Is The Earth On It's Last Legs???

Iran is using WW2-era mass spectrometer technology to refine their Uranium. At the rate that those things can separate the isotopes, they'd be lucky to have enough U235 for maybe one small atom bomb by now.

I am aware of that fact I was giving Iran far more capability then they happen to have or are likely to have fairly far into the future.

My point had been that there is no risk or at worst a very very very small risk to the planet from a large scale nuclear war starting in the middle east under current conditions.

No matter what is said or stated in the middle east about wiping out Israel that nation is in no such danger of being wipe out and given the balance of power with or without some nuclear weapons in the hands of such nations as Iran it is unlikely anyone will try.

The used of a few small atom weapons between Indra and Pakistan in border fighting is possible but I see no route that would lead to a large scale nuclear war either.

Well, I just think perhaps you're underestimating the incredible importance of the middle east to the top nuclear powers (US, Russia, China). Also, maybe there is still much more animosity between the US and Russia than you would like to admit.

The latest Iran sanctions resolution could provoke Iran and lead to war with the US. Like Iraq all over again, we go in there for WMDs, and in response to some minor attack/violation that Iran will inevitably hit us with, like an attack on, or holding captive of, a US ship in the strait of Hormuz. With a brewing war against Iran, and US already occupying Afghanistan and Iraq, Russia could feel even more threatened by the US monopolization of middle eastern energy.

This is just the beginning of a bad scenario that could be coming, as I see it. I think US vs Iran is a pot ready to boil over. Will it lead to WW3? I don't know...but it might be as close to WW3 as we've been in quite some time. With continued posturing on both sides and these new sanctions, it doesn't seem that a peaceful solution is on the way.

Given the balance of power between Iran and the US and the demonstrations we had done a numbers of times of how completely helpless a regional military superpower is compare to us I do not think that Iran will be all that eager to go to the knife edge with us.

Nor do I think it likely that Russia fear of us will overwhelm all the reasons they now have to keep good relationships with Western Europe and us.

The Russians not being happy and them using or even dreaming of using military force to oppose us are two difference things indeed.

The Middle East becoming a flash point between us and the Russians seem highly unlikely all and all to me.

I'll be back here to gloat when US-Iran happens...and investing heavily in energy exploration/exploitation companies.

Some how I can only wonder at anyone stating that they would be gloating over being right concerning a major military conflict occurring considering the deaths and destruction that would surely result.

Hi guys,
Glad that's over with. (not taking sides here) But, Pangloss is spot on, regarding this. ONE suitcase-sized nuclear explosion in or around Jerusalem would see me heading for the hills. The religious implications, alone, would tear civilisation to pieces.
Anyway, On a more Nature-composed level - How long do you think before the tipping-point is reached?
Thank you, and have a brilliant day, all.
Mark...

Hi Farmerman,
Nice to meet you. I was referring to the clathrate-gun effect, whereas - frozen methane under the oceans and in the permofrost is released into the atmosphere (due to melting of permofrost, and warming sea temperatures). once the tipping-point is reached the effect will increase ocean temperatures and melting ice-regions dramatically, Furthering the effect and decimating a large proportion of life and habitation, if not all.
I'm certain you are aware of this - you are a geologist, after all.
I'd like to hear your view on this, if you've time, please farmerman?
Thank you, and have a great day, sir.
Mark...

Some how I can only wonder at someone who would presume that my post there was not full of sarcasm...but, carry on.

And before you arrive and correct me Ken. I know I spelled permafrost wrong.

Mark...

Its not at all "science" clathrates are P/T controlled and they are indicatiove of a CH$ sink , not a source.
As a geologist Ive never been a fan of Anthropogenic Global climate change. Theres very little data to support.

Methyl hydrates,are an artifact of water and pressure acting on methanegas (clathrates is a textural, not a term of genesis or composition and it was popularized by some wag in Europe because of the "triscuit" like structure of the rock, and now its so overused as to be obscure in its real sense.Clathrate is a term that is primarily used in mining geology to describe "Augite/LEucitic minerals where the mineral chemistry forms a compound lattice like structure, and furtherits used to describe textures in fossil bed depositions where we get a "triscuit" terrain formed by certain coral and bryozoan fossil beds) . Methyl hydrates are formed by pressure on the methane and temperature on the water at depths of greater than say, 1000m. The depression of melting temp on seawater is overcome by the exhausting of methane which quickly crytallizes. Thats why BP was given advice from groups of thousands of geologists that their first capture technique (The oversized outhouse) wouldnt work. Once the methane degassed from the crude, it quickly froze into a methyl alushie due to the pressure and Temp at the coalescence point. Hydrates are more a problem of formation plugging up things in deep waters. The main environmental crisis that would occur to them de gassing is if the polar ice began to thicken again and the water lewvels of the ocean would again drop by 300 or so feet.
Keller. E.A. (2002) Introduction to Environmental GeologyPrentice Hall, gives a good discussion of methyl hydrates and why they can be a resource as long as we can react them in situ and pipe the gas or else keep it in a solid state at the P/T triple point of solidification.

I did a lot of research and exploration for hydrates off the East Coaqst (in the Bermuda banks area) back in the early 80's before Reagan killed all the alternative energy research that was initiated by Carter. (I did my grad work in mid 70's so Im an old coot)

Im not familiar with the hydrates in permafrost areas since the CH4 is easily generated there and is continually degassing. (ANy swamp or bog or muskeg area will generate CH4 , thats where we get the "swamp fire" and "willo-the-wisp" tales)

Hi Farmerman,
That is a fantastic reply! Thank you, indeed, for the time you spent in writing this. It is full of information I am interested in, and it throws a new light on the subject. Again - Thank you, sir.
Have a brilliant everything.
Mark...

Well, its not brilliant but I try to keep it polished up as frequently as I can

Suitcase bomb!!!!

The technology to build such a weapon is as far beyond a nation such as Iran as landing a space ship on the moon>

Sure, but the Russians and the US built these small nukes, and the concern is that many of them (the Russian ones) are supposedly unaccounted for.

I know the story however personally I do not give it a great likelihood of being true.

Second, if such a weapon is indeed floating around unless the safe guards codes was included with the weapon it would be a heavy suitcase only. You would not normally store such a weapon with the codes attached to it with a poster note.

Third without servicing on a very regular basic by someone who know what the hell they are doing it would once more turn into a large heavy suitcase.

Hi Bill,
I'm not going to argue with you, because I don't need to, want to or care to. But, I will come round to your house and kick you in your leg if you ever disrespect my "suitcase-bomb" proposition again. And I say that with the conviction of a small, but fast, weregerbil.
Have a great day Bill, But don't take Pangloss on - He's been more than gentlemanly in his discourse so far, and he is right.
Mark...

Also Bill, I didn't say anybody was in posession of said (direspected) bomb. I was referring to the effect of something portable, so to limit the peripherals and promote the effect of, what should've apparently been perceived, but was not, the minimal proportion of destruction.
Mark...

We have no idea if a code would be necessary for these Russian portable nukes. Further, it wouldn't be too difficult to set off a uranium-based nuclear device, even if using some type of improvised detonator, or to extract the Uranium and set it off in another way. Plutonium is another issue.



How do you figure this? U-235 has a half-life of 700 million years; as long as you've got a critical mass of weapons grade U-235, even a group like Al Qaeda could build a nuke. Refining the Uranium is the hard part, but if some country like Iran or a terrorist group got their hands on an old Russian portable nuke, they'd have what they need to finish the job.

The main problem with these small nukes is that they're just not very devastating. A "suitcase" style nuke might not be much more effective than, say, the 9/11 attacks, or the use of biological weapons in a public water supply, or a large conventional bomb, but it would need to somehow be smuggled into its target country and planted at its target without being discovered.