Comments on: Why is it taking Iran so long to make a nuclear weapon? Didn’t it only take the US four years to invent them? http://www.scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/ The Shortest Distance Between You and Science Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:45:26 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Jak http://www.scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/comment-page-1/#comment-4444 Jak Tue, 02 Feb 2010 23:59:47 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/#comment-4444 Iran's president never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map - that is mere propaganda. He actually stated "this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time". Iran’s president never said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map – that is mere propaganda.

He actually stated “this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time”.

]]> By: d http://www.scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/comment-page-1/#comment-1736 d Mon, 12 May 2008 22:07:11 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/#comment-1736 nitpick: the 235/238 denotes the atomic mass, which is roughly the sum of the number of protons and neutrons, not just the number of neutrons. The article isn't necessarily wrong, since the number of protons is fixed (143) it's just that the number of neutrons is not 235 or 238, but (235-143) or (238-143) nitpick: the 235/238 denotes the atomic mass, which is roughly the sum of the number of protons and neutrons, not just the number of neutrons. The article isn’t necessarily wrong, since the number of protons is fixed (143) it’s just that the number of neutrons is not 235 or 238, but (235-143) or (238-143)

]]> By: Skip http://www.scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/comment-page-1/#comment-1479 Skip Sun, 09 Mar 2008 08:23:24 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/#comment-1479 Of the amount of fissionable material contained within a nuclear weapon, I have read that only a few grams are consumed in the explosion when critical mass is reached. If 30 pounds of fissional material is the minimum required with today's technology, how much would actually be consumed in the fission versus scattered by the explosion? Also, what role does tritium gas play in the explosive power of nuclear weapon? Of the amount of fissionable material contained within a nuclear weapon, I have read that only a few grams are consumed in the explosion when critical mass is reached. If 30 pounds of fissional material is the minimum required with today’s technology, how much would actually be consumed in the fission versus scattered by the explosion? Also, what role does tritium gas play in the explosive power of nuclear weapon?

]]> By: notgiven http://www.scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/comment-page-1/#comment-1287 notgiven Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:09:04 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/#comment-1287 the proof that Iran seeks to build a nuclear weapon is because their president said they were and he said he would use it to wipe Israel off the globe the proof that Iran seeks to build a nuclear weapon is because their president said they were
and he said he would use it to wipe Israel
off the globe

]]> By: VTECHER http://www.scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/comment-page-1/#comment-1166 VTECHER Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:23:24 +0000 http://scienceline.org/2007/11/20/ask-fox-nuclearbombs/#comment-1166 The article seems to be based on the assumption that Iran is actively working to build nuclear weapons. This is an important assumption because if it is not true, then the whole question is irrelevant. You do not offer any evidence (beyond the public perception in the U.S. and an irrelevant link to BBC) to justify this assumption. In fact there is very little, if any, serious intelligence to substantiate this assumption. IAEA which is the most informed party says it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb (and I guess you know that proving a negative, i.e. that Iran is not building a bomb, is logically impossible; so this is the best we can hope for). Moreover, the majority of conservative religious leaders in Iran have put a religious ban on building nuclear weapons, which complicates Iranian government's work even if they wanted to build one. In short, by starting with the assumption that Iran is actively working to build a bomb, you simply reinforce a dangerous mis-perception that can get us into another war. I don't think this is your intention, so please do your homework better before basing an article on a stereotype. The article seems to be based on the assumption that Iran is actively working to build nuclear weapons. This is an important assumption because if it is not true, then the whole question is irrelevant. You do not offer any evidence (beyond the public perception in the U.S. and an irrelevant link to BBC) to justify this assumption. In fact there is very little, if any, serious intelligence to substantiate this assumption. IAEA which is the most informed party says it has found no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb (and I guess you know that proving a negative, i.e. that Iran is not building a bomb, is logically impossible; so this is the best we can hope for). Moreover, the majority of conservative religious leaders in Iran have put a religious ban on building nuclear weapons, which complicates Iranian government’s work even if they wanted to build one. In short, by starting with the assumption that Iran is actively working to build a bomb, you simply reinforce a dangerous mis-perception that can get us into another war. I don’t think this is your intention, so please do your homework better before basing an article on a stereotype.

]]>