I am going to push back on your statement that nuclear physics was in its infancy in the 1940s. By then, we knew a whole lot about nuclear forces, processes etc. Also, I am fairly confident that it wasn't the physics that was the hard part in building the bomb. After the engineering challenges were figured out, I believe the process was fairly streamlined.
But you quoted it - you might want to read it. Or alter your
It strengthens both Putin's unilateral invasion of Ukraine and bolsters the claim that China could also act unilaterally. Of course.
We had no idea until testing whether the chain reaction could or would be contained. We had an hypothesis.
Imagine thinking that a grotesque fatass that wears diapers and makeup and uses fruity hand gestures when he talks is an “alpha male” lol. Trump is a grade-A bitch, just like you.
Yes, I'm aware that certain things can come across as condescending. It's much harder for me to know when. That's part of being on the spectrum.
Well, it's not an important point but I suspect that our greater knowledge of nuclear forces eases the engineering challenges. The neutron was discovered in 1932 and I don't think we can meaningfully talk about nuclear physics before that date. So that puts the field at age 10 in 1942. It is now 90+ years old. I think that counts as infancy, but more importantly it doesn't matter.
So the problem is not with the person who posted the link and argued for its veracity, but with the people who responded to that poster? This is the problem with some posters here. They don't care about the facts or the discussion as a whole, just the posters. For example, I'm not the one who claimed that Iran was a week away from getting a nuke, yet I'm getting bombarded because I pointed out that another poster argued this fact.
You can reach any conclusion if you get to make up probabilities. I think the evidence strongly suggests that the odds of a nuclear Iran bombing Jerusalem is far, far less than 1%. Since nobody has ever used a nuke outside declared war, and that was 80 odd years ago, the odds of Iran breaking that streak despite its obvious irrationality has to be considered far less than 1%. It's infinitessimal.
Was this you?
For the record, I don’t disagree with anything you said.
Saying makeup wearing, YMCA fanboy Captain Bone Spurs is your ideal of a Alpha Male is..... peak Beta.
www.cbsnews.com
Forgive me from citing Wikipedia, but you can see why Israel doesn't think that is a risk worth taking. See the section on "Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy." The threats made over the past couple of decades have been consistent and have been alarming.
Yes, and I also stated that I didn't buy that estimate.
That's interesting and all, but modern nuclear weapons are not made from uranium. I very much doubt Iran is trying to recreate the Hiroshima bomb, which was the only nuke I'm aware of that was made from enriched uranium. Fat Man was plutonium, as are pretty much every nuclear weapon produced these days. I think Pakistan has only assembled a uranium bomb but they have plutonium in reserve in case they are planning to actually use them.
Yeah, over a couple of decades. That doesn't cut the way you think. You should hear the things North Korea says. It's all talk, and everyone knows it. It's an excuse for Iran to support its regional proxies.Forgive me from citing Wikipedia, but you can see why Israel doesn't think that is a risk worth taking. See the section on "Destruction of Israel in Iranian policy." The threats made over the past couple of decades have been consistent and have been alarming.
Iran–Israel relations - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Not in that post or another. Perhaps further down the line you retreated but if you want to know why people are ascribing this position to you, it might because you expressed it in two posts.
www.hollywoodreporter.com
I simply highlighted what the article said....the article that was posted by someone else. Yet that poster has not received any flack whatsoever for posting the article. Strange, really.
