Holy Kim-Chee! [Archive] - The Explosives and Weapons Forum

megalomania

October 12th, 2006, 02:11 PM

Can anyone really be trusted with atomic weaponry? Idealistically the United States leads the world with “truth, justice, and all that stuff” (to quote the foreign friendly bastardization of the new Superman movie), but in the real world ideology works best in the ivory tower. There are good people in the US government, but it is a powerful government, and wielding such power can corrupt even the strongest ideology.

I have always seen the US government as a tug of war between doing what is “right” and what is “best.” Democrats, Republicans, partisan politics; they tug the country in different directions, and sometimes neither ideology wins.

Here is an example for you. Lets say you are being mugged by an attacker. You are being physically beaten, but your life is not in jeopardy, just a good pummeling. You are armed with a handgun, but your training requires you to pull the trigger and kill your attacker. Do you hesitate knowing you will survive the beating, and not wishing to take a life, or do you react to your situation and kill your assailant without considering the implications of taking another human life? Thus is an analogy for atomic weaponry: Under what circumstances is it warranted to use such weapons, and what kind of person do you want making that decision? Some would kill at the slightest provocation, others may never kill even if it means their own death.

Corona

October 12th, 2006, 02:44 PM

"There are two kinds of evil people..... one who does the evil, the other, who lets evil be done to him/her".

Touch me and die. :)

At the very least, one should try one's best to poke the other guy's eye out. Point is, one should leave a mark.

Same with nukes. The threat should be there in the attacker's mind....that everything can change in a second.

As an Asian, I have to congratulate N.Korea on what they did. Well done, chaps.

Jacks Complete

October 12th, 2006, 04:22 PM

I have to agree with Corona. North Korea is the guy taking a pummelling, or at least being shoved a lot in the halls, who knows he is going to get a pummelling. Having seen what happened to Saddam, Kim knows well that the slap might be fast and deadly to him, so he is going to Karate classes every day, and he just got his first BP homemade pistol working, kind of.

One day, he might have to shove it into the guts of his attackers and pull the trigger, and fizzle or not, it will do some damage. He'll still get killed, but he will have made his mark. Or, the bullies stop hitting him, and never go beyond shoving in the halls, for fear of a Columbine.

cutefix

October 12th, 2006, 04:43 PM

Kim may have realized that its more honorable and his ancestors will have high regards for him if he die fighting the 'bully'....than to be humiliated like Sadam...

That is a fact that America should recognize, ...that you can't bully just anybody to submission...

nbk2000

October 12th, 2006, 07:34 PM

I'm sure that 'Dear Leader' would have no problems with getting asylum in china if he nuked Tokyo during the next korean war, seeing as how the japs and chinks hate each other so much.

NK would be destroyed, of course, and he'd be in exile, but China wouldn't give him up because he'd be a hero of the Communists for striking against the western imperialists running dogs of Japan, and Japan doesn't have the strength to take him by force from nuclear-armed China.

Though the chinks may give him up if sufficient gain was to be made by the concession, like technology transfers from Japan.

Jacks Complete

October 12th, 2006, 08:38 PM

Not sure what the Chinese would need desperately off the Japanese that Clinton and Bush haven't already freely given them!

If the Chinese wanted that level of tech. they would do better to go take over Singapore. (They might get rescued by the US, but UK forces wouldn't go, as there is a 1 year sentence and £5,500 fine for bring chewing gum into the country, so anyone carrying the standard UK RAT packs would be in trouble!)

Having said that, the Jap.s are totally defenceless. After invasion, they would have no caches of firearms and no-one who knew how to use them even if they were air dropped in. They would have some great swords, though, so would still be better off than Scotland.

Hirudinea

October 12th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Cut Kim into small pieces and stir fry him in peanut oil with garlic shallots , hot chilis, five spice powder , chopped tomatoes, pour some meat stock then stir in some fresh noodles. Sprinkle with chopped scallions,...serve hot!

As much as I love eating Korean even I have to draw the line somewhere.

When absolute oppressors like USA have nukes, why should North Korea be restrained from having?

Because the chances of the U.S nuking anyone are far more remote than North Koreas.

Touch me and die.

Same with nukes. The threat should be there in the attacker's mind....that everything can change in a second.

North Korea is the guy taking a pummelling, or at least being shoved a lot in the halls, who knows he is going to get a pummelling.

Kim may have realized that its more honorable and his ancestors will have high regards for him if he die fighting the 'bully'....than to be humiliated like Sadam...

That is a fact that America should recognize, ...that you can't bully just anybody to submission...

But that makes no sense, The Bouffant Midget already has the 4th largest army in the world (they're the ones who get all the food), chemical and biological weapons, missiles that can reach all of Korea and most or Japan and enough artillery to wipe Soeul (and about 20,000 U.S. troops) off the map in an afternoon, he can threaten many young Americans and a good portion of U.S. High Tech supplies (Sony, Panisonic, LG to name a few), he didn't need a nuke just to threaten the U.S., this seems more like a bid dick thing, but this bid dick with this big dick worries me.

Though the chinks may give him up if sufficient gain was to be made by the concession, like technology transfers from Japan.

Considering how much cheap Chinese crap the U.S. buys if a post Korean War II Kim sought refuge in China the mere threat of an economic boycott would make them pack him up in bubblewrap and express ship him right over. (Hell a boycott by WalMart alone could do it!)

simply RED

October 13th, 2006, 08:11 AM

Because the chances of the U.S nuking anyone are far more remote ....

Indeed remote, they can be traced back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Jacks Complete

October 13th, 2006, 09:01 AM

The US pretty much couldn't boycott China, it would bankrupt the US in a few weeks, whilst China simply sold to the rest of the world like normal. This may or may not trigger the 3rd world war.

Because the chances of the U.S nuking anyone are far more remote than North Koreas.Was that sarcasm? It was the US who came closest to throwing nukes during the cold war, and it is the US who throw military weight around, everywhere they feel they want to go.

I'll wager that the first nuke to be thrown will be by a country that the US has invaded or is invading. This is why the US is desperate to get anti-ballistic defence for itself, so it can throw its weight around everywhere, not just at the smaller countries.
France should probably be worried, the way Bush whipped up hatred of them like he did. If they didn't have nukes, they would have an English speaking ruler right now, due to (US) public opinion alone!

cutefix

October 13th, 2006, 06:41 PM

Hirudena wrote

Quote:
Cut Kim into small pieces and stir fry him in peanut oil with garlic shallots , hot chilis, five spice powder , chopped tomatoes, pour some meat stock then stir in some fresh noodles. Sprinkle with chopped scallions,...serve hot!

As much as I love eating Korean even I have to draw the line somewhere.

That statement about cooking Kim was not to be taken seriously....but to put some humor to his character... ;)

Nihilist

October 13th, 2006, 08:44 PM

Indeed remote, they can be traced back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Let's rephrase. The chances of the U.S. nuking anybody that anyone with power gives a shit about(e.g. non-sandy, white, western hemisphere countries) is very remote.

Hirudinea

October 13th, 2006, 09:09 PM

Because the chances of the U.S nuking anyone are far more remote ....

Indeed remote, they can be traced back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Well considering that those two bombs probably saved hundereds of thousands of Allied Soldiers and Japanese civilians by ending the war early I'ed say we should be thankful the U.S. used nukes then.

The US pretty much couldn't boycott China, it would bankrupt the US in a few weeks, whilst China simply sold to the rest of the world like normal.

Well its rather like playing poker, whos bluffing, who will call and who will fold? Would China protect Kim after a Korean War and U.S. threats of a trade war, even if they were sure the U.S. were bluffing, I mean is Kim really worth even a a lost shipment of fortune cookies to China as compared to continued good relations with the U.S.?

Was that sarcasm? It was the US who came closest to throwing nukes during the cold war, and it is the US who throw military weight around, everywhere they feel they want to go.

Really? I always thought that the U.S. was held back by the Russians and visa versa?

This is why the US is desperate to get anti-ballistic defence for itself, so it can throw its weight around everywhere, not just at the smaller countries.

Or because loonies keep developing nukes and long range missiles, gee, which could it be?

France should probably be worried, the way Bush whipped up hatred of them like he did. If they didn't have nukes, they would have an English speaking ruler right now, due to (US) public opinion alone!

Oh I don't know about that, at the begining of 1940 the French had the second largest, best equiped, supplied and most modern Army in Europe and at the end of 1940 they had a German speaking ruler. :D (Why, oh why, did we English speaking people ever bother to change that?)

Let's rephrase. The chances of the U.S. nuking anybody that anyone with power gives a shit about(e.g. non-sandy, white, western hemisphere countries) is very remote.

No I think anyone, the U.S. is not the source of all evil, no matter what the world media says.

That statement about cooking Kim was not to be taken seriously....but to put some humor to his character...

Yea I know but I just love Korean Barbeque and it so rarely comes up in conversation. :p

Nihilist

October 14th, 2006, 08:57 AM

No I think anyone, the U.S. is not the source of all evil, no matter what the world media says.

Human nature is the source of all evil. Power and free time facilitate human nature's influence. Therefore the humans with the most power and free time on their hands(U.S.) will be the most evil. With other wealthy european countries following closely on our heels.

If I were China, NK, Iran, etc...I would have significant fears of a nuclear attack from the U.S. Granted, it doesn't seem to be the most likely route the U.S. would take, but it is one that they all have to consider just as we have to consider the possibility that NK might nuke us, even though in all likelihood, they won't.

cutefix

October 14th, 2006, 05:51 PM

Therefore the humans with the most power and free time on their hands(U.S.) will be the most evil. With other wealthy european countries following closely on our heels.

America
Being considered the 'policeman of the world' had its own disadvantage....:p

Hirudinea

October 14th, 2006, 10:36 PM

Human nature is the source of all evil. Power and free time facilitate human nature's influence. Therefore the humans with the most power and free time on their hands(U.S.) will be the most evil. With other wealthy european countries following closely on our heels.

Lots of things produce evil, I find that one of the greatest producers of evil is envy, like the kind many people seem to have towards the success of the west in general and the U.S. in perticular, on the one hand people want to share this wealth, but on the other they dispise those who have it, which is why it seems every little boy in the middle east wants, at the same time, to kill all American Infidels and move to Topeka and open a Falafel stand. I worry about envy produced evil much more than boredom produced evil.

If I were China, NK, Iran, etc...I would have significant fears of a nuclear attack from the U.S. Granted, it doesn't seem to be the most likely route the U.S. would take, but it is one that they all have to consider just as we have to consider the possibility that NK might nuke us, even though in all likelihood, they won't.

Except for China the U.S. would never attack any of those nations with nukes, the bad relations it would engender worldwide would be far more trouble than it would be worth, unless they attacked with nukes first, thats why the U.S. has conventional forces after all.

America Being considered the 'policeman of the world' had its own disadvantage....

Sure its far from ideal but far better that it's America than China or some crazy ass Muslim Bunch!

Nihilist

October 14th, 2006, 11:03 PM

Lots of things produce evil, I find that one of the greatest producers of evil is envy, like the kind many people seem to have towards the success of the west in general and the U.S. in perticular, on the one hand people want to share this wealth, but on the other they dispise those who have it, which is why it seems every little boy in the middle east wants, at the same time, to kill all American Infidels and move to Topeka and open a Falafel stand. I worry about envy produced evil much more than boredom produced evil.

Envy is a facet of human nature. But, to even discuss evil, it needs to be defined. And the only really valid definition that I can come up with is philosophical inconsistency.

Except for China the U.S. would never attack any of those nations with nukes, the bad relations it would engender worldwide would be far more trouble than it would be worth, unless they attacked with nukes first, thats why the U.S. has conventional forces after all.

I think the probability of NK nuking one if its enemies is just about as good as the probability of the U.S. nuking one of their enemies.

nbk2000

October 15th, 2006, 08:39 AM

Underestimation is a danger when dealing with foreign cultures.

Perhaps the West is thinking that the Norks had a fizzle yield on a Hiroshima sized bomb design, when, in fact, they succeeded in making the very thing they were after...an fission igniter for a fusion bomb. :eek:

You don't need multi-kiloton yields for your fission (A-) bomb if you keep your fusion (H-) bomb design under 300KT yeild.

The hardest part of all nuclear weapons designs has been aquiring the fissionables. Once you have that (like the Norks do) everything else is just basic engineering, even for small H- bombs, the design principles of which has been known for decades.

Hirudinea

October 15th, 2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:
Except for China the U.S. would never attack any of those nations with nukes, the bad relations it would engender worldwide would be far more trouble than it would be worth, unless they attacked with nukes first, thats why the U.S. has conventional forces after all.

I think the probability of NK nuking one if its enemies is just about as good as the probability of the U.S. nuking one of their enemies.

I disagree, putting aside the fact that I believe the U.S. has a morality to it which Kim Il Sung (who is in fact the North Korean Government) does not. Firstly the U.S. wouldn't use nukes except in extreme cases because they are very invloved with the world, and they have to pay attention to world opinion, you can get away with alot on the world stage, even invading another country, but the world would not stand for the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. unless they were, at least, nukes first. North Korea is the most isolated nation on earth, they don't care what the world thinks, and if they think that using a nuclear weapon, for any reason, is what they want, they will do it, and damn world opinion. Secondly you have to look at the range of response the U.S. vs the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea, now theres a joke!) have, the U.S. can put anything from a single soilder to an army supported with an aircraft carrier fleet anywhere in the world, the North Koreans couldn't put a soldier anywhere outside of their territory without starting a war, they have no airforce (to speak of), no navy (except a few rusted out soviet diesel subs and some mini spy subs) and they aren't going to invade China so they're stuck, all they have is Missiles, which without a nuclear payload are a annoynace at most (just ask Saddam). The fact is if North Korea wants to attack America in any signifigant way (or Japan) they have no choice but nukes (or mabye Chemical or Biological, but if you have nukes why not go all out?) If your armed with a baton, pepper spray, a taser and a gun you can tailor your level of force to the situation (like the U.S.) but if you only have a gun when the shit hits the fan (or you just get pissed off) you start blasting (eg. Krazy Kim and his Nukes.)

Underestimation is a danger when dealing with foreign cultures.

Perhaps the West is thinking that the Norks had a fizzle yield on a Hiroshima sized bomb design, when, in fact, they succeeded in making the very thing they were after...an fission igniter for a fusion bomb.

Could be, making an implosion design is the hard, but it is the best design, so why shoot off a biggun when a small one will prove the concept and leave the world in the dark as to your true ability.

The hardest part of all nuclear weapons designs has been aquiring the fissionables.

Well they have the Uranium in the ground and they got the centrifuges from Pakistan (A.Q.Khan, Bomb Maker to the Stars!)

The hardest part of all nuclear weapons designs has been aquiring the fissionables. Once you have that (like the Norks do) everything else is just basic engineering, even for small H- bombs, the design principles of which has been known for decades.

So whats the payload of a Taepo Dong and how big is a first generation Hydrogen Bomb?

Corona

October 16th, 2006, 02:07 AM

If Kim tested a Plutonium fueled weapon, that technology didn't come from AQ Khan.

How big is a first generation H-bomb? Much bigger than what a Taepo Dong or Ding-Dong of any kind can carry.

nbk2000

October 16th, 2006, 06:43 AM

I was incorrect in using the term H-Bomb.

A more accurate term would be "Fusion Boosted Fission"

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq4-3.html

TreverSlyFox

October 16th, 2006, 08:04 AM

Hirudinea,

Couldn't find any stats for a First generation H-Bomb, but here are some stats on the current W-88/Mk-5 Warhead used in the Trident II (D5) SLBM.

YIELD: 475 Kt

WEIGHT: <800 Lbs

LENGTH: 68.9 In

BASE DIAMETER: 21.8 In

Design Features
Two stage radiation implosion weapon.
RV CEP (circle error probability) is 300-400 feet

The basing mode of the W88 led to the adoption of lower criteria for warhead hardening and fire safety than the W-87 and thus lower weight. The reliance on stealth, and the absence of basing mode hardness (compared to fixed silos) reduced the need for shock hardening. The necessary compactness of the submarine carried Trident II, led to a design where the RVs are 'wrapped around' a high energy propellant upper stage. This in turn made a high degree of warhead fire safety pointless. The warhead thus uses a non-insensitive higher power explosive, and omits refractory insulation. The pit is not fire-resistant.

In the fall of 1990 Congress directed that a study be done on W-88 safety due to the use on non-insensitive high explosive. In December the study committee that redesigning the Trident II/W-88 system to use lower energy upper stage propellant, IHE, and a fire resistant pit, with reduced warhead loading (required under START in any case) would provide equal or superior performance and higher safety.

Materials
W88 warhead:
Contains oralloy (probably in second stage)
Uses PBX-9501 - an HMX-based plastic bonded explosive composition
Probable features:
Beryllium reflected plutonium fissile core for primary
Deuterium-tritium boosted
Lithium-6 (95% enrichment) deuteride fusion fuel

Mk-5 RV:
Alumium substructure, sheathed in graphite-epoxy composite
Carbon fiber fabric nose
Carbon fiber-phenolic resin heatshield

Delivery Method
Trident II (D-5) submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM).
Each OHIO Class SSBN (18) has 24 tubes, each missile has 8-W88 warheads for a total of 196 per SSBN with 12 on-station 24/7 with 7 in the Atlantic and 5 in the Pacific.

Safeguards and Arming Features
• Due to design of Trident II missile a high degree of warhead fire safety was deemed ineffective and not incorporated into design
• Magnetically coupled strong-link safety

Fuzing and Delivery Mode
Fuzing options probably the same as the W87
Radiation hardened microprocessor based "smart" fuzing system with:
• RUPL (radar-updated path length) error compensation (adjusts fuzing to minimize effect of delivery inaccuracy)
• Force-balance integrating accelerometer (FBIA)
• All solid-state radar provides airburst and proximity fuzing (the first RV with this feature)
• Contact fuze
• Plasmatron firing device

cutefix

October 16th, 2006, 11:44 PM

IHI or insensiive high explosive .....?Uses PBX-9501 - an HMX-based plastic bonded explosive composition

HMX based PBXs are not considered as serious IHE. knowing that its just 95%HMX and 2.5 estane. 5703 and 2.5 plasticizer...

Heated PBX 9501 is more shock sensitive,...
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/323933.pdf
and knowing that there is not much insulation around the warhead that is within the vicinity of the higher stage rocket propulsion of the missile or guaranteed of being protected sufficiently by the ablative shield during the reentry....there is greater risk that the PBX 9501 may not perform perfectly to initiate the nuclear explosive..
Its hard to know whether it will live to its expected performance as there was never any actual test done with such warhead assembly but only simulated tests....
Its predecessors another shock and heat sensiitive HMX based PBX called PBX 9404 was responsible for some nuclear weapons related deadly accidents ...starting in weapons assembly, transport and even storage and PANTEX, LA and LANL had some records on it.

A true IHE is the
.....TATB based PBXs are such as the PBX 9502....:cool:

nbk2000

October 17th, 2006, 02:02 AM

Gen.1 H-Bombs used liquified dueterium/tritium gas, which meant cryogenic temperatures and bulky refrigeration equipment weighing many tons.

It didn't become a practical weapon until the discovery of dry fuels like Li-6.

cutefix

October 17th, 2006, 09:22 PM

Lithium deuteride IIRC was already present in the Mike tests in Bikini Atoll? which was still initiated with composition B type HE( or precisely cyclotol 75/25 RDX/TNT)...

I heard the latest NK test were considered a fiss as the yields was much lesser than expected....

Takes time for novice to learn the secrets of proper nuclear detonation no matter how competent were their tutors, (Pakistan)

Corona

October 18th, 2006, 01:21 AM

I don't think it was because the Nork's (I love that word... Nork) are novices... I think they are trying very hard to save their small amount of fissile material while still trying to make a statement.

Or, then again, maybe you're right. They probably made a small basic gun-type nuke.

South Africa had 6 or 7 gun-type nukes.... what they described as "something that can be kicked out the back of a plane".... if they had learnt the trick of using spherical implosion lenses (which they were about to do).... the fuel used in those 6 bombs would've been enough for 20 nukes. And if they could've boosted them with Tritium..... the yield would've gone up 5 times.

Pakistan had 2 nuke projects going on simultaneously, competing with each other. AQ Khan's nukes lost and were never used by Pakistan. It is said, they were a copy of the first Chinese bomb from 1964.

Anyway, they were rejected. His stuff aren't the boosted weapons Pakistan deploys today. So what happened to AQ Khan's nuke designs that were never used? Did he give them to the Norks? If he did, then they should know, his designs were rejected by the Pakistani military.

As far as people know, he never gave bomb designs... he gave Centrifuge technology only. Which is actually worse.... making a bomb is easy... getting the fuel for it is damn hard. :) And it works with Uranium only, of course.

And if they had used our centrifuge technology properly, they shouldn't be short of fuel. So if indeed they are saving fuel, it seems AQ Khan took their money and didn't give them all the goodies (what he did with Libya). That would be just like him.... :p

Here is Pakistan's Tomahawk clone (able to carry a nuke). Norks can't dream of something like this and in such a small size. Not yet anyway.

http://www.pakistanidefence.com/Nuclear&Missiles/BaburCruiseMissile_info.htm

If you watch the video, the President blabs on in Urdu for a few minutes, but keep watching and you will see some neat animation of the flight characteristics of this thing.

Now, as long as the Norks don't have such things... they don't know how to make a warhead out of their nuke (much harder than making the nuke itself).. and their missiles aren't as advanced.... I don't think they are a threat to the US or Japan or anyone. They have only ensured a super defense, not an offense.

I don't think anyone has to be worried about these guys just yet.

Nihilist

October 18th, 2006, 03:35 AM

Maybe this should be in it's own thread...but I find the entire idea of nuclear non-proliferation somewhat ridiculous. It seems ultimately similar to drug prohibition in that no matter how hard you try, if someone wants the stuff and they've got the money, they'll get it. I'm not sure really what we should be doing instead of trying to prevent their spread, but the ultimate complete globalization of nuclear weapons seems practically inevitable.

nbk2000

October 18th, 2006, 08:46 AM

If the Norks can sneak into japan, kidnap kawaii schoolgirls, and bring them back to N.K. for Dear Leaders harem, than getting a nuke into Japan (or US) would be a snap, making any 'Star Wars' missile defense scheme moot. :) :p

And I like how the US is threatening the Norks with 'further isolation'. :rolleyes:

Like the fuckers aren't the Howard Hughes/UNABOMBER's of the world already? :confused: They couldn't care less what the rest of the world thinks of them. :D

Of course, if the Norks get really ambitious, they could search for existing lost nukes and use them as a basis for their own weapon design.

How about a Mark 15, Mod 0, with an approximate yield of 2 Megatons off the coast of Georgia? :D

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/09/13/lost.bomb/index.html

The Air Force report, released in April 2001, said it "concurs with expert conclusions that it is in the best interest of the public and the environment to leave the bomb in its resting place and [that it] remain categorized as irretrievably lost."

The report also estimated it would take as long as five years and cost $5 million to $11 million to recover the bomb.

That 5 year estimate is, no doubt, because of all the eco-freak shit they'd be forced to do, like enviromental impact studies, relocate the dolphins, and all that shit.

If you knew were it was, a dregger could probably scoop it up in a few days MAX.

And that's only 1 of dozens around the world. :D

The hard part is finding them.

But technology gets better every year.

I've often wondered about the feasibilty of a fairly rich person being able to recover a lost nuke of their own. Even if you can't get the thing to work as-is (not too likely after decades in the ocean), you probably could reprocess the fissionables to remove the decay products, as well as reverse-engineer the weapons design to build a duplicate weapon, or at least a simpler (funtional) weapon.

I mean, hell, what's $20-$30 million to recover the materials to build a hiroshima nuke? You'd spend many times that if you tried to build it from scratch, and still likely fail, like all those raghead states.

cutefix

October 18th, 2006, 10:18 PM

As far as people know, he never gave bomb designs... he gave Centrifuge technology only. Which is actually worse.... making a bomb is easy...

Easy....:?
Maybe if you have the facilities, the experience , the solid body of knowledge and the proper training.....
Experience is very important and that is what is lacking with the Nokors...They may have amassed basic practical recipe about bomb design and if they followed the directions to the letter then how come they were able to attain only a fiss? and wasted precious nuclear material?
Think about it the explosive yield of their first detonation is much lesser than expected

Hirudinea

October 19th, 2006, 12:49 AM

I don't think it was because the Nork's (I love that word... Nork) are novices...

Yes, Nork is quite inventive, combines Nor(th) and K(orea), sounds like Gook, rolls off the tounge and applies only to the people we don't like, who came up with that NBK? Somebody give him a medal, or at least a white sheet and a hood! :D

Or, then again, maybe you're right. They probably made a small basic gun-type nuke.

Well that is the simpliest type but I suspect that Bouffant Betty would like somthing to put him in the big leagues, and if his test was a fizzile, as the media is saying, that would tend to suggest that they were using implosion and got it wrong.

Now, as long as the Norks don't have such things... they don't know how to make a warhead out of their nuke (much harder than making the nuke itself).. and their missiles aren't as advanced.... I don't think they are a threat to the US or Japan or anyone. They have only ensured a super defense, not an offense.

I don't know, a No Dong has the range to hit Japan (and U.S. bases in S.Korea/Japan) and besides there are other ways to nuke somebody besides a missile.

If the Norks can sneak into japan, kidnap kawaii schoolgirls, and bring them back to N.K. for Dear Leaders harem, than getting a nuke into Japan (or US) would be a snap, making any 'Star Wars' missile defense scheme moot.

Yea what he said.

Here is Pakistan's Tomahawk clone (able to carry a nuke). Norks can't dream of something like this and in such a small size. Not yet anyway.

Well Pakistan did get their missile (Ghauri?) technology from North Korea, and we know where the Norks got some of their nuclear know how so it makes me wonder just how closely some parts of the Pakistani Military are working with the DPRK. (Oh by the way, thanks for the video link.)

Of course, if the Norks get really ambitious, they could search for existing lost nukes and use them as a basis for their own weapon design.

How about a Mark 15, Mod 0, with an approximate yield of 2 Megatons off the coast of Georgia?

No way, in Georgia they shoot you if you go on somebodies lawn, try digging up their nuke and your in deep doo-doo! And besides don't you think somebody would notice a bunch of Norks dredging off the Gerogia coast?

And I like how the US is threatening the Norks with 'further isolation'.

Yea, thats like threatening a masochist with a beating.

I've often wondered about the feasibilty of a fairly rich person being able to recover a lost nuke of their own. Even if you can't get the thing to work as-is (not too likely after decades in the ocean), you probably could reprocess the fissionables to remove the decay products, as well as reverse-engineer the weapons design to build a duplicate weapon, or at least a simpler (funtional) weapon.

I mean, hell, what's $20-$30 million to recover the materials to build a hiroshima nuke? You'd spend many times that if you tried to build it from scratch, and still likely fail, like all those raghead states.

I don't know, most of the lost nukes I know of are American (actually all are) and Uncle Sam is pretty strict about letting people get their hands on their nukes, even if they're 40 years old and stuck in 30 feet of mud. If I wanted a nuke design I'ed try to get it from the Russians, hell they'll sell anything, get all the documents relating to a 30-40 year old design, its just paper, not a real bomb, and if you pay enough I'm sure somebody would give you what you want, after that its just geting togther an engineering team to build the bomb and get the fuel for it.

Quote:
As far as people know, he never gave bomb designs... he gave Centrifuge technology only. Which is actually worse.... making a bomb is easy...

Easy....:?
Maybe if you have the facilities, the experience , the solid body of knowledge and the proper training.....
Experience is very important and that is what is lacking with the Nokors...

Really, I thought all you did was get a hundered pounds of U-235 strap it to the heads of a couple of guys and have them run at each other real, real fast! (Sorry, when I heard the Norks had set off a bomb, thats what I first imagined.) :)

Maybe this should be in it's own thread...but I find the entire idea of nuclear non-proliferation somewhat ridiculous. It seems ultimately similar to drug prohibition in that no matter how hard you try, if someone wants the stuff and they've got the money, they'll get it. I'm not sure really what we should be doing instead of trying to prevent their spread, but the ultimate complete globalization of nuclear weapons seems practically inevitable.

"Do you want to live forvever?" "Well I'ed like to give it a shot!"

Sure its inevitable, but the longer it takes the better for everyone.

Corona

October 19th, 2006, 02:09 AM

Cutefix:

I meant making a bomb is easy compared to the amount of sweat and tears that go into enriching Uranium to bomb grade.

Kim had better start using the centrifuge technology we gave him... how much Plutonium will he get out of his miserable little reactor? Not much. Or maybe what we gave him was incomplete/useless?

Iran seems to be having some problem with the centrifuges AQ Khan is supposed to have given them. They keep burning up. Ours don't burn up... but Iran's do. What's up?

Again... AQ Khan took the money and ran. :p

He also managed to shaft Libya.... the last few pages of "how to make a nuke in your basement" (or whatever it was called), were missing. This guy held out on everyone.

US sez, Kim might be going for another test. Maybe that will give a more clear picture of what Kim can or can't do.

Hirudinea:

The Ghauri was AQ Khan's brainchild. It is the odd-man-out... the only liquid fueled missile we have got. It is quite possible it came from the Norks, yet the CEP is more tight than what they have got (we did something to it).

The Ghauri hasn't been seen much now. It seems to have been replaced by the solid fuel missiles, Shaheen 1 and 2. (Eagle 1 and 2). So the Ghauri was probably only used to plug a temporary gap in our missile defenses. It did scare the crap out of India and forced them to test their nukes. :D So it did it's job without being fired in anger.

Meanwhile... ever wondered why Kim is doing what he is doing? Want to know what's bugging him? Apart from his sputtering nuke (btw, gun-type nukes are very prone to pre-detonation.... part of their core tends to go critical before the whole fissile core, evaporating the rest of the core instantly... a "fizzle")?

It is because "I am so ronery... so ronery... poor rittre me..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wO28NQc9tW4&mode=related&search=

To download Youtube or Google video clips to your computer, go here:

http://javimoya.com/blog/youtube_en.php

And THIS is how the Norks announced their nuke test:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LnOTq_OKos&mode=related&search=

I don't know much, but I do know this lady needs to get laid. She is asking for it.

Nihilist

October 19th, 2006, 02:40 AM

"Do you want to live forvever?" "Well I'ed like to give it a shot!"

Sure its inevitable, but the longer it takes the better for everyone.

Right. And i'm not against the application of nuclear non-proliferation policies per se. I'm just against relying on them. It feels like the 'civilized' world is sort of backed into a corner whenever a new country develops nuclear capabilities and they really have no clear plan of action.

I think we need to accept that it's going to happen, do as much as possible to slow it down, but also have more clearly defined policies for dealing with it when it does. Or at least more discussion of such policies.

nbk2000

October 19th, 2006, 05:16 AM

N. Korea Detonates 40 Years Of GDP

October 18, 2006 | Issue 42•42

PYONGYANG, NORTH KOREA—A press release issued by the state-run Korean Central News Agency Monday confirmed that the Oct. 9 underground nuclear test in North Korea's Yanggang province successfully exploded the communist nation's total gross domestic product for the past four decades.
North Korea

The economic-blast radius of the test

"This is a grand day for the Democratic Peoples Republic Of Korea, whose citizens have sacrificed their wages, their food, and their lives so that our great nation could test a nuclear weapon thousands of feet beneath our own soil," read an excerpt from the statement. "Now the rest of the world must stand up and take notice that the DPRK, too, is capable of decimating years of its wealth at any given moment."

North Korea's announcement would appear to support the CIA's intelligence information on the blast. According to the CIA, over 500 tons of compressed purchasing power, the equivalent of 40 years of goods and services produced by the impoverished country, vaporized in 560 billionths of one second. The device consumed 15 years of peasant wages' worth of uranium, two decades of agricultural- and fishery-export profits' worth for its above-ground emplacement tower, and the lifetime earnings of the entire workforce of the Kilchu fish-canning factory for tungsten/carbide-steel bomb casings.

"A nuclear device that size explodes with the force of 10 to 15 tons of TNT, or a moderately sized economic boom," said Ronald Shimokawa, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory. "The detonation most likely sent the burning, liquified remains of North Korea's economy deep into the Earth's core."

Across the country, North Korean citizens cheered wildly after learning their nation had violently transformed the equivalent of 2.3 billion hot meals, 11 million housing units, and 1,700 hospitals into their component atoms. Others celebrated by gleaning recently harvested rice paddies for leftover grains.
North Korea Map R

North Korea

"This fraction-of-a-second blast is what I, and my parents before me, have given up everything to achieve," said tractor driver Chin Lee-Park, whose machine was cannibalized for bomb derrick parts in 1997.

"It is truly a great day for North Korea," added Lee-Park, who then died due to a combination of malnutrition and tuberculosis.

The North Korean government has long been suspected of building up a clandestine stockpile of capital, evidenced by their tendency to shut down national programs that provide its citizens with food, clothing, medicine, shelter, transportation, water, sanitation, education, living wages, and means of communication. A North Korean diplomat defended the decision, saying that citizens "need to make certain sacrifices so their country can afford the basic human right of national security."

International suspicions intensified earlier this month, when satellite surveillance revealed that Kilchu farmers had burned the nation's last remaining wheat field to make room for the test site, that peasant shacks were being dismantled to provide the necessary materials to construct a cradle in which the bomb could be lowered into the ground, and that thousands of starving, near-naked Sangpyong-ri residents were digging an 800-meter vertical underground shaft with wooden rice spoons. In addition, an estimated 75 percent of North Korea's metallurgical wealth and gypsum stockpiles were repurposed for use as stemming materials to backfill the test site's hole prior to detonation.

With the test, North Korea joins an exclusive group of nations that spends a huge percentage of their GDP on nuclear weapons programs.

Yet, despite North Korea's claim that it will proceed with further nuclear testing, the international community is skeptical of whether it has the means to do so, in wake of news over the weekend that leader Kim Jong-Il has authorized the use of the remaining three percent of North Korea's GDP for the construction of six monuments bearing his likeness.
© Copyright 2006, Onion, Inc.

Leave it to The Onion to speak the truth! :D

Hirudinea

October 19th, 2006, 10:32 PM

The Ghauri was AQ Khan's brainchild. It is the odd-man-out... the only liquid fueled missile we have got. It is quite possible it came from the Norks, yet the CEP is more tight than what they have got (we did something to it).

Yea, Iran tried to get Gerald Bull to improve the CEP on their Nork Scuds and Scud Mods and the Mosad shot him, I guess you need more than a toy gyroscope for a guidence system.

The Ghauri hasn't been seen much now. It seems to have been replaced by the solid fuel missiles, Shaheen 1 and 2. (Eagle 1 and 2). So the Ghauri was probably only used to plug a temporary gap in our missile defenses. It did scare the crap out of India and forced them to test their nukes. So it did it's job without being fired in anger.

Well Pakistan just has to deal with India and solid fuel is easier to store and faster to fire than liquid so that makes sense, the Norks would like, to eventually like to hit the U.S. (I suspect) and with their level of technology liquid is the only way they can go.

Meanwhile... ever wondered why Kim is doing what he is doing?

It is because "I am so ronery... so ronery... poor rittre me..."

Try this one, the graphics are more suitable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxUuJzb_8XQ

Right. And i'm not against the application of nuclear non-proliferation policies per se. I'm just against relying on them. It feels like the 'civilized' world is sort of backed into a corner whenever a new country develops nuclear capabilities and they really have no clear plan of action.

I think we need to accept that it's going to happen, do as much as possible to slow it down, but also have more clearly defined policies for dealing with it when it does. Or at least more discussion of such policies.

Yes, the problem is that we seem to think that we get everybody (almost everybody) to sign a treaty and we think the problem is sloved, wrong, ask the Indians about the effectiveness of treaties? We do need clear policies and we need them now, the shame is nobody seems willing to really sit down and talk about it.

N. Korea Detonates 40 Years Of GDP
Originally Posted by The Onion
October 18, 2006 | Issue 42•42
Leave it to The Onion to speak the truth!

It sounds just like typical socialsit propaganda, only its the truth.

Nihilist

October 19th, 2006, 11:24 PM

The problem with U.S. treaties is that we basically force people to sign them who gain absoutely nothing other than temporary safety from U.S. invasion by doing so, and then we expect them to actually follow them.

It's like putting a gun to someone's head, making them give you their credit cards and then promise not to cancel them the second you leave.

Hirudinea

October 21st, 2006, 01:25 AM

Corona

October 21st, 2006, 10:26 AM

"Bouffant Betty" now sez he is sorry for the nuke test.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2589360

What the Hell....??? Bloody wimp. I had such hopes for this guy.....

nbk2000

October 21st, 2006, 10:53 AM

Kim told the Chinese delegation that "he is sorry about the nuclear test," the newspaper reported.

That's the reason he made the statement, because of Chinese pressure, not because of any fear of the west.

Also, the saying 'It's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission' comes to mind.

Corona

October 21st, 2006, 11:57 AM

Very true, that saying.

Also, as you pointed out, he said sorry to the Chinese. Just shows that even a tough guy like Kim, has a "daddy" who owns him.

I know if our "daddy" (again Big Daddy, China... even though Britain is our real illegitimate daddy) gets annoyed, Pakistan will apologize standing on it's head if it has to. So I can imagine Kim's distress.

I think they are annoyed because he threw off their timing. The Chinese had the next 50 years planned down to the tiniest detail.... until Kim got carried away in the excitement.

Btw, here is an old but relevant article about life in N.Korea:

I made Pizza for Kim Jong il. (Kim loves Pizzas and Pakistani food it seems). In 3 parts.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/DK21Dg03.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/DK22Dg01.html

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/DK23Dg01.html

Reading that made me wonder.... Kim starving his people has made him almost invincible in the sense that if the Norks go tits-up, S.Korea will be flooded by refugees and the burden on the S.Korean economy might be a killing burden. They say the cost of re-unification with the Norks will be much greater than the $1 Trillion it cost the Germans. Ouch.

Hirudinea

October 22nd, 2006, 01:23 AM

"Bouffant Betty" now sez he is sorry for the nuke test.

That's the reason he made the statement, because of Chinese pressure, not because of any fear of the west.

Also, as you pointed out, he said sorry to the Chinese. Just shows that even a tough guy like Kim, has a "daddy" who owns him.

Hey a prostiute will let you give her a Cleveland Steamer for a couple hundered bucks, so for keeping your entire economy afloat an apology is a small price to pay.

I think they are annoyed because he threw off their timing. The Chinese had the next 50 years planned down to the tiniest detail.... until Kim got carried away in the excitement.

Considering that most of the stuff we buy in North American and Europe today is made in China I think their plans are still going fairly well.

Kim starving his people has made him almost invincible in the sense that if the Norks go tits-up, S.Korea will be flooded by refugees and the burden on the S.Korean economy might be a killing burden. They say the cost of re-unification with the Norks will be much greater than the $1 Trillion it cost the Germans. Ouch.

The South Koreans know the only think worse than the Norks taking them over is them taking over the Norks and it scares them shitless. :eek:

(Oh thanks for the Article.)

PlayDough

October 22nd, 2006, 08:57 AM

If the Norks can sneak into japan, kidnap kawaii schoolgirls, and bring them back to N.K. for Dear Leaders harem, than getting a nuke into Japan (or US) would be a snap,

If that is true then we in America have much more to fear than just the Norks.

Jacks Complete

October 22nd, 2006, 08:06 PM

And your government knows that you fear, and uses that fear to its own ends.

When you stop being scared, you ask questions, and if you ask intelligent questions of a man like Bush, well...

The Norks know that a nuke will make the US scared. As someone above points out, the US can do whatever it likes, to an alarming extent. France was turned into some kind of political football and the German chancellor was forced out of office when they pointed out the dangers of invading Iraq. Now you find rednecks (and others) who *hate* France and the French, even though they simply told the truth, and truth that a few years later is almost self-evident to even those would started the smear campaign against France. But France won't get a nice publicity campaign as thanks...

The USA has thousands of troops in South Korea already, the same as it has either forced or taken by force small areas around the world for military use. From small south pacific atolls to Guantanamo Bay, there are hundreds around the world, in countries that range from allies, like the UK, to those they seek to destroy, like Cuba, or those it says it is protecting, such as SK.

This has all been done because America is very scared of losing its number one superpower status, the same as the over 20 police actions, etc. around the world. Now, the Norks are about one of three countries who won't simply jump when told to by the USA. And in some ways, that is a damned shame. That France is now one as well makes me smile. :-)

BeerWolf

October 22nd, 2006, 09:01 PM

..... Now you find rednecks (and others) who *hate* France and the French, even though they simply told the truth, and truth that a few years later is almost self-evident to even those would started the smear campaign against France. But France won't get a nice publicity campaign as thanks...

No, instead they get taken over by the very same muslims that they claimed were not a threat.
Like here http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2414175,00.html for instance.

I find it interesting that so many western people insist that Islam is the "religon of peace".

I lived in Lebanon in the 80's, and studied the religion well. Their idea of "peace" is when everyone who has not converted is dead. And lying to your enemy about that was not only permissible, but required.

I personally think that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia before Iraq.

But we're going to have to fight with them all, sooner or later. They won't leave us alone, and have been fighting a war with the west for hundreds of years. We just haven't paid much attention until lately.

Hirudinea

October 23rd, 2006, 12:14 AM

Now you find rednecks (and others) who *hate* France and the French, even though they simply told the truth, and truth that a few years later is almost self-evident to even those would started the smear campaign against France.

Just to be clear I hated the French quite sometime before 9/11, and they have done nothing to change my mind. :D

I find it interesting that so many western people insist that Islam is the "religon of peace".

I lived in Lebanon in the 80's, and studied the religion well. Their idea of "peace" is when everyone who has not converted is dead.

Well the most peaceful place in the world is a graveyard.

And lying to your enemy about that was not only permissible, but required.

Isn't there a Sura instructing Muslims to lie (or decive) non-believers?

I personally think that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia before Iraq.

I agree, Iraq isn't (wasn't) funding the building and staffing of radical Wahabi Mosques all through the world, and those Mosques are the breeding ground of terrorists.

They won't leave us alone, and have been fighting a war with the west for hundreds of years. We just haven't paid much attention until lately.

The Muslims haven't had nearly unlimited petrodollars to finance their Jihad unitl recently have they, and unlimited monies are the sinews of war.

But we're going to have to fight with them all, sooner or later.

Actually we're fighting them now, most people just haven't recognized it yet.

BeerWolf

October 23rd, 2006, 12:54 AM

Isn't there a Sura instructing Muslims to lie (or decive) non-believers? Yes, the koran has quite a few, like 3:54, 30:8, just off the top of my head. The interpretive texts have many more as well, and are more likely to be preached at the mosque. See Bukhari vol.3:857, vol.4:271.

....The Muslims haven't had nearly unlimited petrodollars to finance their Jihad unitl recently have they...That's true, and modern force multipliers. like bombs, to make up for their relatively small numbers.

Remember, there are millions of muslims, but an overwhelming number of them are sheeple too. The fighters make up only a tiny percentage of them, so each we kill , especially the technical experts and planners, reduces their strength much more proportionally to the west.

Corona

October 23rd, 2006, 06:44 AM

Hmmmm... 3:54 and 30:8, huh?

Lets see:

"3.54": And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners.

and

"30.8": Do they not reflect within themselves: Allah did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but with truth, and (for) an appointed term? And most surely most of the people are deniers of the meeting of their Lord.
--------------------------------------------

I fail to see.... :p :p Oops....

I wonder what else you've got on the "top of your head" that we should know about?

This thread was about figuring out this amazing person (amazing in both a good and bad way), Kim Jong-il... how did it turn into US against Islam? :D

This reminds me of this joke... which isn't a joke actually... Basically Bush telling the Norks to stop all this "nucular" stuff... or else... WE'RE GONNA BOMB IRAN!!! :p

The question is, will the US take on Kim with his measly sputtering 8 nukes? (doubt it) Or will they keep measuring prick size with some muslim-majority country that can't fight back?

Oh well. I knew the debate couldn't continue.

BeerWolf

October 23rd, 2006, 04:12 PM

Hmmmm... 3:54 and 30:8, huh? Lets see:"3.54": And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners.

What translation are you using? One of the Yusuf Ali "propaganda" korans given to the "unbelievers" by the "devout" as disinformation?
The muslims tend to say one thing in english, and quite different things amonst themselves, usually in a tongue other than english.

In the koran that the local mosque uses (Vand Dyck) Sura 3:54 says that Allah "makara." The Arabic word makara means to deceive, scheme. The Arabic Bible in Genesis 3:1 uses the same word for Satan. In Farsi, the word, "Makr" and "Makar" is from the Arabic, and it is always negative in meaning.

"30.8": Do they not reflect within themselves: Allah did not create the heavens and the earth and what is between them two but with truth, and (for) an appointed term? And most surely most of the people are deniers of the meeting of their Lord.

The phrase used in my koran is that of Allah "kheir ol makarein", literally "being the best deceiver".

And I would point that most Arabs cannot read the koran themselves, interpertation is left to the umma. And they say deception is required to "defeat" the "unbelievers". So that's what the rank and file believe, regardless of how WE interpert it.

A good example is the treatment of women. All thoughout the koran you are commanded to treat women as your equal.

Is that how women are actually treated in sharia? Nope, the interpertative texts are used to justify practices have little or no regard for what the koran actually says.

This thread was about figuring out this amazing person (amazing in both a good and bad way), Kim Jong-il... how did it turn into US against Islam?The post has mutated from being about one crazy who wants to kill us to being about many who want to kill us. Iran is watching Korea very hard right now, to see what they can get away with.
(Edited for even worse typing than usual)

Corona

October 23rd, 2006, 05:15 PM

M.Shakir's translation actually, not Yusuf Ali's. The most respected translation is by Pickthall.. feel free to check that out too.

And no, you are misquoting quite aggressively. I have the read the English translations and the Urdu translations... and this is the first time I have come across your explanation. So excuse me if I dismiss it as crap.

Btw, local mosque, you said? That means American? Which probably means, Wahabi. (many things Islamic in US are Wahabi funded, I have heard... don't know if it is true...). I don't do windows, I don't do toilets, and I don't do Wahabis. God help you if you are trying to figure THOSE guys out. :p

And lastly, I don't think you... or any American... needs to worry about the Iranians. After the fall of the Shah, many Iranians came here to Pakistan (they still come). I went to school with many of them. Good friends all of them.

And quite stupid. All of them.

They weren't interested in their studies ever. All they wanted to do was PARTY. I have never seen anyone party so hard as an Iranian, girl or boy. Me.. poor Asian... banging my head against books... trying to get a good grade. My Iranian friends, on the other hand? They kept partying.

This might seem like a small thing, but I believe small things do matter. The small things are clues to bigger things.

And every country and it's people have a "national character".

The Iranians aren't Norks. Last I heard, their centrifuges were catching fire. :D

Hirudinea

October 23rd, 2006, 10:34 PM

Btw, local mosque, you said? That means American? Which probably means, Wahabi. (many things Islamic in US are Wahabi funded, I have heard... don't know if it is true...). I don't do windows, I don't do toilets, and I don't do Wahabis. God help you if you are trying to figure THOSE guys out.

Yea, well those Wahabis are the ones who are funding radical Islam, and the fact is if they had their way after BeerWolf and I had been executed as unbelievers you'ed be us against the wall as an apostate.

And lastly, I don't think you... or any American... needs to worry about the Iranians. After the fall of the Shah, many Iranians came here to Pakistan (they still come). I went to school with many of them. Good friends all of them.

And quite stupid. All of them.

They weren't interested in their studies ever. All they wanted to do was PARTY. I have never seen anyone party so hard as an Iranian, girl or boy. Me.. poor Asian... banging my head against books... trying to get a good grade. My Iranian friends, on the other hand? They kept partying.

This might seem like a small thing, but I believe small things do matter. The small things are clues to bigger things.

And every country and it's people have a "national character".

The Iranians aren't Norks.

I knew Iranians who came here after the Revolution, but they are not the people who are running Iran now are they, the people who are running Iran are the ones who issued death sentance against somebody for writing a book, who finance terrorists throughout the middle east and who equate America with Satan, but your right these people aren't like the Norks, the Norks are atheists, they live for the here and now, the Mullahs Iran running are Religious fanatics and if they die (or if their nation dies) doing what they believe is Gods will they get a front seat in heaven with 4 score skanks and rivers of hooch, so they aren't like the Norks, they're worse.

Corona

October 24th, 2006, 02:55 AM

That isn't a nice thought.... me being lined up against a wall and getting shot... what did I do to them? :mad:

I have heard many many stories of our people getting arrested there for minor infractions. The cops there have the right to arrest you if they don't like your face. At least that is what the stories told me.

Fortunately, Wahabism will only last as long as there is OIL in this world. Wahabism is America's own shadow because the more petrol you consume, the more power the Wahabis get. The day they run out of oil...or Americans start running electric cars.... it's all over for them.

As for Iranians.... we have a saying... "dogs that bark, don't bite". So it doesn't matter what they say.

The easiest way to handle them is to talk to them direct. The fact that the US isn't talking to them, makes them go crazy. They do have delusions of grandeur... they still see the Persian civilization as it was thousands of years ago. Dubya, making faces at them, isn't helping at all. These are an extremely proud and patriotic people.

c.Tech

October 24th, 2006, 09:12 AM

Fortunately, Wahabism will only last as long as there is OIL in this world. Wahabism is America's own shadow because the more petrol you consume, the more power the Wahabis get. The day they run out of oil...or Americans start running electric cars.... it's all over for them.

That’s only if peak oil doesn’t hit, if peak oil is true then the western world will crumble leaving it to the Arabs to do what they want. As the whole world runs off oil, and almost everything need oil to be the Arab countries would thrive with the lots they would have left.

I'm hoping that enough oil can be drilled until we switch to alternative fuels or the cost of living would become too great for all of the non-Arabs and we will be driven into economic collapse.

Hirudinea

October 24th, 2006, 07:39 PM

That isn't a nice thought.... me being lined up against a wall and getting shot... what did I do to them?

You don't follow Islam exactly the same way they do, thats more than enough. But look on the bright side, you'll have plenty of company.

I have heard many many stories of our people getting arrested there for minor infractions. The cops there have the right to arrest you if they don't like your face. At least that is what the stories told me.

Yea, I'ed hate to be an Asian worker in Saudi Arabia.

Fortunately, Wahabism will only last as long as there is OIL in this world. Wahabism is America's own shadow because the more petrol you consume, the more power the Wahabis get. The day they run out of oil...or Americans start running electric cars.... it's all over for them.

The Wests reliance on oil does help drive Wahabism, and the Wahabis know this, why do you think that Saudi Arabia if funding Wahabi mosques all over the world, in Asia, Africa, Europe, America, you'll find a King Fisal, King Faud, King Saud mosque preaching hard core Wahabism, you'll also find Saudi money flowing to every half ass Jihadist group around the world. The Saudi Wahabis are laying the foundation of their fundimentalism now around the world because they know the oil money will run out, but when it does they will have adherents around the world and it won't matter any more will it? Come on you like in Pakistan (right?) tell me you haven't seen a rise in fundimentalism? Like it? Well you'ed better, because its not going to stop any time soon.

As for Iranians.... we have a saying... "dogs that bark, don't bite". So it doesn't matter what they say.

And we have a saying "Where theres smoke, theres fire" and since this is fire is nuclear fire I think we should douse it.

The easiest way to handle them is to talk to them direct. The fact that the US isn't talking to them, makes them go crazy. They do have delusions of grandeur... they still see the Persian civilization as it was thousands of years ago. Dubya, making faces at them, isn't helping at all. These are an extremely proud and patriotic people.

I think both the U.S. and Iran could use some lessons in Diplomacy. :)

Hirudinea

October 24th, 2006, 07:40 PM

That’s only if peak oil doesn’t hit, if peak oil is true then the western world will crumble leaving it to the Arabs to do what they want. As the whole world runs off oil, and almost everything need oil to be the Arab countries would thrive with the lots they would have left.

I'm hoping that enough oil can be drilled until we switch to alternative fuels or the cost of living would become too great for all of the non-Arabs and we will be driven into economic collapse.

Lets switch to nuclear, its not perfect, but its here and it works.

cutefix

October 24th, 2006, 11:17 PM

I have heard many many stories of our people getting arrested there for minor infractions. The cops there have the right to arrest you if they don't like your face. At least that is what the stories told me.

I had the opportunity in the past to live in Saudi Arabia. Being a non muslim is a lot better than being one...Think about it the Mutawwah( religious police) if your found roaming around during prayer time, if you are a muslim you will be arrested; but if you're not as long as you possess the legal papers to stay in Saudi Arabia you are just ignored....
Its not that hard really to live there....if you managed to discipline yourself and avoid many common vices except cigar/cigarette smoking...
The difficulty lies if you still want to live your lifestyle you are used to in your country and bring that to Saudi Arabia.
A lot of people are caught and severly punished for committing supposedly minor offense in their home country (such as drinking alcohol, gambling, womanizing etc...).

Yea, I'ed hate to be an Asian worker in Saudi Arabia.

I think its unfair to millions of Asians that are happily working in that Kingdom.
Happily because most of them manage to work there for several years:p

c.Tech

October 25th, 2006, 03:42 AM

And we have a saying "Where theres smoke, theres fire" and since this is fire is nuclear fire I think we should douse it.

Douse these countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_weapon_programs_worldwidenew.png although not all are a threat you can see some which are as dangerous as Iran would be.

Think about why it’s Muslim countries that are being targeted more so than other dangerous ones.

Lets switch to nuclear, its not perfect, but its here and it works.

That cannot solve the problem, nuclear power cannot run the vehicles and machinery that oil does, neither can it make all the products that nearly every object uses at some point in their production.

Substituting nuclear only fixes the coal-burning situation when there isn’t a problem.

Switches aren’t as easy as 1 2 3, the machines that run off them need to be produced and replaced in the short (theoretical) time we have left.

When the world’s economy is based around the constant production and use of oil products there isn’t anywhere to turn if a problem arises.

Jacks Complete

October 25th, 2006, 05:51 AM

Lets switch to nuclear, its not perfect, but its here and it works.Isn't that what Kim is doing?

And we have a saying "Where theres smoke, theres fire" and since this is fire is nuclear fire I think we should douse it.Douse these countriesAs long as no-one throws a nuke as a firebreak, we should be fine.

nbk2000

October 25th, 2006, 09:27 AM

I've heard a lot of the asian female workers (mainly filipino) are there for years, not because they like it, but because their owners (not bosses) hold their passports, rape 'em, beat 'em, and cheat 'em of their wages. :p

cutefix

October 25th, 2006, 05:20 PM

When I was there 10 years ago I had the opportunity to converse to some hapless ladies which were abused by their employers and was surprised to hear their answers that if given the opportunity again, would they be willing to return to Saudi Arabia. and work for the same job..?

They said yes.....Life is better for them and their families back home if they work there than in their home country...:p

Hirudinea

October 25th, 2006, 08:10 PM

I had the opportunity in the past to live in Saudi Arabia. Being a non muslim is a lot better than being one...Think about it the Mutawwah( religious police) (The people who think its better for a girl to go out in public with third degree burns than without a veil?) if your found roaming around during prayer time, if you are a muslim you will be arrested; but if you're not as long as you possess the legal papers to stay in Saudi Arabia you are just ignored....
Its not that hard really to live there....if you managed to discipline yourself and avoid many common vices except cigar/cigarette smoking...
The difficulty lies if you still want to live your lifestyle you are used to in your country and bring that to Saudi Arabia.
A lot of people are caught and severly punished for committing supposedly minor offense in their home country (such as drinking alcohol, gambling, womanizing etc...).

Sure, don't mind your own buisness and you'll be fine, tell that to William Sampson.

http://ccadp.org/williamsampson.htm

Yea, I'ed hate to be an Asian worker in Saudi Arabia.

I think its unfair to millions of Asians that are happily working in that Kingdom.
Happily because most of them manage to work there for several years

I've heard a lot of the asian female workers (mainly filipino) are there for years, not because they like it, but because their owners (not bosses) hold their passports, rape 'em, beat 'em, and cheat 'em of their wages.

When I was there 10 years ago I had the opportunity to converse to some hapless ladies which were abused by their employers and was surprised to hear their answers that if given the opportunity again, would they be willing to return to Saudi Arabia. and work for the same job..?

They said yes.....Life is better for them and their families back home if they work there than in their home country...

Then I'ed hate to be an Asian worker in Saudia Arabia OR wherever they come from. (I'm glad I live where I do!)

Douse these countries
Code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nuclear_weapon_programs_worldwidenew.png

although not all are a threat you can see some which are as dangerous as Iran would be.

Think about why it’s Muslim countries that are being targeted more so than other dangerous ones.

What other Dangerous one? Canada? Australia? Kazakstan?

That cannot solve the problem, nuclear power cannot run the vehicles and machinery that oil does, neither can it make all the products that nearly every object uses at some point in their production.

Substituting nuclear only fixes the coal-burning situation when there isn’t a problem.

Switches aren’t as easy as 1 2 3, the machines that run off them need to be produced and replaced in the short (theoretical) time we have left.

When the world’s economy is based around the constant production and use of oil products there isn’t anywhere to turn if a problem arises.

Nuclear power can replace the fossil fuel we use to produce electricity now (or a majority of it), synthetic fuels and hybrids vehicles can address transportation and limited non mideast oil reserves can be put toward petrochemicals, where they should go in the first place, sure its not perfect but somthing must be done and this is can be done, what else should we do?

Lets switch to nuclear, its not perfect, but its here and it works.

Isn't that what Kim is doing?

When Kim decides not to starve his citizens to build nuclear bombs I might believe that, but not now.

And we have a saying "Where theres smoke, theres fire" and since this is fire is nuclear fire I think we should douse it.

Douse these countries

As long as no-one throws a nuke as a firebreak, we should be fine.

Well at least not as a last, last, last resort.

cutefix

October 25th, 2006, 09:49 PM

Quote:
(The people who think its better for a girl to go out in public with third degree burns than without a veil?)

Hirudenia
Have you been in Saudi Arabia?
Get a life man!

….go to that kingdom and have first hand experience what life is really there…Yes from a freewheeling guy it’s hell…but IF you know how to handle yourself you will see that you can easily get over with the oddness and even make friends with lots of ragheads….:cool:
Regarding women wearing burkha that is part of their custom and you have to respect that if you happen to be there…
But
If you are some kind of an impudent son of a bitch that don’t respect the strange culture of the nation where they happen to live…. then its just a matter of time that you will go home to your country in two pieces….your head and your body…:p

Sure, don't mind your own buisness and you'll be fine, tell that to William Sampson.

William Sampson....? or Homer Simpson.....:D That guy is a dickhead...:( if he really intend to live and work there as mandated by their country's government then he should not be in trouble
Unless that guy made some suspicious things such as helping in the manufacture of illicit liquor ( or anything illegal)then he's opening his own pandoras box of troubles:p
That Sampson or Simpson guy is an exception to the rule, ...

Mind you,,, Arab coppers are extremely suspicious creatures:p
But you have to see it for your self and stop BLABBERING ( basing on second hand information) if you have never experienced the life in that kingdom.

FYI
I had stayed there for 5 years and I tell you it was one of the times that i lived in peace....:p
For example,
I can walk in the dark streets at unholy hours with nobody harrassing me as the cops cars are all around roaming the streets ...
Compare that to your dark city streets :p ...

c.Tech

October 25th, 2006, 10:36 PM

Nuclear power can replace the fossil fuel we use to produce electricity now (or a majority of it), synthetic fuels and hybrids vehicles can address transportation and limited non mideast oil reserves can be put toward petrochemicals, where they should go in the first place, sure its not perfect but somthing must be done and this is can be done, what else should we do?
If you limit your vehicles to non-Middle East oil there would be a significant drop in the amount of oil available, most likely enough to cause an economic collapse.

But Bu$h has some control over Middle Eastern oil (which wouldn’t support my country :(), why do you think he invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

We need to find alternatives like hydrogen, but then they need electricity to run or be produced.

Then there is the problem of how many nuclear power plants are needed to replace enough vehicles to keep the economy running. And if we are too close to peak oil the transport cost from uranium mining countries such as Australia.

Corona

October 26th, 2006, 09:39 AM

Hirudinea:

Yes, I live here (Pakistan). Always have, never been outside the country. I'm a "hill-billy'.

And no, I have not noticed a rise in radicalism (I know you might be surprised to hear that). Radicalism was at it's most obnoxious in the 1980s and upto mid 90s. After that it has been steadily going down. It is now quite less than what it was in the 80s.

The impression you are getting that radicalism is on the rise, is a tribute to the excellent media management of Osama and his guys and Dubya and his guys.... both of whom want to scare everyone to death.

Yes, I know about Taliban making appearances along our borders with Afghanistan.... but that is a long way away. Never been there... doesn't effect me.

BTW, I do agree with Cutefix.... There is virtually zero petty crime in Saudi Arabia. I have never heard of anyone getting mugged there. I, meanwhile, have to stay away from dark alleys.... :eek: I may be karate expert, but who wants to get mugged? (Pakistani mugging is in a class of it's own)

Jacks Complete

October 28th, 2006, 08:44 PM

Only slightly related, but here is a public admission that Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11 and didn't have WMDs from Georgie Porgie himself - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RX44z0lRJ4E&NR

The guy is about as cool under fire as a rat on a hotplate.

Cobalt.45

October 29th, 2006, 11:05 AM

If you are some kind of an impudent son of a bitch that don’t respect the strange culture of the nation where they happen to live…. then its just a matter of time that you will go home to your country in two pieces….your head and your body…

Shame this logic isn't applied to the muds, slopes, beaners and et cetera, that have been allowed to freely cross into this country to rape and pillage.:mad:

For example,
I can walk in the dark streets at unholy hours with nobody harrassing me as the cops cars are all around roaming the streets ...
Compare that to your dark city streets

Personally, I don't equate an ever present police force "roaming the streets" as peaceful. The word should be "policeful".

Despite what the media and the politicos would have you believe,
90% of the streets are likely safer here, than anywhere else in the world.

The other 10% are where the aforementioned mutt races reside.

The proliferation of guns here does have its advantages.:D

But you have to see it for your self and stop BLABBERING ( basing on second hand information) if you have never experienced the life in that kingdom.

Yes, you do, don't you?

nbk2000

October 29th, 2006, 04:04 PM

akinrog

October 29th, 2006, 07:40 PM

My understanding is that, if you're an American, and you fuck up in Saudi, they simply deport, regardless of what you did, because they're not going to risk pissing off the US by lobbing off your head or hands, when the US is the only thing protecting them from being raped by their neighbors. :p
That's the case with the most of the industrialized Western Nations, they have no guts to chop head or hands of a Westerner but you have to have a protector /owner to work in SA as a Moslem foreigner. F*ckers :mad:

And as for the safe nocturnal streets of Saudi Arabia, one can also say the same safety for the streets of Germany during Nazi Regime. If the government is a brutal criminal then the petty criminals do not show up in the streets. Regards.

megalomania

October 29th, 2006, 07:44 PM

Why can't we do that here with foreigners, and by that I mean niggers? I am sure we could find no shortage of investors willing to fund this type of cruise line. "You're goin to Jamaca mon, but ya ain't a commin back!" :D

cutefix

October 30th, 2006, 12:20 AM

Personally, I don't equate an ever present police force "roaming the streets" as peaceful. The word should be "policeful".

The sound the same and means the same...you can walk around easily:p
BTW, have alook at this
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061030/ap_on_re_us/city_crime_list
Relating that St. Louis is the most dangerous US city

Yes, you do, don't you?

cobalt are you implying you also stayed in saudi for some time...? or you are saying you didn't believe in what I experienced there...?

Ditto...Its time you also take a vacation in saudi arabia:p

Jacks Complete

October 30th, 2006, 08:21 PM

The only reason it is "safe" to wander about in a police state is due to your protection by a foreign government. Once that is gone, you are in as much trouble as the next local caught doing something dumb.

As for the "lower" crime rate, I'm fairly sure that it is a combination of under-reporting and the simple fact that large police state apparatuses require large numbers of petty thugs, who are simply snagged up and employed instead of being jailed. We already have the same thing in the UK.

nbk2000

October 30th, 2006, 08:58 PM

akinrog

October 31st, 2006, 07:55 AM

I can attest to St. Louis being a shithole, having had a nigger attempt to rob me there at gunpoint :rolleyes: but failing miserably. :D

I'd imagine that there's only two types of criminals in the middle east...the one handed (or dead) idiots, and the professionals with enough money to pay off the local Secret Police.

An acquaintance of mine who served as a Red Crescent ambulance driver in SA during Hajj (Pilgrimage) season told me his experiences with respect to public executions after friday prayers. Damn, he says they are chopping heads of the people like chickens and head of the executed person sometimes does not come off and executioner have to hit him again with the sword.

Anyway the important part of his account is that the Judge determines a price for the crime. If you have money you simply pay off the price and go away. :mad:
Edit : Typos

nbk2000

October 31st, 2006, 01:58 PM

So if you steal a chicken, or kill someone, and don't have the money to pay the fine, off with your hand or head?

Is it any wonder these fuckers are still in the dark ages? :rolleyes:

And let me guess who the money goes to... ;)

Hirudinea

October 31st, 2006, 05:10 PM

Have you been in Saudi Arabia?

No, and I've never been shot in the balls either, but from what I've heard I wouldn't enjoy either. :)

Get a life man!

I have a life, unlike a lot of people who have fallen afoul of the Saudi's.

William Sampson....? or Homer Simpson..... That guy is a dickhead... if he really intend to live and work there as mandated by their country's government then he should not be in trouble
Unless that guy made some suspicious things such as helping in the manufacture of illicit liquor ( or anything illegal)then he's opening his own pandoras box of troubles
That Sampson or Simpson guy is an exception to the rule, ...

The guy is a dickhead? Yea, he's got a lot of nerve to be arrested for a crime he never commited, railroaded and sentenced to death, making the Saudis look bad, what an asshole!

But you have to see it for your self and stop BLABBERING ( basing on second hand information) if you have never experienced the life in that kingdom.

So how long have you been working for the Kingdoms Ministry of Tourism? ;)

FYI
I had stayed there for 5 years and I tell you it was one of the times that i lived in peace....
For example,
I can walk in the dark streets at unholy hours with nobody harrassing me as the cops cars are all around roaming the streets ...

I don't doubt it, the streets of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were also extremely safe as well, at least as far as criminal activity went, it was the cops you had to worry about.

Compare that to your dark city streets ...

While I have complaints about the crime in my city I still feel fairly safe walking around my city at night, and vastly more free than I would in Saudi Arabia. (Hell I can even talk to a girl if I like)

Hirudinea

October 31st, 2006, 05:24 PM

If you limit your vehicles to non-Middle East oil there would be a significant drop in the amount of oil available, most likely enough to cause an economic collapse.

I said we should use oil for nontransport use, for transport we should syntetic fuels, biofuels, hybrid vehicles in the short term (by which I mean NOW) and then more to the more exotic (less well devloped) fuel sources later.

We need to find alternatives like hydrogen, but then they need electricity to run or be produced.

Hydrogen is one of the less developed fuel sources, and I think we'll end up finding the best way of storing hydrogen is in hydrocarbons.

Then there is the problem of how many nuclear power plants are needed to replace enough vehicles to keep the economy running. And if we are too close to peak oil the transport cost from uranium mining countries such as Australia.

Nuclear, Hydro, Wind, Geothermal (where it can be used), if it ain't oil and can be brought on line quickly go for it. As for uranium costs, Australia isn't the only place in the world with it, Canada, the U.S. Africa and Russia all have it, and if you don't like uranium you can use thorium, which is even more plentiful than uranium (and works well in Candu Reactors, go Chalk River!)

akinrog

October 31st, 2006, 10:08 PM

...........if you don't like uranium you can use thorium, which is even more plentiful than uranium (and works well in Candu Reactors, go Chalk River!)

Sorry but you are wrong about that. Although thorium is a fissile material, it must rather be seen as a kind of fertile one (like U-238), since its fission chain reaction is not sustainable. Unless you do not have neutrons to keep up the chain reaction going, you cannot get energy from the reactor (The chain reaction shall damp away).

The proposed designs for thorium reactors needs a neutron source for the reaction. An example of this is Energy Amplifier. Regards.

cutefix

October 31st, 2006, 10:48 PM

So how long have you been working for the Kingdoms Ministry of Tourism?

My work is to assist in training of their soldiers not to kiss their ass:p
And if you read my previous post you should have known:p

I don't doubt it, the streets of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia were also extremely safe as well, at least as far as criminal activity went, it was the cops you had to worry about.

Cops making me worried?:confused:
HA HA...some even stop their cars and give me a snappy salute:cool:

(Hell I can even talk to a girl if I like)

Womanizing ? kid .... did I tell you before to live the way what you are supposed to do in a country with different culture?

You are dickhead indeed:mad: ....does not know how to control ones libido in when you are doing a job...and representing your country...
I say....
Your brain is in your dick and not in your head;)? ...or you got nothing to show off but balls ?

vastly more free than I would in Saudi Arabia.

Its hard to say as you had never been there...:p

Cobalt.45

October 31st, 2006, 11:31 PM

a dickhead/ to kiss their ass/ dickhead indeed/ is in your dick/ show off but balls
Quite a theme:rolleyes:

Corona

October 31st, 2006, 11:56 PM

NBK:

The fine goes to the person you stole from, not the Govt. And if you kill someone, the money goes to his/her relatives.

The catch is, this can only happen if the relatives of the dead guy, or the person you stole from, accept your money. (if you don't have money to pay to save yourself, that money can come from the State or from designated charities)

If they don't.... you're screwed. So basically, the State only works as a referee of sorts... the people who decide whether the punishment goes ahead or not, are the aggrieved party, not the Judge or the Govt.

The Judge can only decide what happens if the aggrieved party refuses settlement.

1. Amputation or Execution
2. Jail
3. Freedom (if more than a certain percentage of the population is committing such crimes then it must be a matter of necessity, in which case Islamic punishments stand suspended until further notice... there are historical precedents for this)

At least that is how it should work in theory. (I have no idea what they do in Saudi since I've never been there)

The Saudis can easily choose jail over amputation or execution since that choice is clearly allowed in the Koran.... they can do away with the chop-chop altogether or make it very unlikely. The fact that they don't..... they just don't.

The punishment for "terrorism" is amputation of right hand and left leg, btw.

Many of the people getting the chop in Saudi however, are those accused of crimes against the State (I assume). Like smuggling of drugs and whatnot. This is, as you suggest, quite open to abuse, if the Govt. turns out to be corrupt.

Kim would do it better. He would shoot both the stealer and the stealee.

Cutefix:

Why on Earth are the cops saluting you? Were you wearing some kind of uniform in public?

I wish cops would salute me sometime..... I know they are only pigs but I like getting salutes.

megalomania

November 1st, 2006, 02:43 AM

If the government ignored, or at least severely relaxed, safety and security concerns they could build numerous breeder reactors right now and start turning depleted uranium into useful fuel. With enough electrical power you can make “synthesis gas” which is air and water vapor passed through coke heated to high temperatures to produce natural gas, which is in turn converted into higher hydrocarbons.

It is a very energy intensive process employed where there is already waste heat, so it is an established technology. If you had sufficient surplus electrical energy, and an industrial infrastructure, you could make your own gasoline, plastics, petrochemicals, etc.

Unfortunately the reality of the situation is more complex. The government will not relax safety or security concerns until the energy crisis gets severe. At this point it will take 10-20 years to build a working nuke plant.

The United States may very well experience a “dark age” for 25-50 years if the government fails to plan ahead. Once it becomes apparent we need nuke plants NOW, it will be too late. Unemployment will go rampant, and tax revenues will drop sharply. With the loss of wealth to the government there will not be enough money to develop the infrastructure, and thus any program to build a nuke plant in 10 years will take 30-40 years. America will become like Russia or Cuba during this dark age, a well developed infrastructure, but one that is decades old. I hope my kids like that 2008 Camaro I want because that may be the only car my family will have for most of the 21st century.

When Russia collapsed they left all their hegemonies to their own devices. With the Soviets gone, all the old ethnic hatred resurfaced with a vengeance. Hence the Bosnian-Herzegovina conflict, and others. With the US out of action, will nations that fear US military strikes start rattling the saber? Will opportunistic officers be selling M16s and Stinger Missiles by the truckload? Will Japan, China, and India be the superpowers of the 22nd century?

Hirudinea

November 1st, 2006, 04:31 PM

Sorry but you are wrong about that. Although thorium is a fissile material, it must rather be seen as a kind of fertile one (like U-238), since its fission chain reaction is not sustainable. Unless you do not have neutrons to keep up the chain reaction going, you cannot get energy from the reactor (The chain reaction shall damp away).

The proposed designs for thorium reactors needs a neutron source for the reaction. An example of this is Energy Amplifier. Regards.

Your right, but thorium can be used in Candu style reactors, to breed U-233 fuel, e.g.

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Thorium_cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Thorium_cycle)

and

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

So as you see thorium can be used to breed nuclear fuel.

cutefix

November 1st, 2006, 04:34 PM

Why on Earth are the cops saluting you? Were you wearing some kind of uniform in public?

I wish cops would salute me sometime..... I know they are only pigs but I like getting salutes.

Corona,,,,,,I did not ask them ....for sure they have noticed me being a regular visitor to their training grounds and mayhave thought this guy is something important as they saw me congregate often with Saudi military officers .....?
or its part of their nature to respect foreign trainors regardless of whatever they are wearing .......therefore I treat that behavior a source of amusement and a compliment:cool:

akinrog

November 1st, 2006, 06:47 PM

Your right, but thorium can be used in Candu style reactors, to breed U-233 fuel, e.g.

http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Thorium_cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Thorium_cycle)

and

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

So as you see thorium can be used to breed nuclear fuel.

I have to apologize since I misinformed that Thorium is a fissile material, which is totally wrong. Thorium (232) is a fertile material but U-233 transmuted from Th-232 is a fissile one.

However the first link mentions about mixed core, which means they are using a normal natural (or slightly enriched) uranium to provide neutrons to transmute Th-232 into U-233.

The second link mentions thorium cycle on the basis of U-233 obtained from thorium and third link is irrelevant.

Apart from high gamma activity resulting from impurities in U-233, leading to serious occupational safety problems, U-233 has very serious proliferation problems, which make it a very bad candidate for commercial reactors and US govt shall not allow it to be used other than herself. Regards.

Hirudinea

November 7th, 2006, 09:35 PM

third link is irrelevant.

Actually if you read down through the link you'll see that this line about the reactor -

"The reactor physics design is tuned to maximise the use of thorium based fuel"

Which shows that some people are actually persuing the real world use of thorium.

U-233 has very serious proliferation problems, which make it a very bad candidate for commercial reactors and US govt shall not allow it to be used other than herself.

We'll have to see what India has to say about that.

Kaydon

January 7th, 2007, 01:45 AM

It appears they are wanting to test a second nuke, and we (United States) and Japan are "warning" them, Condoleezza Rice is running her mouth again too.

c.Tech

January 7th, 2007, 10:48 PM

Lets hope Kim doesn’t stick to his word and use military force if his threatened to stop testing again.

Kaydon

January 8th, 2007, 12:54 AM

On one hand I want us to go to war with N. Korea, whereas on the other I don't. Personally, I can't see us winning against N. Korea, being they have a mandatory 2-year term in their Military so they are not short on soldiers, but I feel if we did go to war with them then our Draft would be put back into action, and I'd rather die than fight for this country right now.

Personally, I think we should just Nuke them and get it over with but the whole world turned into fucking pussies after Vietnam that it's now wrong to drop tonnes of napalm on people. Meh.

Bush is arrogant, and Japan is the same, they aren't going to back down.. There will be action taken, whether it be small or what.. We'll see. I don't think Kim will back down either.

Hirudinea

January 9th, 2007, 09:22 PM

On one hand I want us to go to war with N. Korea, whereas on the other I don't. Personally, I can't see us winning against N. Korea, being they have a mandatory 2-year term in their Military so they are not short on soldiers, but I feel if we did go to war with them then our Draft would be put back into action, and I'd rather die than fight for this country right now.

I would think that the Nork army would fall apart much like the Iraqi army. (But you never know.) The problem is if anyone did attack the Norks they would blow Soeul off the map and mabye nuke Japan, and that would mean billions of dollars lost in the market, plus somebody would have to feed all those starving Norks, and those nuked Nips, and who do you think would do it? US! So it would probably be a better idea not to attack Kim right now, just hope he chokes some Bulgolgi. :D

10fingers

January 11th, 2007, 12:42 PM

knowledgehungry

January 11th, 2007, 01:40 PM

I have a feeling that if we did take on NK the war would be more bloody, but the reconstruction would be far, far easier. The South and North are not ethnically different, neither have extreme religious views, and the average Nork citizen is starving to death and would welcome change. The real problem with a war with the Norks is China is backing them.

Hirudinea

January 11th, 2007, 08:28 PM

The Norks are a greater threat than Iraq was but there is no comparison between them and the Iraqis militarily. Asians are more organized, proficient and determined than the Ragheads. It would be a long bloody affair.

I have a feeling that if we did take on NK the war would be more bloody,

I still have to wonder about that, I mean, what do we really know about the Nork Military aside from what they show us, which is 1 million Commie Supermen willing to tear "W"s head off with with their teeth, pure propaganda. The country is starving, the army is kept up by stealing food given to the country by international aid agencies and selling it on the black market, so sure they look nasty, and I'm sure they would destory Seoul, and mabye nuke some people but I think "Organized, military" resistance would be short lived.

We can't handle the problems we have now with the lowly Ragheads.

Raghead "Insurgents", you delt with their Army pretty damn quickly, which is a shame really, because you could use them now to deal with the insurgents who keep blowing your soilders up, at least they would make for more targets. ;)

but the reconstruction would be far, far easier. The South and North are not ethnically different, neither have extreme religious views, and the average Nork citizen is starving to death and would welcome change.

Not really, the reconstruction is what the South Koreans are really scared shitless about about, consider the fact that when West Germany absorbed East Germany (the most successful Commie country the world had seen) the West German economy took a hit, a big downturn, and its still worse off than if they had not taken the East, and most East Germans are still poor and are not voting either Communist or Nazi, reuniting Korea would be a billion times worse! The population of North Korea is 23 million people, probably the poorest people on the planet, and South Korea had 49 million people who are about as rich as Americans, it the Koreas reunite that would be like 141 million homeless people being admited into the United States in one day, imagine the havoc? The country would be ruined, and if Korea were reunited in that way so would it, if you get my point.