The question is still: "Why do you need nuclear power in an oli-glutted nation?"

typo: "..oil-glutted nation.."

You know Powell's seriously thinking it over.

Help Iran build nuke technology - they won't use it against Israel, the US or England...REALLY!! They promised! That's what I heard Ayatollah Sahaf say anyway...

I think Mr. Rafsanjani underestimates the threat to Islam if they were to obliterate Israel. I think Iran would be gone, followed by the "holy" cities. Muslims would not be welcome or safe anywhere in the dar-al-harb. What he is suggesting is nothing less than deicide: Islam would fall.

One nuke on mecca is all it takes to wipe out Islam. Can't be a good muslim without doing a Hajj. Can't do a Hajj if Mecca is turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Time for a little status report. Iran is close to building nukes; North Korea already has them and is planning to build more; and, for the first time in the country's history, one of Pakistan's provincial legislatures has enacted shari'a.

Time for a new poll: How long before America loses one of its cities?

Same thing North Korea did to Clinton. I hope Bush doesn't let State talk him into falling for it.

As for the "nuke Mecca" morons: Destroying the Temple didn't help the Romans wipe out the Jews, did it?

US to Iran: What the fuck are you talking about?!

[sarcasm]
Environmentalists applauded the Iranian PM today as he vowed to end the Iranian dependence on US consumption of oil.

"Anything that we can do to wean the imperialist US from the oil our nation's crippled economy is built upon must be done to bring our country out of the 7th Century and into the early 20th. We cannot jump into the 21st Century in one leap, especially without the help of the US."

When told of the Iranian comments, the US State Department gave a shrug and privately acknowledged that they had been pursuing a green strategy in the Middle East all along.

Israel had no comment on the potential Iranian nuclear plans, knowing that it is home to Islam's third holiest city as Islamic adherents are quick to complain about Israel's annexation of Jerusalem.
[/sarcasm]

In other news, OBL and Saddam Hussein are still dead - that's just the survival myth talking.

The truth is that the US was the country that originally pushed the Shah to go nuclear in a big way. Saying it made sense to diversify energy supplies - Iran has uranium and thorium deposits, and they saw it made economic sense to sell oil rather than burn it for electricity. 6 nuke plants were on the board, and the US was getting large dinero from the preliminary construction and training all the scientists, engineers, and technicians in American universities. Then the revolution happened.

Even if the Islamic State of Iran ends, and a secular democracy emerges, Iran looks likely to continue it's nuclear plans...since the secularists are very much in favor of building nuke plants.

Someday, the US would love to go back in and build the best plants. If not us, it will be the Russians or the Japanese or the French. Iran is currently a signatory to NPT. So it is not the same as helping a non-signatory nation. However, it has issues with the IAEA and it certainly has issues with the US that need to be worked through.

Before that day comes, Iran has much to prove...

I can give 444 reasons to blast this regime off the face of this earth- one reason for each of the days this illegitimate regime held American diplomats hostage in 1980.

This is an unsettled account. The only good thing about it is it did cause the American voter to send James Earl Carter to the ash heap of political history.

Every Minister in the middle east must have received their degree from the "Baghdad Bob" school of press briefings.

It was only last December...
ANY Islamic bombs are a bad idea.

[sprinkles self in holy water]

Ranbutan has a point. Sorta.

When Iran goes secular, a grudge of sorts will likely remain against Israel, even if Israel assists in any coup (ie, funding a la the Kurds vs Saddam). Even if this isn't the case, Iran will eventually make nuclear reactors and probably weapons.

So how do we keep them from wiping out Israel?

I guess nuclear blackmail: you take Tel Aviv, we'll take Mecca, Medina and Tehran. After that, Damascus, Amman, Cairo, Paris...

while i hope the day never comes, if Israel is ever under nuke attack i certainly hope one of her first retaliatory strikes is against France.

#8 Robert Crawford

Nuke Mecca morons? I didn't read anyone's post advocating that. I did see one that said it would happen. Do you disute this? You do realize that if Israel is nuked, they would almost certainly retaliate against Mecca, et al. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just a troll?

I say we consult Clinton and Albright on this one. I don't see why not, we had success with North Korea with this policy and now they have an efficient energy system and they are our bestest friends.

#17 - Jerusalem is the capital of Israel - regardless of whether other countries consider it as such (many contend Tel Aviv is the capital). However, if Israel were to be attacked, it would not be Mecca or Medina, or even Qom that would be targeted for destruction - it would be Tehran, Riyhad, Damascus, or other capitals, as well as strategic and tactical military targets.

None of the Islamic holy cities are capitals of their respective countries, which suggests some further inquiry into why that is the case is necessary.

inadeepsleep #17

Not a troll, no, but with the powers to see in to the future.

See my post #15...

I take Robert's point; I'll have to rethink.

Folks, no one's going to nuke Mecca. Under any circumstances. Let's move on.

#17,

Nuke Mecca morons? I didn't read anyone's post advocating that...

I believe he was referring to post #6:

One nuke on mecca is all it takes to wipe out Islam. Can't be a good muslim without doing a Hajj. Can't do a Hajj if Mecca is turned into a radioactive parking lot.

It kind of sounds like this guy is suggesting that the solution to the problem is to nuke Mecca.

That is why #6 called him a "nuke Mecca moron". Just a guess.

That is why #6 called him a "nuke Mecca moron"

Uh... I mean that is why #8 called him a "nuke Mecca moron".

#19 Iowahark

I agree, to an extent. But Israel isn't dumb, I'm sure that Mecca is on the list too, and that they've made that abundantly clear to all interested parties. They don't want to have to actually use them; it's all about deterrence.

#20 Colt

I do not take Robert's point. It is a typical mischaracterization of somebody's statement to make them look like a nutcase. And it is also the same old slur against President Bush that he's to spineless and stupid to actually be running the show. Now, I don't now for sure what the previous posters actually did mean, perhaps they did mean that the US would/should retaliate in the interest of Israel. But that is not what anyone said. And nobody has the power to see into the future.

inadeepsleep:

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just a troll?

I must be the world's most incredibly subtle troll, who has spent over a year posting messages to this board, and even butting heads with Reichbutan, just so I could post one message that a mouth-breather could go ballistic over.

Or, I read messages #5 and #6, saw people saying that the destruction of Mecca would destroy Islam, and made a point by citing an example from history.

Heck, that's about as logical as your girlfriend saying:

If you're so worried about me getting pregnant, fuck me!

#19 lawhawk:

It depends on who is doing the targeting. I think if Israel is attacked with a nuclear weapon they will be past the point of worrying about strategy or tactics - they'll be finished. Assuming they have an opportunity to retaliate, theirs would be a last chance to do the maximum possible damage to their enemy. The enemy is Islam, not Iran. Implicit in Rafsanjani's statement is the assumption that attention will be turned on Iran only, that Tehran can be sacrificed for the better part of the Islamic world. It is imperative that this point of view is shown to be false. Yes, by all means, target Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh - in addition to Rabat, Kuala Lumpur, and everything in between - but also hit Mecca, Medina, Qom, Nasiriyah, and any other location with significance for the Muslim faith. This variation on MAD may not make the Islamakazis think twice, but it will certainly make their existence on this world much more tenuous, and will make it easier to eradicate the religion when/if it comes to that.

#25 Robert Crawford

Ya, I did go a little too ballistic. Sorry. But I hardly think that the Roman's destruction of the temple is in any way comparable to magnitude of the prospect of nuclear war in the middle east. It's a silly analogy.

But yes, you do make subtle insults and calling people names doesn't do anything for your credibility. Not that I'm perfect; I certainly make tasteless jokes sometimes, but that doesn't mean it helps your cause.

I do not take Robert's point. It is a typical mischaracterization of somebody's statement to make them look like a nutcase.

Read comment #6 and tell me I was mischaracterizing the remark.

And nobody has the power to see into the future.

I do.

#23 DB

Yes, and President Bush also said that Al Qaeda is no longer a threat. You can take Maureen Dowd's word for it?

must be the world's most incredibly subtle troll, who has spent over a year posting messages to this board, and even butting heads with Reichbutan, just so I could post one message that a mouth-breather could go ballistic over.

Classic Robert! ROTHLMAO!

inadeepsleep:

But I hardly think that the Roman's destruction of the temple is in any way comparable to magnitude of the prospect of nuclear war in the middle east. It's a silly analogy.

Read comment #6:

One nuke on mecca is all it takes to wipe out Islam. Can't be a good muslim without doing a Hajj. Can't do a Hajj if Mecca is turned into a radioactive parking lot.

Why can't you comprehend that this is what I was commenting on?

Why don't you realize that the analogy was directly addressing this point?

Pardon me, but I'm a bit put off that I made a statement intended to refute some of the more berserk comments that get made around here, trying to be the voice of reason, and end up being accused of being a troll.

Might I recommend you wake up before you post here?

#29 Robert Crawford

Ok, you were mischaracterizing the remark.

"Militant Elvis 6/2/2003 11:45AM PST"

Since people generally use the same nickname for all posts, 'Militant' can't be taken to necessarily imply anything in this particular instance.

"One nuke on mecca is all it takes to wipe out Islam."

I agree

"Can't be a good muslim without doing a Hajj."

True also

"Can't do a Hajj if Mecca is turned into a radioactive parking lot"

Yet again, true.

Now let's look at your phrase "nuke Mecca morons". This to me implies that it is someone who advoctes the nuking of Mecca, and is therefore a moron. But what I saw in the guys post was a bunch of nearly indisputable statements.

#25 Robert Crawford:

You pulled out one small piece of what I wrote in order to label me a "nuke Mecca moron." Whatever. I don't believe in vampires, I don't think that nukes are a wooden stake to drive into the heart of the beast. I agree that that is what #6 Militant E. seems to believe, but I presented it as one likely bit of fallout (sorry) from a nuclear attack on Israel and I take exception to being characterized as thinking that "nuke Mecca" is the magic bullet that will solve the Islam problem.

OT: BAAARRRFFF!!!

#30 inadeepsleep.

Surely, you've heard that Maureen Dowd completely changed/mangled/mischaracterized what Bush said in her article by using elipses (...) to omit pertinent parts of the quote. Check out todays "Best of the Web" on [Link: www.opinionjournal.com...]

Robert Crawford

You were the one who directed my attention to your "historical" analogy. So I commented on it. Changing the subject and then saying I'm the one doing it is, again, silly. I'll say it again, that analogy is silly. Once again, you have a readiing comprehension problem.

#36 maximus

Should've put sarcasm tags around it.

It looks like someone posted the same story on Indymedia:
[Link: www.indymedia.org...]

Funny how some of these right leaning stories are starting to appear there.

#35 NC,

Yuk! That's way too close!

#33: inadeepsleep

"One nuke on mecca is all it takes to wipe out Islam."

I agree.

It's wrong. The wrath behind the statement is comprehensible, but leads nowhere. Think again.

Completely Off Topic:

There's a lot of "talk" out there about how Eric Rudolph (now that he is back in the news) is a Christian Terrorist. I know people were posting about it on here the other day. Well, here's a little blog entry I just had to share, which I just posted...because it expresses my feelings on the matter.

Here we go.

Anger was growing today over claims that two of Saddam Hussein's daughters are set to ask for asylum in Britain.

Izzi-Din Mohammed Hassan al-Majid, a cousin of the deposed Iraqi president, says that he is arranging an application for asylum for Raghad, 35, and Rana, 33.

If we have to sit and watch this what's the use in discussing asylum?

#40 hans ze beeman

What wrath? Do you dispute the accuracy of that statement? I agree, it leads nowhere but down a very sorrowful path. Are you advocating the wiping out of Islam? I haven't read any statements on this thread doing that. Perhaps english is a 2nd language for you, so misreading something is understandable. I suspect it is not for Robert Crawford who claims to be able to predict the future.

Now do I think this guy very well could think that's a good idea? Maybe, but that's not what he said.

#43: inadeepsleep

What wrath? Do you dispute the accuracy of that statement?

My statement stands as I said it; I disputed the fact that nuking Mecca solves the problem. I think nuking Mecca implies a (comprehensible) wrath, not rational thinking, which is quite dangerous. As I said - nuking does not solve the problem. Please describe your vision of a post-nuclear Mecca world. The liberation of Iraq is one good thing - but nuking Mecca isn't even the same game.

Perhaps english is a 2nd language for you, so misreading something is understandable.

I understood you quite well, and didn't misread anything. I quote you AGAIN:

"One nuke on mecca is all it takes to wipe out Islam." - I agree.

I beg to disagree.

#30,

You said Nuke Mecca morons? I didn't read anyone's post advocating that.

And I was simply pointing out in post #22 that maybe post #6 was in fact advocating that.

What does that have to do with Bush, al Qaeda, and Dowd??

Listen, as a lawyer I'd liek to say I do not advocate the use of Nukes, nor do I think anybody here wants them used, per se. To continue...

ok...lets do the MAD math...Israel has between 200 and 600 nuclear weapons, many mounted on cruise missiles.

A hypthetical strike of 6-8 nukes on Israel will finish Israel as any kind on an international actor, except for those nukes. Assuming good command and control, what is to inhibit Israel from taking it's murderers with it? Better still, what is to inhibit it from striking directly at large population centers? Even a hundred Nukes going off in the Middle East will certainly crush the top 100 population centers. My guess is that 90 percent of the population of the relevant countries lives in the top 100 populated cities.

Wheter Islam would be finished at that point is still up for debate...but the slaughter would be huge.

OT - Democratizing Islamic countries.

If this article didn't quote Esposito, I'd have a lot more hope. But the poll indicating 55% of Islamic respondents favored gender equality was a good sign. (LOL - Only 87% of Western respondents did.)

[Link: www.csmonitor.com...]

BH:

I presented it as one likely bit of fallout (sorry) from a nuclear attack on Israel and I take exception to being characterized as thinking that "nuke Mecca" is the magic bullet that will solve the Islam problem.

Your comment was a lot more sensible than most, and I agree that any nuke attack on Israel is likely to result in what Joel Rosenberg called "David's Gift" in one of his novels. However, you did write:

What he is suggesting is nothing less than deicide: Islam would fall.

inadeepsleep:

Do you really think a nuke on Mecca would "wipe out" Islam? Why?

#35:

Hey its the "Kiss of Death" ala Godfather II! Who'd tha thunk that Dubya was a fan of the series? Hehe

#46: Mark

A hypthetical strike of 6-8 nukes on Israel will finish Israel as any kind on an international actor, except for those nukes. Assuming good command and control, what is to inhibit Israel from taking it's murderers with it?

Retaliation is a totally different and justified thing, Israel SHOULD then take its murderers with her. I was basing my statements on a first strike on Mecca, which would not only "not solve the problem", it would be idiotic.

#44 hans ze beeman

"I disputed the fact that nuking Mecca solves the problem."

I agree, it only creates more problems.

"I think nuking Mecca implies a (comprehensible) wrath, not rational thinking, which is quite dangerous."

Yes, agree again.

"As I said - nuking does not solve the problem. Please describe your vision of a post-nuclear Mecca world."

Lots of radiation, lots of ded people. Contamination spreads through food chain, wind and wave.

"The liberation of Iraq is one good thing - but nuking Mecca isn't even the same game."

Agree again.

"I understood you quite well...I beg to disagree. "

You do not understand at all. It is certainly a defensible position to think that Islam would not be wiped out by a nuke on Mecca. We disagree, although actually there would be far more than one, and far more than just Mecca being nuked.

It is not a defensible position to mischaracterize my posts as advocating that.

One of the so-called "nuke Mecca morons" has already stated explicitly that that is not what he meant. The other is silent, and maybe that is what he thinks. But I seriously doubt it. He could just as likely have been engaging in gallows humor, or succumbing to a depressing fate.

Read and think, instead of emotionally reacting with your preconceived notions. It is one thing which makes for civilized society.

Hanz:

As I said - nuking does not solve the problem.

Really? Ask Japan about that.

"One nuke on mecca is all it takes to wipe out Islam." I beg to disagree.

OK, make that two nukes.

Hans,

Sorry, I misspelled your name. No disrespect intended.

But you're still wrong.
True, a couple nukes won't wipe out Islam, but it'll make them do some serious soul searching and maybe they'll come up with the conclusion that violent jihad against Jews and other infidels isn't such a good idea after all.

Here's the reality: The US will never ever take nuclear weapons off the table as an option to deal with her enemies. And if I had a choice between living a life in fear of Islamic terrorism and nuclear war, then "Ready, Aim, Launch."

Give me liberty or give me death... preferrably the death of my enemies.

#45 DB

Because just like M.Dowd's statement, post #6 does not advocate that. It is very easy to read the wrong implication and the the wrong emotion into posts on the internet. Which most here seem to be doing.

#48 Robert Crawford

For the reasons stated in post #6. Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's 20kTons were bad enough, today those are nothing. Nuclear war would be a ecological and human misery nightmare, and no, I am NOT a liberal eco-nut.

That's not to say it would wipe out all Arabs or Persians or people who call themselves Islamic overnight. But it would be the beginning of the end.

I suggest redefining the words "terrorism" and "Islam". This is actually global entertainment these people are offering. I mean, what's Hollywood by comparison? Amateurs. Plot twists and surprises, that's what Iran gives the world - why shouldn't the US repay this with some honest, hard-working uranium? It's only fair.

I strongly support the US giving Iran nukes. Not exactly in the same way they intend the request, but still, we're not gonna bother with formalities are we?

#54,

It is very easy to read the wrong implication and the the wrong emotion into posts on the internet

I guess you're right. Of course it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. :)

#51: inadeepsleep

You do not understand at all. It is certainly a defensible position to think that Islam would not be wiped out by a nuke on Mecca. We disagree, although actually there would be far more than one, and far more than just Mecca being nuked.

Again, you said you agree to the idea that one nuke is enough to wipe out Islam, which is wrong. We were not discussing world-wide nuking, in order to nuke out Islam you would have to nuke half the planet and more than 1 billion people, as far as nuking is concerned.

It is not a defensible position to mischaracterize my posts as advocating that.

What IS your position? And you didn't yet answer to Robert Crawford's question why you think that nuking Mecca would produce the elimination of Islam.

One of the so-called "nuke Mecca morons" has already stated explicitly that that is not what he meant. The other is silent, and maybe that is what he thinks.

I was talking to YOU at the time, referring to your posts.

#52: Alf

Really? Ask Japan about that.

As far as I know, Japan was a nuked nation sitting on an island. I wonder how many countries would have to be nuked in order to wipe out Islam, and please try to think about the consequences of such a thng everywhere on the world. Again: Islam has more than a billion followers.

#53: Alf

True, a couple nukes won't wipe out Islam, but it'll make them do some serious soul searching and maybe they'll come up with the conclusion that violent jihad against Jews and other infidels isn't such a good idea after all.

I agree; but I would prefer to not use the nuke option now, I'd prefer some traditional warfare at which they're inferior anyway.

And if I had a choice between living a life in fear of Islamic terrorism and nuclear war, then "Ready, Aim, Launch."

Yes, but there are many options in between. Nuking should be the last not the first.

The statement that the destruction of Mecca would destroy Islam is a fallacy anyway. This is a religion that loves martyrs. Destroying Mecca would give islamists a laundry list of martyrs; the city itself would be martyred. If it were to happen (and I for one pray that it never does) the remaining Imams and Mullahs would not simply curl up on the floor and say, "Oh well, can't do Hajj for the next few decades until the background radiation level drops... might as well hang up the robes." They would come up with some doctrine or exception, changing the Hajj's destination or something else. I am not a scholar of Islam, so I can't really say what their specific options might be. Perhaps they would argue that since the Ka'bah was vaporized and spread around the globe by the blast, the Hajj is no longer necessary because its destination is everywhere on the planet now.

#55 zaza

A new twist on an old joke, instead of "lead poisoning" give 'em "plutonium poisoning". heh.

...for the rest of you, don't get your sphincters in a knot...it's a joke.

To: IRAN

From: US

INRE: Assistance & Support of Your
Nuclear Program

___

With regards to the above-noted nuke program, and US assistance with same, our response is ...

Pigs will fly out of your a$$ before we aid you in getting nukes!

#54 in...

FYI The US is researching mini-nukes. Unless Congress nixes the idea, the US may have mini-nukes in its aresenal within a couple years thus making nuclear war "gentler and kinder" and without the fall-out coming back to us. Plus, we still have the nuetron bomb that hasn't been fully tested and developed.

#52 Alf

Really? Ask Japan about that.

Some healthy disagreement: My WW2 history isn't strong, but I think some Japanese cities (Tokyo?) got pretty heavily fire-bombed, in addition to the nukes dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it's not like the U.S. would've stopped at two if the Japanese hadn't surrendered ... Plus, of course, Japan is a country; Islam isn't. How does Islam surrender?

But are you saying that simply one (or two) nukes on Mecca with no implied threat of more to come ... and Islam crumbles? Because I just don't see that myself.

#58 Mollbot

I think you're right, nuking Mecca would only make the destruction of Islam a survival necessity for the West. On the other hand, stealing the Ka'bah could help.

#57 hans ze beeman

If you reread posts #4,5,6 you'll see that someone brought up that Iran had threatened to nuke Israel in the past. In that context, the response was that someone (the implication being Israel) would nuke Mecca or other Islamic targets in reponse. I agree with the logic in post #6, although perhaps something which calls itself "Islam" but is radically differenet would continue on.

One nuke, today, is very different than those used in WWII. Those were about 15-20 kTons, I believe. One nuke, today, has multiple warheads, which can be independently targeted, can take out hardened targets, and is far more destructive than you can imagine. To compare it to the Roman's attempt to wipe out the Jews, as Robert Crawford was doing, is laughable. A large chunk of the Middle East would be uninhabitable for generations. The Medditerranean Sea would be contaminated. The consequences for the economy and health care of Europe and Western Asia would be extremely serious.

But then I could be wrong. Unlike Robert Crawford, I can not predict the future.

My position is this could be handled with policies which, to a large extent, Bush is advocating. But is thwarted in, to an extent, by nations such as France and Germany.

#57 Hans

Nuking should be the last not the first.

Absolutely. But Iran and North Korea need to understand that though we (US) don't have the desire to use nukes, we have the will.

Getting back on topic:
Didn't Saddam's regime make stupid statements, too, before the Baath party fell to US forces? This statement might be clear evidence that Iran is shitting it's robes for fear of a US invasion.

#62 Wild Justice -- somewhat OT but oh well:

You're right about your WW2 history... if Japan had not surrendered after Nagasaki (was supposed to be Kyoto IIRC, but bad weather forced the plane to a secondary target) the US could not have bombed them again, at least not with nukes. Little Boy and Fat Man were the only two a-bombs we had, the prototype of Fat Man having been tested at White Sands. We had shot our bolt; if it didn't work we were going to have to send in the troops the hard way, and it would have been ghastly.

Incidentally, you are correct that the firebombing of Tokyo was devastating. It killed more people than Hiroshima did. But what really shook the high command of Japan was not the deaths or the destruction... you expect that from a big bombing, and the Tokyo firebombing was huge... it was that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was realized with one bomb. That impressed the Hell out of them.

#63 Caton:

On the other hand, stealing the Ka'bah could help.

Tell you what... I'll drive the car. You get to carry the damned thing.

Aww , to have been the focus of so much attention!

"Militant Elvis" is based on the name of a quasipolitical party, "The First Church of The Militant Elvis".

My comment about triggering a spontaneous and uncontrolled release of fissile material above the streets of Mecca was not intended to suggest that Israel should or would make a first strike against this holy city. Doing so would get them nothing but a bajillion SERIOUSLY pissed off Muslims, The USA would not be happy about it at all. Not even in secret-behind-closed doors happy about it. A first strike on Mecca is the sort of thing that would leave Israel twisting in the wind with buzzards circling overhead and coyotes licking thier chops. Hitler would look up from hell and shake his head in puzzled amazement. Dahmer would pause and wonder what the hell those sick Israeli fucks were thinking. I am not suggesting that Israel launch a first strike against Mecca.

Now a retaliatory strike against Mecca is a different matter entirely. THIS is what I was alluding to. A few nukes launched against Israel would put an end to the Palistinian/Israel question for the next 20,000 years. It might even disable most of Israels ability to strike back. Imagine for a moment you are one of the few surviving members of the IDF, and you have a pretty good idea that it was not a sneak attack by the Vatican. You have at least one operational nuke under your control. All that you knew and loved is now radioactive ash due to the hatred taught by conservative muslims.

Would you leave Mecca standing?

(And even in the event of a first strike against Israel, don't the winds at that end of the Med. ocean usually blow eastwards?)

#66 Mollbot

The U.S. had only two A-bombs and that was it?

#61, Alf-

The US is researching mini-nukes

I understand that they also came up with a thermonuclear hand grenade, but they couldn't get any volunteers to throw it ! :)

And to everyone else arguing the 'nuke Mecca' idea: Isn't it really just a thought experiment-pondering different, hopefully never to occur, scenarios? I really don't think this is anyone's actual philosophy on the issue. Well, except maybe Frank J.

#64 inadeepsleep:

A large chunk of the Middle East would be uninhabitable for generations.

This would be correct if a saturation bombing pattern was used... "tactical" nuclear strikes would not leave nearly as much mess. Not that I am advocating any kind of nuclear strike. I've had to clean up radioactive spills before... I don't want to think how much of a shit-storm dealing with fallout would be.

The whole idea of mini-nukes is a scam. The later w series warheads are already very small. They were attached to Tomahawks before that series of weapons was phased out. The w-86 and its counterparts are effective.

Beyond that the idea of small target use of nukes is counter productive. Which is more effective.

N. Korea if you nuke Japan or Seoul were going to selectively destroy your command bunkers and facilities with mini nukes but spare your civillians.
OR

If you fuck up were going to launch a broad side from the Ohio class that is targeting you as we speak, MX missles from the midwest and let whats left of sac kill the leftovers. Everyone gets a permenant orange afro in less time than it takes shower and shave..

Nukes should never be PC, the hole from shot baker is plenty deep to kill anything underground.

#48 Robert Crawford:

Yes, I did write this:

What he is suggesting is nothing less than deicide: Islam would fall.

I suspect that maybe this is more vague than it should be, or you are not reading it in the right context. Let me rephrase this, because it seems to me that this line is leading you to believe that I am calling for an attack on Mecca.

What he (Rafsanjani) is suggesting (to martyr the people of Iran in order to destroy Israel) is nothing less than deicide: Islam would fall.

What I am suggesting is that a nuclear attack on Israel will set into a motion a chain of events that will ultimately result in the demise of the Islam faith. That Rafsanjani's actions will destroy Islam.

People are finally starting to come around to the notion that there are those in the Islamic world that have an agenda that has dangerous implications for the rest of us. For a long time we chose to ignore them because they were far away and could only cause random death and destruction. It was an "acceptable level of violence". Nukes will change that. If Rafsanjani gets his wish and nuclear weapons are employed, not for retaliation but for a theologically-driven first strike, Islam will have become far too dangerous for the rest of the world to accept. Muslims will be purged from the "dar al-harb" and the koran will be banned. Aid to Muslim countries will cease. Israel, if capable, will retaliate in kind across the ummah. The West will certainly go to war with the arab states. Any or all of this will contribute to the weakening and eventual destruction of Islam.

Do you understand what I mean now? Rafsanjani is planning to kill his religion - deicide.

Oh Jesus people who cares about the whole nuking Mecca crap? We'll burn that bridge when we come to it, ok? Half the posts in this thread are about who said what when, like it somehow freakin matters.

Here's my opinion: The nuking of every major city in the Middle East would most certainly wipe out most of Islam but still wouldn't destroy the religion itself. It would most definitely be a humbling experience for them but don't expect it to solve Islam's problems.

And another thing, a lot of people on these boards act as though the Middle East will just crawl away and cease to exist when we don't buy their oil anymore. I got news for you, even if nobody at all buys their oil they will still continue to have massive terrorist groups. Even dirt poor areas with no oil like Pakistan and Afghanistan breed massive amounts of terrorists. Oil is not the problem, Islam is.

If any Muslim state or terrosrist group every uses a nuke anywhere, anytime, then Mecca and the Black Rock must become radioactive vapor posthaste. If it happens a second time, then all of Arab "civilization" becomes rubble. Note to Iranbian fucknugget -- we have enough nikes to remove Islam from the planet in an afternoon -- please act accordingly.

#64: inadeepsleep

If you reread posts #4,5,6 you'll see that someone brought up that Iran had threatened to nuke Israel in the past. In that context, the response was that someone (the implication being Israel) would nuke Mecca or other Islamic targets in reponse. I agree with the logic in post #6, although perhaps something which calls itself "Islam" but is radically differenet would continue on.

Of course, should Israel be attacked on such a scale, a massive retaliation is absolutely justified, I didn't doubt that. I just did not see #6 in line with #4 or #5.

#65: Alf

Absolutely. But Iran and North Korea need to understand that though we (US) don't have the desire to use nukes, we have the will.

I agree, the big stick thing again.

OT: something to distract the heated minds: Which OS are you?

#69 Wild Justice:

That was the whole enchilada. You have to realize that the Manhattan Project was a crash program; nobody even knew if the "Fat Man" Plutonium bomb would function, which is why they tested the first one in New Mexico. (Little Boy used a different mechanism (and Uranium instead of Plutonium) to do its thing.

The chief problem the Manhattan Project had was getting enough pure U-235, which is only a tiny fraction of natural Uranium (most is U-238) and creating enough pure Pu-239 in a breeder pile. They only had enough material for three bombs. More was coming, but there would have been a long delay before another bomb could have been ready for use.

But then I could be wrong. Unlike Robert Crawford, I can not predict the future.

Pardon me, "inadeepsleep", but did I happen to piss in your Cheerios this morning? Let me know, because if I did, I'll try to aim for your face next time.

BH and Militant Elvis:

Both of you have done quite well putting your remarks into context. Would it have killed you to do so in your first posts?

#62 Wild J

I used Japan as an example because it's the only country we nuked.

Here's something that I know about WWII history:

During the end, when Japan was getting desperate, Kamikaze pilots were recruited from the upper class of Japan's civilian population. Japanese college students enlisted to become suicide bombers because the idea of dying for the emperor as a noble death was valid in the minds of many Japanese. After we dropped 2 nukes on them all that nonsense stopped. No more Kamikaze suicide bombers. (Yes, we fired bombed the hell out of their cities, which was a tactic that we had learned from the Nazis who had fire bombed the hell out of Great Britain, but it was the nukes that convinced the Japanese that their annihilation wasn't such a good idea.)

So how does nuking any Islamic state end Islam? Ending Islam isn't the problem. Ending Islamic Fascism is the problem. A couple of nukings would convince Islamic leaders that true peace is a better alternative to contining to send suicide murders (martyrs) to kill infidels in the name of Islam.

Anyways, the US will never take nukes off the table if Islamic Fascism and terrorism truly threatens our existence or way of life.

Nagoya was the primary, not Kyoto. Kyoto was off limits to all bombing because it was the cultural capital of Japan, Shinto holy city and so forth...

We had one more bomb to use after Nagasaki, another Fat Man, but they surrendered before it was used. If they used the third one, it would have been spring/summer of '46 before we had more ready. It took a while to make Plutonium and enriched U-235.

I highly recommend Richard Rhodes books on the making of the atomic bomb, and the making of the H bomb. Fascinating reading...

I have had a Muslim tell me that Allah would never allow Mecca & the Qua'ba to be destroyed.

It would almost be worth it to show him up. Almost.

Hey, if they did nuke the USA, Mecca's gonna be at the top of my counterstrike list.

#71 Mollbot

In this context, I don't think anyone was talking about tactical nukes or the latest smart bombs. We were talking about nukes specifically intended to wipe out the populace over as wide an area as possible.

#77 Mollbot

Thanks for the scoop. Dunno if you ever read Bob Greene's book, "Duty" which deals at length with Paul Tibbets -- pilot of the Enola Gay (named after his mother, if my memory serves me right). Great book. Every schoolkid should read it.

#78 Robert Crawford

No, I only put Coca-Cola on my Cheerios. You do seem to have a winning way about you though. I don't think the problem lies with people not putting their posts in context so much, as you leaping to conclusions and mistating what they said. Intemixed liberally with gratuitous insults.

#80 Cowboy Engineer:

Thanks for correcting me, I feel stupid now. Should have remembered Nagoya... but I don't recall reading about a third Fat Man. Do you have a link to anything about that? Id' be really interested if you do.

#82 inadeepsleep:

I suppose you're right about that.

stop talking nonsense, america is the only one that can use the atom bomb. so dont go there.
what is sharon really up to?

#85 Mollbot
#80 Cowboy Engineer

You guys puzzle it out; I'm heading home for the night. (I too was under the impression that Kyoto was off the table.)

OT, but does anybody have more information concerning this issue?

China-Israel ties worry US

One element of the diplomatic crisis that erupted between Washington and Beijing this spring, after a US surveillance aircraft narrowly survived a close encounter with a Chinese warplane, went almost unnoticed in the drama surrounding the fate of the American crew.

Photographs released by the Pentagon of two Chinese jets that had shadowed the EP-3E Aries II on April 1 showed they were armed with Israeli-made Python air-to-air missiles. It was the first public proof of what had for years been an open secret in the defence community – that Israel is a supplier of sophisticated modern weaponry to the Chinese military.

This unlikely relationship has been a persistent cause of friction in the otherwise close US-Israeli relationship over the years. China’s relationship with Israel has existed for 20 years and long predates the opening of diplomatic relations between the two countries and Israel’s readiness to supply the Chinese with sophisticated weaponry – some of it developed in co-operation with the US – is something that increasingly concerns Washington.

What worries US strategic planners is that, as a consequence of these apparently warm ties, high-technology weaponry that leaks from Israel to China could, in turn, find its way to what the US regards as rogue states in the Middle East.

It sounds interesting, it appears as if Israel is looking far into the future?

Alf,

Ending Islamic Fascism is the problem.

Agreed.

A couple of nukings would convince Islamic leaders that true peace is a better alternative to contining to send suicide murders (martyrs) to kill infidels in the name of Islam.

That's logical. But is our foe logical?

(OK, I gotta scamper off home.)

Radian Mini nukes do not refer to the size of the weapon it refers to the yeild of the weapon. The mininukes would be used like the bunker buster. The BB has a maximum depth of 14 ft or something in that range. The mii nuke would have a burrowing mechanism that would take the nuke further down leaving less fallout and causing greater havoc below ground in the bunkers.

Mollbot, Wild Justice, Cowboy Engineer,

The Manhattan Project produced three bombs. One was tested in the desert, two were deployed in Japan. We had no more bombs after Nagasaki and were essentially bluffing after Nagasaki. It worked brilliantly as the Japanese understood that we could destroy their cities at almost no cost to ourselves.

A bit of random trivia about the initial test of the first nuclear device: The scientists at the time thought that it was possible that it would set off a chain reaction in the oxygen in the atmosphere, destroying all of the oxygen in the world. They went ahead with the test since they figured it was unlikely.

Also, in 1943 or so, one of the other big projects was called the "bat bomb". The idea was loading canisters on napalm on bats, which would be able to spread a great deal of fire over the Japanese fire-prone cities using a limited number of bombs. The main guy behind the bat bomb had a great quote where he wondered what those other guys were doing "messing around with the atom". Needless to say, his idea never worked.

No, I only put Coca-Cola on my Cheerios. You do seem to have a winning way about you though.

Hey, I try. Especially when I run into a prize specimen such as yourself.

I don't think the problem lies with people not putting their posts in context so much, as you leaping to conclusions and mistating what they said. Intemixed liberally with gratuitous insults.

There you go with the "mistating" crap. I did no such thing. How the fuck is it "leaping to conclusions" to think that a post that starts with "One nuke on mecca[sic]" is talking about nuking Mecca? Or that one that ends with "Islam will fall" is talking about the fall of Islam?

And what about your comment in #33, where you agree that "One nuke on mecca[sic] is all it takes to wipe out
Islam"?

You were so absolutely insistent on picking a fight with me you agreed to something that's utterly, utterly stupid.

#91 Ariel:

I knew that Fermi brought up the possibility of igniting the Oxygen in the atmosphere just before the Trinity test. Also I looked into it and I think you're right, I can't find anything mentioning an extra bomb, and I'm certain I learned that there were only 3 produced initially. Also, I was wrong, the first test wasn't in White Sands, I guess it was near Alamogordo, NM.

I also remember reading somewhere about the bat project... kind of funny.

#92 Robert Crawford

Of course, the topic is nuking Mecca. That is not to say they were advocating it. Maybe you should reread your 1st post, which contains the phrase "nuke Mecca morons," and all of your other uncalled for slurs for that matter, and ask yourself who was picking a fight?

#77 Not that long...

I think then next bomb could have neen ready in 3-4 months...still a long time, granted. I guess it just depends on what you mean by a long time. ;-)

#90 you need to be 250 feet deep minimum to prevent all radiation from escaping an underground test. The best we can do now is about 30 feet.

Note that a ground burst produces much more fallout (and counterintuitively, causes worse ground damage) than an air burst.

Perhaps Israel should leak, then deny, that if nuked, it would respond by nuking Paris and Riyadh.
And then whatever country was actually directly responisble

#96 Mark,

Note that a ground burst produces much more fallout (and counterintuitively, causes worse ground damage) than an air burst.

Can you explain that? I understand the part about ground damage, but not that about fallout. To my understanding, weather can be a major factor with any detonation. An air burst with the presence of any wind seems like it would allow better distribution conditions for fallout.

#98 ( and I'm sure Mark will correct my ignorances)

I thought a ground burst causes more fallout than an airburst because: Like the video we've all see of the house getting hit by a bomb shockwave, first the bomb explodes outward, gobbles up the available oxygen , and then creates a vacuum, sucking air in and up the mushroom so it spreads the radioactive debris high in to the atmosphere. I would assume that an airburst is a 'downward' force only. But that's just the guess of a guy who never even took calculus let alone studied nuclear bomb mechanics..was I close, Mark?

Hmmm...let's see.

(1) Powerful Iranian says we want atomic power to produce electricity only.

(2) Powerful Iranian says we want to develop the "mighty mite" to blast the fucking Jews off the face of the Earth.

The UN will agree with (1) and blame (2) on a few impotent fringies whose inert hyperbole shouldn't hold back the welfare of an entire nation.

In the end, Iran will get nuclear plants after signing an agreement to use their powers for good. Everyone will be happy and wonder why Israel is still kvetching.

re WWII bombing trivia:

[Link: nuketesting.enviroweb.org...] - has a good background on the events and after effects. BTW - Kokura was the primary target of the Nagasaki raid, not Kyoto, which military planners deemed was too sensitive and historically important (not to mention not a particularly militarily significant site). Also, when Bockscar was on its mission, it made three attempts to drop at Kokura but couldn't make a visual run because of 7/10 obscured field of vision.

#99 a ground burst will create more fallout as the radioactive particles bind with the churned up ground.

Both of the Japanese bomb blasts were not ground bursts, but took place over 1,840 feet in the air at Nagasaki.

#98 and 99

The most destructive bursts in terms of radioactivity is a shallow underwater burst. Basically, the more physical material the weapon itself is in contact with, the more it blows into the the atmosphere. The Baker test in 1946 was much worse than the Able shot, with he only difference was the one was subsurface and one was airburst.

The larger amount of damage is caused by the air shockwave effect near the ground when the shockwave travels out at 90 degrees to the ground...think expanding sphere...

As far as additional weapons are concerned, [Link: nuketesting.enviroweb.org...] , suggests that Oppie had asked Gen. Groves to alter the design of Little Boy to make up to four implosion devices from Little Boy's pit.

Production estimates given to Sec. Stimson in July 1945 projected a second plutonium bomb would be ready by Aug. 24, that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December. Improvements in bomb design being prepared at the end of the war would have permitted one bomb to be produced for every 5 kg of plutonium or 12 kg of uranium in output. These improvements were apparently taken into account in this estimate. Assuming these bomb improvements were used, the October capacity would have permitted up to 6 bombs a month. Note that with the peak monthly plutonium and HEU production figures (19.4 kg and 69 kg respectively), production of close to 10 bombs a month was possible.

#102, Mark-

The most destructive bursts in terms of radioactivity is a shallow underwater burst.

did we (US) ever perform tests on shallow underwater bursts? It's all the water that gets launched as fallout?
Interesting.
( and amazing how a thread evolves and morphs like this one.!)

One of the most famous photos of an atomic explosion was the Crossroads test - which was designed to see how naval vessels handled nuclear explosions nearby. It included dozens of ships, including an aircraft carrier (i think it was the Saratoga) and submarines and everything in between. It churned up the entire water and cratered the lagoon where the shot was.

Useless trivia time. The first nuke, Trinity, was bet against working. They actually made a giant steel container to contain the HE portion of the bomb so they could save the fissionables. They didn't use it though. The glass made from the blast is all gone now, people took it for souvenirs.

On a side note, the altitude ranging antennas on both Fatman and Littleboy were made in Japan.

We tested underwater shots at the pacific proving grounds and later fielded the SUBROC. This is the one of the weapon the navy "neither confirmed or denied" on its ships.

[Link: nuketesting.enviroweb.org...]

Facanating list of all the publicly acknowledged warhead designs. Note the designs for hard targets and 1 - 80 kt range.

Nuclear weapons IMHO should never be deployed by the us in first strike or sub tactical roles. There should be no diminishing of the response, you use it first you ALL die. If there is a need to use a nuke against a hard target fallout and civilian death should be an accepted result.

lawhawk (#105)--There's footage of the Crossroads explosion (and much more) in "Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie." I've got it on DVD and, believe me, it's well worth the 22 bucks.

Rafsanjani is thinking like a "westerner" if he believes just Iran would be nuked. The dimension wopuldn't just be nations but a religion. All the Islamic enemies will go and I would be cheering.

There is a lot of nuclear googling, but ...

Sorry Mark, you seem to be the poster with the data, but not always feeding the good dope in.

Note that a ground burst produces much more fallout (and counterintuitively, causes worse ground damage) than an air burst.

There is nothing counterintuitive about a bomb buried in the ground causing "worse ground damage" than an airburst. Becuse the premise is wrong. Given that, semantics aside, the a 1 MT thermouclear weapon stuck 100 feet in the ground will create a splendid crater and lots of fallout, but the 3,000 foot airburst will cause far more ground destruction, deaths because of it's radius of influence. But all other nuke bomb characteristics being equal, a groundburst will cause more fallout.

The most destructive bursts in terms of radioactivity is a shallow underwater burst. Basically, the more physical material the weapon itself is in contact with, the more it blows into the the atmosphere.

Yes and no. The radionuclide inventory released is largely a function of the bomb itself...not where it is set off. A two nuke bombs of identical nature release identical amounts of prompt radiation. The same bombs are slightly different in radioactivity release if neutron activation occurs in ground substances close to the bomb, but this is a minor effect. But a ground burst is dirtier than an airburst because vaporized or blown to dust elements on the ground are latched onto by the fission fragments (highly radioactive elements) and neutron activation products which preponderately are internal bomb components. High airburst bombs disperse fallout broadly enough in the stratosphere that it reduces net health effect. A groundburst is more severe, but only because the same radioactivity per bomb is more localized where health effects are immediate.

A groundburst inside a cobalt mine is worse than a pure groundburst, a sub-sea bomb is worse than an airburst, and a bomb set off in deep space is the least worse...duuh!.

You are correct in depicting the blast as spherical. Livermore has a few "directed energy" designs, but they mostly involve secondary bomb effects, like X-rays. Because of the spherical critical mass nature of the fission chain reaction that starts any nuke bomb, the blast is inherently spherical. Though a few designs attempt to direct the secondary fusion energy release.

#111 Wonderful. Every child should know.

This is kind of a late reply, but the shockwave does more damage when the bomb is set on the surface. The shockwave is much stronger and causes greatly increased damage. ...I remember seeing footage of ground effects tests where large vehicles were thrown about with much greater force at equivalent distances from gd zero, with the only difference the height of the burst...500 feet vs 1500 ft.

Conceptually, I could see how this might reduce the area of blast effect (by reducing the radius of the blast radius), but the difference in damage was remarkable. The near surface burst was so much more destructive that vehicles which in the first test that went completely unharmed were thrown about like toys...

As far as underground tests...I believe that underground tests are only 300- 500 feet down...and it is unfeasable to build a penetrating warhead that can go that far underground.