If moron* "nukes'em till they glow" in Iran, won't that iradiate...

[Javaman]

the oil fields?

Kinda like cutting off your leg to save the foot.

[ck4829]

Not to mention Afghanistan, India, and several other countries

[Booster]

23. And not to mention our OWN TROOPS in those areas.

:scared:

[phantom power]

1. They seem to be contemplating smaller tactical nukes.

Widespread fallout should not be a problem. Unless, of course, he unleashes fucking WW-III, in which case widespread fallout might be everybody's problem.

[tocqueville]

8. wrong, because the explosion will be at ground level

a 1 kt yield moves up to ten of 1000 t of radioactive dust.

[Karmakaze]

11. 60,000 tons

A 1 kiloton mini nuke bunker buster detonating at it maximum depth will create 60,000 tons of fallout

[tocqueville]

15. thanks, I didn't remember the exact figure nt

[TexasLawyer]

25. A 1KT bomb will not take out a bunker

deeply buried under rock.

A 1Megaton bomb (1000 KTs) won't even do it, if the bunker is below 1,000 feet.

See Union of Concerned Scientists animation:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x896881

[Karmakaze]

29. Yep! Which is why they are running this test...

They are not targeting the bunker, but its tunnel entrances. They are testing to see how much damage can be done to the tunnel entrances with these nukes. I guess they figure if they can block off the bunker for an extended period of time, it is the next best thing to actually destroying the bunker.

It may be, in fact, that they are RELYING on the fallout to be the actual weapons, rather than an unwanted by-product. If they can make the entrance radioactive enough, then the "enemy" won't be able to dig new entrances.

[Atman]

27. THERE ARE NO "SMALLER" NUCLEAR ATTACKS!

They are talking about using modified B61-11 nukes. These bombs are incredibly powerful fission-fusion-fission devices that, even if scaled back in their destructive force, will cause massive fallout around the world.

It is INSANITY to even consider nukes. There are no "tactical" nukes!

[Lerkfish]

2. nope, they make money on oil SCARCITY, not oil supply.

they don't care if they reduce the overall amount of available oil, as long they increase their control over what is still available.

[converted_democrat]

7. Thank you.. I've been trying to explain this to people for the last two

weeks, and they look at me like I'm cross eyed..

[NYC]

9. To reinforce your argument, point out the RECORD profits,

and the reduction of oil flowing in Iraq.

[Javaman]

18. I see your point, but...

if the amount that is available glows, then what good is it for anyone? Granted the price per barrel will go sky high but that would have more far ranging effects upon the U.S. and world economy.

I think they want to keep it unnaturally high but at the same time, not going so high to cut off their flow of cash coming in. The slow boil on the frog syndrome. However, if nukes are actually used, which, I still don't believe they* are quite that stupid, then all bets are off, no body makes a dime because the cost will cause the economy to screech to a halt.

[JuniperLea]

3. He'd sell it anyway

Why would he care that he's making money off a radioactive product?


:shrug:

[YOY]

4. Iran is a big place

Oil is underground.

Not all bombs have the same level of fallout.

Neutron bombs for example...

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

Nasty stuff eh...who would use a thing like that. Like the god Vulcan said to Sally in Terry Gilliam's Baron Munchausen: "We cater to all types here."

[longship]

17. Bunker busters make huge amounts of fallout.

actually a disproportional amount given their yield. Don't forget that the bunker busters they'd likely use are big ones.

[Javaman]

19. True but the refineries and methods of transport are above ground. nt

[YOY]

26. Making a "contained refinery" would be one possibility to shield

from radiation. Take a look at the huge building they are making to contain the Chernobyl reactor in the latest National Geographic...huge is an understatement. An oil rig would need a significantly smaller containment building. Transportation in a radiation protected vehicle would also be a possibility. Just shield the cab and move it to a better spot.

Using highly paid and protected workers would be another...I can't imagine those Haliburton workers without radiation suits when working in a danger zone.

We all know that they would never overbomb any area that had oil in it. Population centers and thier 'sensitive targets' are another matter...

I cringe at the thought of what neocons are not willing to do for money, oil, and pseudopatriotism.

[Javaman]

28. That would be nice but have you seen the city that once surrounded...

Chernobyl? It's a ghost town. They could shield those refineries all they want, that still help anything in the surrounding area. Thousands of tons of irradiated dust thrown up into the atmosphere would be really hard to clean up.

Everyone thinks that Chernobyl was in the middle of nowhere. Nope, right next to a thriving city. And anyone that seriously thinks that cleaning up the area after wards as an option is delirious.

Check out this site:

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/

[YOY]

30. Why on earth would the neocons want to do that?

They don't give a damn about the people. They can just fly in workers when needed and fly or drive them out when they are done. I'm sure that irradiated land is just an acceptable loss to the goose-stepping mind.

[KansDem]

5. It will also spew chemical and biological substances into the atmosphere

According to the simulation on another thread. I had posted this concern in the past, but was somewhat assured by DUers that such an explosion would destroy many of these materials, rendering them useless. Now the "concerned atomic scientists" say otherwise.

This bunch is extremely dangerous!

[tocqueville]

10. if they have some and if they are stored at the same location

#1 is likely (at least chemical)
#2 not likely

[tocqueville]

6. depends in what direction the wind blows that day

[pk_du]

12. Must-see animation of effect of nuclear attack on Iran

from Union of Concerned Scientists..

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html

[sinkingfeeling]

13. And I can't wait until the nuclear fallout hits our ally, Pakistan. Guess

what, numb nuts, other countries do have nukes! And they just might retaliate.

[benburch]

14. The oil is deep enough that this will not be an issue. For the oil.

Of course, WORKERS in those fields will get large radiation doses, but Shrubbie doesn't give a rat's ass about them.

[tocqueville]

16. in a murphy's law scenario the extraction equipment in

Kuwait, Saudi-Arabia could be contaminated. Before it's replaced expect oil prices at $300 the barrel.

[Javaman]

20. Wouldn't that be a terrorifying bit of irony. nt

[sutz12]

21. If you look at the prevailing downwinds....

as shown in that other thread with the video on bunker busters,

it will irradiate our own troops in Afganistan!!!

:nuke:

[Rocknrule]

22. They don't care about oil anymore

they just want everyone on the planet dead

[dogday]

24. I saw a simulation if Iran was hit

the fallout would flow east and settle over several countries... It will be that large....

[KatyMan]

31. Why do you hate Merca? (EOM)

:D