That's what I said: "details, details! who needs those details? The place we hit is radioactive, what more do you need to know?" --Frank ======================================================== --- In NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Robert Knight" <theknightreport@...> wrote: > > The *"frame Iran with a tactical nuclear weapon" *scenario is sufficiently > implausible as to to deter the Bush administration from accepting even > Israel's urging for such an attack on Iran's Natanz nuclear energy > development site. > > A US first launch of nuclear weapons would arouse such global opprobtium and > protest that professional military officials would be strongly opposed to > crossing that Rubicon. > > Moreover, as others here have amply intimated, such an attack would likely > be ineffective in (1) breaching Natanz' hardened subterranean walls, and (2) > "framing" Iran with the claim that the residual fallout was from a reactor, > rather than an American nuclear weapon such as the B61-11s currently in the > US stockpile. > > Here's why: > > (1) The laws of conservation of momentum limit so-called "penetrator" > weapons to a maximum depth of ~100 feet before impact threatens to > prematurely destroy the nuclear warhead contained within the delivery shell. > As a result, such an imagined attack would likely be ineffective in > destroying the target; and the effective detonation depth would inevitably > release its telltale fallout into the atmosphere, where the IAEA, and > innumerable official and private nuclear researchers in the region would > pounce on the evidence of the airborne fallout plume. > > (2) The fallout signature of the tactical nuke would be profoundly different > from Iran's Uranium fuel designed for subcritical reactor fission rather > than a nuclear explosion. Nuclear weapon isotope signatures would contauin a > much higher proportion of short-half-life isotopes peculiar to the > detonation. The neutron flux and other artefacts would easily identify the > bomb fallout for what it is. > > *In summary, it's not that the Bush administration is insufficiently evil to > enact the suggested scenario. It's that they are insufficiently stupid to do > so*. > > Those seeking a scientific assessment of the scenario may benefit from > perusing: > > "Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons" By Robert W. Nelson > http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm > > Wikipedia's "Nuclear Fallout" > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout > > and > > "B61-11 Earth-Penetrating Weapon" > http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61-11.htm > > *-Robert Knight* > > > On 11/26/07, F. Frank Le Fever, Ph.D. <fflefever@...> wrote: > > > > Bush would say--"details, details! who needs those > > details? The place we hit is radioactive, what more do you > > need to know?" > > > > --Frank > > > > ============================================== >