gUxU5y/webviewable/

STGN I draw your attention to the fact that incidents, See 3.2 of the PDF, include spontaneous combustion of: coroded whole fuel rods, metal scrap from fuel rods and the like, and de-fueled rod cladding, as well as powdered uranium. Thus I think your argument that it can only happen to little bits uranium is refuted. While I do not dispute that a sufficient surface area for spontaneous combustion, is needed in order to cause a sustainable fire, see figure 8 in the PDF, I submit that: the actions of normal use alone create such an occurrence, as is exhibited by these incidents; and that proximity to an exploding munition, is more than sufficient to cause a pyrophoric event in a uranium core. QED

No One can guarantee what other chemicals would be around a Research reactor, though they should not be in the containment building but by their nature they are in research facilities and one could expect a number of volatile chemicals to be used as part of research. Such additional occurrences along with say an out of control military aircraft or munitions in an air battle plunging into a bombed and breached reactor are all risk factors.

Consider the Tehran Nuclear Research Center:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/tehran-tnrc.htm

Or the four Research Reactors in the Esfahan (Isfahan) Nuclear Technology Center

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/esfahan.htm

Of course these are not the larger civil reactors like the one at Bushehr:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/bushehr.htm

Iran is said to have several secret facilities dotted around the country including under ground facilities.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/

And if as I think we both agree the containment was breached by an aerial bomb then anything going on inside is by definition exposed to the outside. Since they are in populated areas close to cities even a minor meltdown and resultant cloud or contact with water aquifers would affect at least said local populations.

In such a case where by definition a core breach to the outside has taken place and the cooling and or moderation of the reactor is no longer working the likelihood of the core melting down is a likely result. It may be that various mitigating factors might cool the core but once melting of core occurs we are in Chernobyl territory.

Since an air battle would look to take out C&C facilities such as communications and those in command of the facilities the ability of Iran to react to a reactor melt down would be negligible.

Once again I draw your attention to the professional assessment by Professor Paul Rogers “Military Action Against Iran: Impact and Effectsâ€

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 17, 2010 by walker

[echo1 0]

Please explain how a molotov coctail would be able to sink a aircraft carrier.

STGN

You could always put it out of action...

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:45 PM ----------

@Walker: I seriously doubt that any air force is going to be crazy enough to bomb a nuclear power plant, they'd probably send in a ground team with specialists to deal with the reactors.

Eat moar history

Edited July 17, 2010 by echo1

[Big Mac 19]

Zuni rockets are a bit more potent than a molotov cocktail...

[ari gold 10]

Eat moar history

It didn't have any nuclear materials yet, eat moar facts.

[echo1 0]

Zuni rockets are a bit more potent than a molotov cocktail...

I think Baff was being somewhat hyperbolic.

Nonetheless, the rocket didn't explode. It just caused a gas tank to catch fire. So it all started with a fire really...

[MehMan 0]

Yes, but that only spread because there was one dedicated fire extingushing team onboard that mostly died in the first explosion. since then the US navy got super serial about fire safety and every semen is trained to extinguish fires and fire drills are done regularly.

EXCELSIOR!

[Big Mac 19]

As was I. That incident happened back during the Vietnam War and since then they've made it so where there can never be another "Forrestal"

---------- Post added at 08:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 PM ----------

Yes, but that only spread because there was one dedicated fire extingushing team onboard that mostly died in the first explosion. since then the US navy got super serial about fire safety and every semen is trained to extinguish fires and fire drills are done regularly.

EXCELSIOR!

That's more common on subs where fire is more of an enemy than a enemy torpedo, but yea pretty much every sailor has a working knowledge of how to fight fires.

[Sky999 10]

I don't care about what Israel or Iran do to each other, as long as the US aren't dragged into it. It's not their problem and I don't want more European/American blood spilt fighting in Middle Eastern conflicts. Let the Israelis deal with the Iranians if they want, but let them do it on their own.

Edited July 18, 2010 by Sky999

[Blackhawk 0]

I don't care about what Israel or Iran do to each other, as long as the US aren't dragged into it. It's not their problem and I don't want more European/American blood spilt fighting in Middle Eastern conflicts. Let the Israelis deal with the Iranians if they want, but let them do it on their own.

The US will always support Israel unless they do something inexplicable.

[maturin 12]

I don't care about what Israel or Iran do to each other, as long as the US aren't dragged into it. It's not their problem and I don't want more European/American blood spilt fighting in Middle Eastern conflicts. Let the Israelis deal with the Iranians if they want, but let them do it on their own.

This isn't 1914. The U.S. is "dragged into" a butterfly sneezing in Antarctica. Every significant change in relationships between states directly affects our interests and our political projects. What do you think war in the Middle East would do to oil prices?

[Big Mac 19]

This isn't 1914. The U.S. is "dragged into" a butterfly sneezing in Antarctica. Every significant change in relationships between states directly affects our interests and our political projects. What do you think war in the Middle East would do to oil prices?

We'd go green?

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

The US will always support Israel unless they do something inexplicable.

You can thank Joe Liberman for that. (No antisemitism intended, just Anti-Joe Liberman.) I think we'd even support them if they did something inexplicable since now they've taken to piracy with S-13 boarding "suspected" arms smuggling ships and even strafed a US naval ship back in the 60s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

Edited July 18, 2010 by Big Mac

[maturin 12]

We'd go green?

---------- Post added at 01:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 PM ----------

You can thank Joe Liberman for that. (No antisemitism intended, just Anti-Joe Liberman.) I think we'd even support them if they did something inexplicable since now they've taken to piracy with S-13 boarding "suspected" arms smuggling ships and even strafed a US naval ship back in the 60s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

And Schumer too, be sure to throw a real democrat in there.

[kyfohatl 10]

I'm an Iranian myself so I decided I should state my opinion on the matter. I am pretty sure that there will be no invasion... don't belive everything you see in the media, because the media can sometimes get a bit... excited. Throughout my life, I have seen MANY threats of invasion to Iran (more than 10 I'd say) and not from some tiny loudmouth state called Israel, but from the USA itself. A threat from the USA is far more significant than one from Israel as they have the millitary power to trully dominate and crush any Iranian resistance (if they dare to resist at all) and the economic ability to do so. Now if the US decides that it is not a good idea, then Pfffffft... what the hell is Israel gonna do? It's probably some cheap threat without any real backing and I'm surprised to see people take it seroiusly. I'm not being egotistic and saying that US didn't attack Iran due to a possible Iranian resistance, in fact I am confident that they could easily capture Iran in a week. So they could have done it, but they didn't.

Why? Well I personally can think of many reasons:

1. US is already in enough trouble with Iraq and Afganistan and I'd dare say that most of the American people are itred of war and want their soldiers to return home to their famillies. I mean, alot of the American presidential election promises were aorund bringing troops back home. So I would doubt that they start another invasion.

2. Iran is right inbetween Afganistan, Pakistan and Iraq and at least between Afganistan, Iraq and Iran, it is the most stable country with proper security (I don't know about Pakistan). This is very important because if Iran becomes unstable:

a) Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces will be able to unite much more easily between Afganistan and Iraq. After that it probably won't take long for Pakistan to fall too.

b) Remember that Iran has a Large Muslim population. Thus if the country becomes unstable and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda establish their presence, support for them in Iran could grow incrediblly quickly, suddenly booming their power over the region.

With these two factors, terrorist power and organization could grow very quickly and become a sort of "united terrorist organisation across the Middle East" which of course could be very dangerous, not just for the Middle East, but for the whole world.

Also that opium is grown extensively in Afganistan. So far they have had problems with getting them across to Iran and from there to the rest of the world due to proper border security, but of course there has been some leaks. But when a country becomes unstable, corruption will take place and opium could spread very quickly and much more easily which would be very plesant for drug traffickers (remember that between Afganistan, Iraq and Iran, Iran is the only one directly connected to an ocean, meaning easier drug distribution).

3. I personally do not believe that Iranians are meking nuclear weapons. However, I'll assume that they are for your sake. Wouldn't that mean that if Iran becomes unstable, there is a chance that Terrorists may get gain access to some?

These are some of the reasons that convince me that USA will not invade Iran. Israel's threats would only be dangrous if they had USA's backing (in which case Iran would get owned easily). But as I think that USA's backing is unlikely as their are already in enoguh trouble with Afganistan and Iraq, Israel's threats aint worth shit. They simply do not have the military power, nor the economical ability to support such an invasion. An invasion of Iran is not just limited to a few Air strikes. Israel, who is having lots of trouble controlling even the tiny "state" of GAZA will in no way have the ability to controll a country whose desert alone is bigger than the wholes state of Israel.

Finally, assuming that Iran does have nuclear weapons, why the hell do people think that they would just drop nuclear bombs on USA and Israel? Oh yeah... CAUSE THEIR ALL MOTHERLESS TERRORISTS WHO WANT NOTHING BUT EVIL AND DESTRUCTION! Seriously, their not stupid. Iran is not some terrorist organization, it is a proper country with a parliament and as much as dictatorship elements may exists, random nuclear bombings will not take place. Were not that stupid.

[soul_assassin 1750]

b) Remember that Iran has a Large Muslim population. Thus if the country becomes unstable and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda establish their presence, support for them in Iran could grow incrediblly quickly, suddenly booming their power over the region.

Taliban is a Sunni Islamist political movement. I doubt there will be much joining with the predominently Shia Islam Iranians (89% according to wikipedia). Al-Qaeda is thought to be primarily Sunni as well.

[Big Mac 19]

And Schumer too, be sure to throw a real democrat in there.

I forgot about him, thanks. I have a real beef against Joe Liberman though. Any man who switches parties just so they can get reelected is a man who isn't worth voting for in the first place.