Nuclear Iran?

[kowalskil]

Nuclear Iran?

I agree with those who think the Iran agreement should be supported, first because nothing better seems to be available, second because I suspect that technological means of supervision (to avoid a global catastrophe), are available in the USA. Here is what I have just posted on that subject, at an Internet forum for physics teachers:

" ... How can one detect the strongly-enriched uranium, placed either inside or outside of a bomb? I am sure that nuclear physicists have been addressing this problem, in the context of inspecting vessels arriving to our ports, or crossing our borders.

One possible approach is to irradiate a suspected object with a source of slow neutrons (for example, a Cf-252 source surrounded by pure graphite or paraffin). The slow neutrons, in turn, would induce fission; fission fragments would be gamma radioactive and gamma rays would be detectable from outside the suspected material. ... " The idea is simple, but it presents some practical difficulties, as always. For example, how can one distinguish gamma rays emitted by fission products in the enriched uranium from the gamma rays emitted by fission products in the Cf-252 source? Will the method work despite the presence of the cosmic background?

Ludwik Kowalski, a retired nuclear physicist (see Wikipedia)

http: //csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

[Baruch]

I know you from another blog ... shhh!

For the folks here, I support the proposed treaty with the controls proposed.  Trust but verify.  If you can't verity, then there is no need for a treaty.

[Solitary]

Why do you always post something you support and then deny it with speculation? Why can't it be verified?

[drunkenshoe]

Why do you always post something you support and then deny it with speculation? Why can't it be verified?

[Baruch]

Glad y'all are entertained, I am too ;-))

Well I am assuming it can be verified (but not everything can be) ... same as treaties with the old Soviet Union vs US.  Some will oppose because they don't want the Iranians to be involved with any of it ... but that isn't what was done with the Soviet Union, and things worked out alright.  And really the part about trust is ... a joke.  No country can trust any other!  But the treaty is unfair of course.  While the Iranians got a lifting of sanctions, they don't get reciprocity.  they should be able to come to not only Israel, but the US, to help supervise that we are destroying all our nukes (we both already have them) and dismantle most of our nuclear technology, including nuclear power.  That would be a real treaty, but only in a fantasy world.

Well I can support things, even if I don't completely agree with it.  And I can support things even if I am not completely sure of it.  What kind of Black-White thinking requires that one completely agree with something, and only if you are completely sure of it?  That prevents any treaty at all. other than the Convention To Lock Up All The Paranoid Assholes.  There are two sides to every coin .. and don't forget that tricky edge!