Iran soon?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Good call!

To call the U.S. an illegitimate country that had just rebelled against Britain is inaccurate, since when Washington left the Presidency, the Revolutionary War had been over for 14 years. The nations of the world acknowledged it during that time, including Great Britain, making it legitimate.

Your statement about the U.S. being friendless (save France), powerless and defenseless is also inaccurate in its totality. During Washington and Adams' administrations, the United States and France became increasingly hostile to each other, and more pro-Britain. Towards the end of Adams' administration, in fact, there U.S. fought an undeclared naval war with France. Which the U.S. won. Within a few years, the United States was able to sustain a war in the Mediterranean against the Barbary Pirates. Granted, it wasn't a major war, like the ones being waged in Europe at the same time, but that's still far from home. Powerless countries can't do that.

Stoob's quotation of Washington is also inaccurate. Washington wasn't advocating neutrality, he was advocating not entering "permanent" or "entangling" alliances with other countries. He was all for temporary alliances that served a particular need should one arise, but a permanent alliance would tie the U.S. to other nations, which might become detremental to the U.S. later (as in the case with the alliance with France). His idea was not to promote American isolation from the world, but to let the United States "act for ourselves and not for others." (The next time the U.S. signed a treaty of alliance was 1949.)

Besides, it isn't as if neutrality and imperialism can't co-exist. For most of the Victorian Era, Great Britain remained largely neutral in European affairs, but during that same time, the British Empire expanded to cover 2/5 of the world's land area.

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

Quote:

It sucks that there is the idea of a nuclear strike, even if as a bunk-buster, going through some people's minds.

What is somewhat comforting though is that some officers would resign if the option were used. I can't imagine public opinion ever supporting this either though, so at least it would be okay there as well.

Quote:

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

Never accept that idea. Challenge Styphon and others who know a lot (ie, Night Phoenix as well) or you'll never learn much. Having to figure out how to retort is better than just studying what they say. Thats just my opinion though.

Originally Posted by Cyrus XIII

Agreed, though I'd argue that China could be called a superpower as well while it messes a lot less with world affairs.

China can have their say in world affairs through the UN or whatnot, but being able to act independently on these affairs is totally another matter. Thats what seperates a superpower, to say a reigonal power, which is probably what China is right now.

Originally Posted by Stoob

*Makes note to himself never to try and duel Styphon in a history-off...or duel a mod in any other thing for that matter*

Very good idea. Styphon's owned me in history so many times that it's practically an inevitability by now.

Honestly, I have NO clue why I talk about history outside of pure masochism. That, and a futile hope that ONE DAY I WILL BEAT LORD STYPHON IN A HISTORY DEBATE. ;_;

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

China can have their say in world affairs through the UN or whatnot, but being able to act independently on these affairs is totally another matter. Thats what seperates a superpower, to say a reigonal power, which is probably what China is right now.

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

Quote:

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kenya, Brazil, Thailand, Australia, South Africa, Japan and South Korea, Morrocco, Argentina, etc.

They're all regional powers. I don't see any of them becoming world superpowers like China. Japan is already at its high and likely won't get much more powerful, and Brazil has the chance to rise, but it won't become a US or anything.

Regional powers are still very much alive and will survive, its not coming to an end really.

Originally Posted by Stoob

I don't know, the age of a "regional" anything is coming to an end. I think if you have the resources to be a regional power in this day and age, then you have the resources to be a world power.

There is actually still quite a difference between a reigonal power and a world power. With reigonal powers you can get away with only a brown-water/littoral navy. But in order to be a world power you'll need a blue-water navy. In addition you will need the means to project your power, done through America's some 12 aircraft carriers (not counting Marine carriers). We can simply park a carrier battle group off the coast of a nation and we'll instantly have a powerful naval and aerial presence in the area, which is more then enough to sway events in the reigon to our favor. Even after that you will need to have the means to sustain such a presence at any point in the world. Currently only the US has the capabilities to fullfill all of the above, thus the world's only world power.

Quote:

There is actually still quite a difference between a reigonal power and a world power. With reigonal powers you can get away with only a brown-water/littoral navy. But in order to be a world power you'll need a blue-water navy. In addition you will need the means to project your power, done through America's some 12 aircraft carriers (not counting Marine carriers). We can simply park a carrier battle group off the coast of a nation and we'll instantly have a powerful naval and aerial presence in the area, which is more then enough to sway events in the reigon to our favor. Even after that you will need to have the means to sustain such a presence at any point in the world. Currently only the US has the capabilities to fullfill all of the above, thus the world's only world power.

>.< I addressed the entire thing on page two.


Also, theres a difference between a world power and a superpower in some regards. You talked about the military aspect, although remember, military power is a difficult area. For example, the French and British both have remarkably powerful navies. No rivals of the US, but the French can still stick a CBG almost anywhere relatively quickly. The Charles De Gaulle is a formidable force. In addition, France has a formiddable strategic bomber force, nuclear force, and strong air dogfight capabilities. Yet, its not a superpower.

Distinctions are a bitch sometimes, aren't they?

But hey, it's France.

I do understand what you're saying and agree, though. Just couldn't resist throwing in a jab at France for their military history.

Well, the French, British, Russians, and Americans are probably the four most liberally minded when it comes to using their militaries nowdays. The French certainly don't hesitate when it comes to dealing with their former colonies and civil wars (read: Ivory Coast).

Originally Posted by Adamgian

The Charles De Gaulle is a formidable force.

Provided of course that the carrier works as intended once the carrier reaches its hotspot. There is a good reason why the French are considering to buy their next carrier from England instead of building it on their own.

Quote:

No rivals of the US, but the French can still stick a CBG almost anywhere relatively quickly.

I remember reading somewhere that the de Gaulle is actually slower than the carrier it replaced, the Foch. Of course its still quite fast, relative to slower than Foch ships.

However you are right about my word choice, should've used "Super power" instead.

Quote:

Provided of course that the carrier works as intended once the carrier reaches its hotspot. There is a good reason why the French are considering to buy their next carrier from England instead of building it on their own.

Thats in general because the French have severe difficulties with all things nuclear it seems. They're nuclear deterrent (Force de Frappe) was and is the same bungled, absurdily expensive mess that the Chales De Gaulle is. Compared to the British version that is, which relies heavily on US designs such as the Trident missile.

Quote:

I remember reading somewhere that the de Gaulle is actually slower than the carrier it replaced, the Foch. Of course its still quite fast, relative to slower than Foch ships.

Probably, its a pretty large ship. Although if theres a zone thats about to go hot, you usually have a few days/weeks notice to move there at least. Point taken though.

I will commend the French though, the Charles De Gaulle remains the most capable carrier outside of the US Navy, in which the Nimitz decimate almost anything else.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

Thats in general because the French have severe difficulties with all things nuclear it seems. They're nuclear deterrent (Force de Frappe) was and is the same bungled, absurdily expensive mess that the Chales De Gaulle is.

Its the massive nuclear clusterfucks like France has that seperates the real superpowers from the wanna-be superpowers, barring all other qualifications for superpower-dom.

Originally Posted by Adamgian

I will commend the French though, the Charles De Gaulle remains the most capable carrier outside of the US Navy, in which the Nimitz decimate almost anything else.

That I must agree with you, or at least until Britian finishes their new full-sized carriers.

Military nerds are so funny.

~

What about the claims that Iran HAS finished enrichment of Uranium? True/False/Dream?

As far as I understand - enriched uranium is just one of the many steps required to produce a working atomic weapon. Through the use of various pieces of equipment, you seperate the U235 (middle weight isotope) from the mined uranium, usually by gaseous diffusion (uranium tetra-chloride), or centrifuges (iran is using the latter iirc).

Even though this is a major step - they are still far away from creating a working weapon - they still have to deal with obtaining the right weights for a critical mass, and perfecting the timers and explosives to the accuracy needed to acheive that critical mass. etc...

Just because they have a long way to go doesn't mean there is anything standing in their way.

Originally Posted by Locke

As far as I understand - enriched uranium is just one of the many steps required to produce a working atomic weapon. Through the use of various pieces of equipment, you seperate the U235 (middle weight isotope) from the mined uranium, usually by gaseous diffusion (uranium tetra-chloride), or centrifuges (iran is using the latter iirc).

If I recall correctly, gaseous diffusion isn't being used anymore, unless the plants are already built. It's inefficient when compared to centrifuges or other somewhat still experimental methods.

Originally Posted by Locke

Even though this is a major step - they are still far away from creating a working weapon - they still have to deal with obtaining the right weights for a critical mass, and perfecting the timers and explosives to the accuracy needed to acheive that critical mass. etc...

Sadly enough, this is not entirely true. What Iran has is enriched uranium, not the usual plutonium which can be produced using U238, in very large quantities. This might look like a good thing, as less material means less bombs, but there are other differences between Pu239 and U235. I explain those in the next paragraph, skip it if you want, it's not absolutely necessary.

(During the production of Pu239 through neutron absorption in a nuclear reactor, a whole load of different nuclear reactions take place in the fuel. You have the fission of U235 itself, used to produce energy, but you have impurities in the fuel which might be tranformed into other elements, or even a minority of "unusual" reactions in the U238, U235 or Pu239. One element resulting of those reaction is a rather uncommon isotope of uranium or plutonium, I can't remember which. I *think* it's Pu240, doesn't really matter. Anyway, that isotope has a somewhat low half-life, meaning it's likely to desintegrate and release a number of products, including neutrons. Neutrons happen to be what is used to split U235 or Pu239 atoms in an atomic bomb. The process is essentially this, you'll have different masses coming together, forming a supercritical mass, meaning more neutrons are produced than lost, leading to a chain reaction. The longer the masses stay together, the more energy you'll have time to release. If the masses do not stay supercritical for long enough, the bomb will fail to work correctly. Now, the thing is, the neutrons liberated by the Pu240 are enough to make the reaction begin much sooner, when the masses are not completely together, or right after they've touched. Enough energy will be generated to separate the masses, but not much else. In the end, the bomb will fizzle out.)

Now, what this means is that to use Pu239 you need to have a much greater force holding the masses of fissile material at first. Those found in an implosion-type device are enough. Those in a gun-type device are not. However, U235 does not have this same problem, meaning a gun-type device will work with U235. And gun-type devices are a whole lot simpler than implosion-type devices. First of all, there's no need to worry about explosion timing, no need to worry about explosive lenses used to focus shockwaves at particular points and all the calculations that follow. Second, the masses of fissile materials don't have to be made as precisely. Figuring out how much you need isn't the toughest thing ever. There are calculations to be made, of course, but they're not complex when compared to other things you encounter in physics or engineering.

This is somewhat similar to the path South Africa followed. They want to get a bomb, any bomb. It doesn't matter if it's inefficient and that they can't make it into an H-bomb afterwards. And they want it soon. Of course, there are other circumstances; unlike North Korea, Iran doesn't have a reprocessing plant or any other source of plutonium, and they're not building an arsenal capable of destroying the US, as the USSR was, so they have no reason NOT to make a gun-type device if they want a bomb.

I have a question, you may be able to answer it.

What is between ANY country and the building of a nuclear weapon, really? The technology CANNOT be that tough - the US got it right many many years ago.

Isn't there like tons of literature on it too?