- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is it reckless to bunker bomb a nuclear enrichment site?
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:14 pm to spacewrangler
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:14 pm to spacewrangler
Reckless And I think it's against international law.
0
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:16 pm to spacewrangler
quote:
It seems like it would lead to a disastrous, radioactive, environmental catastrophe .
Yeah...that's why it's prohibited by international law
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:30 pm to spacewrangler
No
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:31 pm to Powerman
No what else was prohibited by international law?
Man made China Flu being released globally.
Man made China Flu being released globally.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:32 pm to spacewrangler
quote:
seems like it would lead to a disastrous, radioactive, environmental catastrophe .
You should study nuclear physics.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:42 pm to theballguy
A conventional bomb…trying to blow up a site with enriched uranium.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:45 pm to spacewrangler
Im sure this has been eviscerated already, but you cant just blow up some fissile material and make a nuclear explosion. You cant even really do anything harmful beyond scattering some radioactive stuff around. Since it's underground, it wont go anywhere
Posted on 6/18/25 at 10:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I think he's asking about the nuclear material the conventional bomb will affect
Its underground, should contain the material well.
Anyone in the hole is dead real fast, but unlikely that it's more than a local contamination.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 11:48 pm to riccoar
quote:
No what else was prohibited by international law?
Man made China Flu being released globally.
We're the ones that engineered the virus
Posted on 6/18/25 at 11:58 pm to spacewrangler
What do we do with nuclear waste?
Bury it under tons of rock.
Take out the innocent goat lives lost as live-in mistresses, this would be pretty much the same.
Bury it under tons of rock.
Take out the innocent goat lives lost as live-in mistresses, this would be pretty much the same.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 4:13 am to spacewrangler
It is rckless not to. The Bunker buster will cause the undeground facility to implode. If some radiation leaks and kills Iranians close by then that is too bad.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 4:26 am to Goforit
It won't do much. Uranium is radioactive but not extremely so. What you have to worry about are fissile products like cesium-137, strontium-90 and various isotopes of iodine. But those are only produced inside a reactor. We wouldn't be bombing a reactor.
People are confusing a reactor and centrifuges. They are not the same.
People are confusing a reactor and centrifuges. They are not the same.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 4:28 am to spacewrangler
[quote]Is it reckless to bunker bomb a nuclear enrichment site?[/quoteIt would be less reckless than continuing to allow progress toward nukes in a malignant theocracy looking to spread world terror.
Assuming that's the equation, and the mullah humanzees refuse to give their nuke weaponization effort up (and assuming the bunkerbuster/s can actually do the job), the decision becomes one of not "if," but "when."
Assuming that's the equation, and the mullah humanzees refuse to give their nuke weaponization effort up (and assuming the bunkerbuster/s can actually do the job), the decision becomes one of not "if," but "when."
Posted on 6/19/25 at 5:17 am to spacewrangler
quote:Perhaps. We've tried for a long time to reason with the leaders of Iran and failed. What's the alternative? Let them build a bomb? Let's say they did get a bomb or several. Would they put them on a shelf and admire them? Or would they use them?
It seems like it would lead to a disastrous, radioactive, environmental catastrophe
I'd argue they'd use them or give them to one of their proxies and have them use the bomb(s). Would the use of the bombs be worse than hitting the material with a bunker buster? I think so.
The world is not a perfect place. Sometimes we have to choose the lesser of 2 evils.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 5:20 am to RollTide4547
If they are not sure if the bunker buster will be effective, why dont they just James Bond that damn place? Send some people in to take it over, blow it up from inside.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 5:28 am to Lieutenant Dan
quote:
No one knows.
How do you know that No one Knows?
Posted on 6/19/25 at 5:52 am to LanierSpots
Do you want to sign up for a suicide mission! This is real life, not the fantasy world of James Bond.
Posted on 6/19/25 at 5:56 am to spacewrangler
It will not matter if the the Uranium is fully enriched. It will be no more dangerous than the radiation that you encounter each day living in your house with a microwave, exposure to the sun, getting an xray, or talking on your phone (unless you are driving and talking then you may get shot by a road rage).
Posted on 6/19/25 at 5:57 am to spacewrangler
There never was a nuclear enrichment site
Posted on 6/19/25 at 5:57 am to LanierSpots
quote:Works in the movies, but lots of good guys would die in real life.
why dont they just James Bond that damn place? Send some people in to take it over, blow it up from inside.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News