If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story)   A graph obtained from an Iranian computer simulation suggests that they are interested in playing a game of Global Thermonuclear War. Or a nice game of chess. Hard to tell, really   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 150
    More: Scary, nuclear warfare, Iranians, U.S. state abbreviations, Iran, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, International Atomic Energy Agency, uranium enrichment, David Albright  
•       •       •

4861 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 4:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 07:04:05 PM
The curve peaks at just above 50 kilotons at around 2 microseconds, reflecting the full force of the weapon being modeled.

YOU WENT TO COLLEGE. WHY CAN'T YOU READ A SIMPLE farkING GRAPH.
 
2012-11-27 07:05:00 PM

meat0918: 'm just amazed the US is still the only country that has detonated not one but two nukes against an enemy target (and a civilian populace to boot) and we have not had one other government or other organization use them in even a military setting since they were developed. Sure lots of tests, but no actual use.

Is MAD truly that paralyzing of a deterrent? And thank goodness if it is.


A fairly supportable hypothesis is that the organizational changes, cost, and political effort entailed in getting atomic weapons turns a country into a more-or-less rational actor (see every nuclear country but N.Korea) or an impoverished backwater who can't afford to do anything else (see N. Korea) no matter how crazy (see Pakistan and India before they got the Bomb) it started out.
 
2012-11-27 07:05:06 PM

impaler: Wow, looks like someone plotted the integral of a normal distribution


That's called a z-function or a q-function
 
2012-11-27 07:21:57 PM

BeesNuts: Relatively Obscure: Rev. Skarekroe: That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.

No there isn't. Not one that doesn't involve cheating.

You can not lose every time, though.

I assure you that you can. Though if you were *both* trying to lose for some reason things might get stale-matey again.


Any computer can play Tic-Tac-Toe to never lose. There was an exhibit on this in the Science and Industry museum decades ago. What happens when you whip out this magical "always win" formula on it?

You tie, because anyone can play to tie every single time.
 
2012-11-27 07:22:16 PM

NobleHam: Wanting a bomb is not the same as wanting a "global thermonuclear war." They most likely want it as a deterrent.


A nuke is a pretty effective way to "wipe Israel off the map".

No nukes for Iran. Not yours.
 
2012-11-27 07:23:26 PM

BeesNuts: I assure you that you can. Though if you were *both* trying to lose for some reason things might get stale-matey again.


Well as long as I have your assurance.

/you're wrong
 
2012-11-27 07:25:18 PM
Oh my God, the Iranians have Laffer Curve technology!
 
2012-11-27 07:27:21 PM

skullkrusher: wasn't the whole world already operating under the assumption that they were working on a bomb?


Probably, but somebody wants everyone to be perfectly clear that Iran is working on nukes, and this enriched and weaponized graph proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt! We should invade immediately. If we don't they'll probably start nuking us next week or something. Say, if we ask really nicely, maybe Israel will help...

No idea who "somebody" could possibly be though.
 
2012-11-27 07:30:01 PM
The diagram was leaked by officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran's nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon. The officials provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country not be named.


sounds legit.
if you believe Jewish propaganda
 
2012-11-27 07:52:26 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: The curve peaks at just above 50 kilotons at around 2 microseconds, reflecting the full force of the weapon being modeled.

YOU WENT TO COLLEGE. WHY CAN'T YOU READ A SIMPLE farkING GRAPH.


Hey, I went to college. I'm much better at English than physics, and I can read the graph, but not interpret it within the realm of physics.
 
2012-11-27 07:55:51 PM

Relatively Obscure: Rev. Skarekroe: That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.

No there isn't. Not one that doesn't involve cheating.

You can not lose every time, though.


What?

1. Take a corner.
1a. Second player takes any random square.
2. Take another corner.
2a. Second blocks.
3. Take the center (if it wasn't taken in 1a or 2a) or one of the other two corners.

There is now no move that the second player can make that will stop you from winning.
 
2012-11-27 07:59:12 PM

buckler: The All-Powerful Atheismo: The curve peaks at just above 50 kilotons at around 2 microseconds, reflecting the full force of the weapon being modeled.

YOU WENT TO COLLEGE. WHY CAN'T YOU READ A SIMPLE farkING GRAPH.

Hey, I went to college. I'm much better at English than physics, and I can read the graph, but not interpret it within the realm of physics.


It's not even a physics interpretation. The graph is clearly labeled to say something completely different from what they did.
 
2012-11-27 08:03:39 PM

whistleridge:

Think about it: when was the last time you heard about a symmetrical war, ie a war between two real powers? 1973? Korea? When was the last time two regional powers fought? The last India-Pakistan war?
..


Iran/Iraq war (come on, how did you miss this one?)
South African Border War (a 20+ year clusterfark, spilled over into neighboring countries, dragged in 60,000 Cuban troops, North Korea, Soviet Union, China, the US and Israel)
Second Congo War (various African countries using the Congo as a killing field, over 5 million people dead)
 
2012-11-27 08:09:07 PM

NobleHam: Wanting a bomb is not the same as wanting a "global thermonuclear war." They most likely want it as a deterrent.


Iran remains a signer to the non-proliferation treaty.

it doesn't matter what they want, they can't legally have one.

/Israel, Pakistan, and India never signed it.
 
2012-11-27 08:14:04 PM

Hobodeluxe: The diagram was leaked by officials from a country critical of Iran's atomic program to bolster their arguments that Iran's nuclear program must be halted before it produces a weapon. The officials provided the diagram only on condition that they and their country not be named.


sounds legit.
if you believe Jewish propaganda


Jewish propaganda?

www.thebreman.org
 
2012-11-27 08:17:51 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: buckler: The All-Powerful Atheismo: The curve peaks at just above 50 kilotons at around 2 microseconds, reflecting the full force of the weapon being modeled.

YOU WENT TO COLLEGE. WHY CAN'T YOU READ A SIMPLE farkING GRAPH.

Hey, I went to college. I'm much better at English than physics, and I can read the graph, but not interpret it within the realm of physics.

It's not even a physics interpretation. The graph is clearly labeled to say something completely different from what they did.


And that's what I mean. I can read the values and curves on the graph, but can't extract meaning from it, like the people above who indicate that the power indicated is much, much larger that TFA indicated. I simply don't have the background for it. I'm not stupid, but my knowledge and expertise lie in other areas.
 
2012-11-27 08:20:27 PM

Garbonzo42: Relatively Obscure: Rev. Skarekroe: That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.

No there isn't. Not one that doesn't involve cheating.

You can not lose every time, though.

What?

1. Take a corner.
1a. Second player takes any random square.
2. Take another corner.
2a. Second blocks.
3. Take the center (if it wasn't taken in 1a or 2a) or one of the other two corners.

There is now no move that the second player can make that will stop you from winning.



Yes. There are things that work if the other player is stupid. They do not work if the other player is paying attention. This isn't a secret, people. Jesus.
 
2012-11-27 08:28:24 PM

Garbonzo42: Relatively Obscure: Rev. Skarekroe: That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.

No there isn't. Not one that doesn't involve cheating.

You can not lose every time, though.

What?

1. Take a corner.
1a. Second player takes any random square. the center
2. Take another corner.
2a. Second blocks.
3. Take the center (if it wasn't taken in 1a or 2a) or one of the other two corners. you block

 
2012-11-27 08:57:12 PM
www.thewatcherscouncil.com

Dr. Strangelove: Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the FEAR to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision-making process which rules out human meddling, the Doomsday machine is terrifying and simple to understand... and completely credible and convincing.  


/The undated diagram that was given to the AP by officials of a country critical of Iran's atomic program allegedly calculating the explosive force of a nuclear weapon _ a key step in developing such arms. The diagram shows a bell curve
 
2012-11-27 09:35:42 PM
Put X in the middle!
 
2012-11-27 09:37:08 PM
Say you've got a board of laymen who are nervous about locating a reactor too close to a civilian population and you need to pitch out to them.

Three slides. Same axiis As TFA, different scales as needed to show meaningful data.

1: output of a 100% operational reactor under full load.

2: a simple sketch of the output of a decent sized small nuke.

3: size of the explosion if every failsafe was disabled deliberately in such a way as to make the reactor into the biggest 'bomb' possible

Pause. Go back over the previous slides. Point out the difference in scales.

Reveal slide 4: all of the previous drawn in the danger scale.
 
2012-11-27 09:38:03 PM

Fjornir: Say you've got a board of laymen who are nervous about locating a reactor too close to a civilian population and you need to pitch out to them.

Three slides. Same axiis As TFA, different scales as needed to show meaningful data.

1: output of a 100% operational reactor under full load.

2: a simple sketch of the output of a decent sized small nuke.

3: size of the explosion if every failsafe was disabled deliberately in such a way as to make the reactor into the biggest 'bomb' possible

Pause. Go back over the previous slides. Point out the difference in scales.

Reveal slide 4: all of the previous drawn in the danger scale.


SAME scale, not danger. farking phone.
 
2012-11-27 09:38:18 PM
Oh, and AP is a desperate whore.
 
2012-11-27 09:38:36 PM

BuckTurgidson: Put X in the middle!


allthingsd.com

Nobody puts X in the corner!
 
2012-11-27 09:43:32 PM
Has anyone had the courage to check Freeperville to see if this 'story' has been posted and check the level of concern over there?
 
2012-11-27 09:51:52 PM
Truly, Iraq Iran is the greatest, truly, threat ever to face this nation, truly, and we must stop Iraq Iran before it is too late and Iraq Iran prevents us from building another $15 trillion of "defense" toys on no-bid contracts given to, truly, our noblest, truly, job creatin' citizens.

/truly
 
2012-11-27 10:04:23 PM
JohnnyC

Smartest
Funniest
2012-11-27 06:47:30 PM
Befuddled: Pretty much the moment Iran revealed that they were enriching uranium beyond 5%, they were announcing to the world they were intent on making a nuke.

No. They went up to 20% to make rods (which aren't used in bombs) so they could power a medical research reactor. They tried to buy the 20% rods to power the reactor, but were blocked from doing so. So they made their own to power the reactor. From what I understand all their other rods are produced at lower than 5%. They did try to sell some 20% rods (for use in reactors), but again were blocked.

So when you said, "pretty much", I think you were trying to say, "they didn't announce to the world that they were intent on making a nuke, but I'm going to claim that anyway."

Why make anything up? Why not deal with the reality of the situation? Are you trying to scare other people? Are you scared of Iran? Did you not actually look into why they went about 5% purity yourself? Do you have a motivated interest in misrepresenting the facts?


Projection much? If what you are saying is correct, why is it that Iran declined Russia's offer to enrich the uranium to be used in the Iranian nuclear reactors?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR200 6 031200275.html

Surely, given all of the assistance Russia has given to the Iranian nuclear program, they were not a threat to Iran's "peaceful" nuclear ambitions..
 
2012-11-27 10:12:17 PM
I heard that Iran is about to flood the US market with CFC lightbulbs. And when you use them, you can see boobies right through clothes, so say goodbye to your daughters' virtue and whatnot.

Also they make blah people riot.
 
2012-11-27 10:22:18 PM
wikileaks.org

Maybe their nuclear weapons could be delivered in one of these...

/I mean, long as we're talking abut shiat that doesn't exist, and will be used as a pretense for war and all...
 
2012-11-27 10:44:21 PM

Ennuipoet: GAT_00: What cost a significant fraction of the resources of the most advanced country for several years 70 years ago can easily be done relatively cheaply. Probably $250M would do it.

Indeed, the hard part about nuclear weapons is reliable delivery systems. Building a bomb is not hard, putting those bombs on things that fly accurately to their destination and explode is a bit harder. Of course, if you just want to put your bomb on a boat and sail it into a harbor and have a martyr flip the switch...


See, that's the part that's always baffled me. Building a bomb is not hard. Delivering a bomb is not hard. Delivering a bomb ON A MISSILE is very hard. So on the one hand, you have people freaking out in hysteria because someone (Iran, Best Korea) "might" be building "a" nuke. Yeah, they might, and nobody can really stop them--it's not that difficult, although the physics are far from easy. However, on the other hand, way too many people are complacently saying "Well, but they don't have any way to deliver the thing, so there's no problem!" as if a ballistic missile was the only thing we had to worry about.

So far, we've been fortunate that No. Korea has wanted to join the nuclear club and have a missile-ready nuke, which they couldn't do if someone actually gave them one. Sooner or later, though, someone--probably Iran--is going to realize that the better idea is to have lots of ship- or truck-deployable nukes and start shipping the goddamn things via FedEx. Of course, airbursts are the IDEAL way to deliver a nuke; but a ground-level detonation would certainly do plenty of damage and kill a shiatload of people.

Given that we can't actually stop anyone from building a nuke if they want to, the interdiction needs to focus on preventing the things from becoming the ultimate IED. Which nobody ever seems to consider.
 
2012-11-27 10:47:52 PM

SubBass49: [wikileaks.org image 600x450]

Maybe their nuclear weapons could be delivered in one of these...

/I mean, long as we're talking abut shiat that doesn't exist, and will be used as a pretense for war and all...


Wait a second... is that a mobile brewery?!
 
2012-11-27 10:51:20 PM
We have started wars based on less.
 
2012-11-27 11:05:44 PM
Ha ha. Obama will have to start a war with Iran.
 
2012-11-27 11:05:44 PM
this guy's getting eviscerated in the comments
 
2012-11-27 11:25:11 PM

GranoblasticMan: SubBass49: [wikileaks.org image 600x450]

Maybe their nuclear weapons could be delivered in one of these...

/I mean, long as we're talking abut shiat that doesn't exist, and will be used as a pretense for war and all...

Wait a second... is that a mobile brewery?!


Coors uses rice...Saddam (allegedly) was using ricin...close enough?
 
2012-11-27 11:26:01 PM

jpo2269: Projection much? If what you are saying is correct, why is it that Iran declined Russia's offer to enrich the uranium to be used in the Iranian nuclear reactors?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR200 6 031200275.html

Surely, given all of the assistance Russia has given to the Iranian nuclear program, they were not a threat to Iran's "peaceful" nuclear ambitions..


Your URL doesn't work... and I can't find anything to back up your claim.
 
2012-11-27 11:27:54 PM
Someone named muffinpowertop commented:

"I mean seriously, this is embarrassing. That kind of graph could be produced by any graduate level nuclear physicist. Trying to convince people that Iran is developing nuclear weapons because its physics students can do their homework is insulting to the intelligence of your readers.

More to the point, even if this an authentic graph produced by the Iranian government, it is completely useless. Iran can't use it to make a nuclear weapon because it doesn't describe any aspect of the actual design of a nuclear weapon. It's like claiming someone built a cruise ship because they drew a route around the Florida keys on the back of a Denny's place mat.


LULZ
 
2012-11-27 11:49:14 PM

JohnnyC: jpo2269: Projection much? If what you are saying is correct, why is it that Iran declined Russia's offer to enrich the uranium to be used in the Iranian nuclear reactors?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/12/AR200 6 031200275.html

Surely, given all of the assistance Russia has given to the Iranian nuclear program, they were not a threat to Iran's "peaceful" nuclear ambitions..

Your URL doesn't work... and I can't find anything to back up your claim.


(Washington Post) Iran Rejects Russia's Proposal on Uranium

I don't know what's more annoying: People who can't properly post a link or people who don't bother to delete the spaces that Fark adds to the urls.

/Didn't read the link; just fixing the fail
 
2012-11-28 12:06:00 AM

impaler: That power density function produces over 2,200,000 kT of energy, not 50. That's not triple Big Boy, that's 137,000 Big Boys.


Do I get fries with that?

/Little Boy, Fat Man
//I'm sure you know this, it's a funny typo/slip
///high-quality meals at competitive prices
 
2012-11-28 12:25:38 AM

Oreamnos: /Little Boy, Fat Man
//I'm sure you know this, it's a funny typo/slip
///high-quality meals at competitive prices


damn it...
 
2012-11-28 12:27:37 AM

JohnnyC: english


This is exactly what I noticed. They have Arabic on the bottom - "proof" this came from Iran. Its probably meant to scare Islamaphobes into supporting war against Iran. The actual graph being in English - would not happen if this was real at all. That English is clearly there for us to read, not Iranian nuclear scientists.

This unnamed country sure could have put out a more convincing fake than this. Its only good enough to fool absolute morons. Well, that may be good enough.

trollable.com
 
2012-11-28 02:14:31 AM

GranoblasticMan: Didn't read the link; just fixing the fail


That's from 2006... six years before the 20% uranium. Iran also offered to lower their enrichment process down to below 5% in exchange for having some sanctions lifted, but the offer was rejected: Link

They also weren't making weapons out of the 20% pure, they were powering up their medical research reactor, just like they said they wanted to do: Link

In any case... this story is bullshiat. The chart is in english and it's from undisclosed sources.

Iran hasn't started a war in over 200 years. They do defend themselves viciously when attacked, but their track record is one of defending themselves, not attacking. Even if they did someday build a nuke, I don't think they would use it. In today's world the only thing a nuke gets you is a deterrent system or mutual annihilation (which no country is interested in).
 
2012-11-28 07:51:01 AM

whistleridge: GAT_00: Ennuipoet: GAT_00: Oh no, Iran is working on 70 year old technology that was hideously difficult to make the first time and not as difficult now as you would think once the basics got worked out.

I know, I've built three myself using only a Physics text book and some old radium dial watches!

What cost a significant fraction of the resources of the most advanced country for several years 70 years ago can easily be done relatively cheaply. Probably $250M would do it. Adjusted for inflation, it cost $22B back then, and we used some hideously inefficient methods, not to mention a bomb with far more material than needed.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x300]

From the Afterword:

"I was first bemused, then stunned, as my research revealed just how easy such a project [a nuclear bomb] might be today... what required billions of dollars in the 1940s is much less expensive today. A modern PC has far more power and reliability than the first Eniac, and the "hyrdocodes" which enable a computer to test and validate a weapon's design are easily duplicated. The exquisite machine tools used to fabricate parts can be had for the asking. When I asked explicitly for specifications for the very machines used at Oak Ridge and elsewhere, they arrived by FedEx the next day. Some highly specialized items designed specifically for bomb manufacture may noew be found in stereo speakers... a sufficently wealthy individual could, over a period from five to ten years, produce a mulitistage thermonuclear device."

And that was in 1991. Imagine how much easier than that it is today.

Of course, he cheated and gave his terrorists the 'easy' way out: they already had fully refined plutonium. Making that is the only real challenge anymore. Otherwise, it entirely within the manufacturing capacity and financial means of even very minor state actors - say, Ghana, or Vietnam, or Singapore - to make a nuclear weapon. >It's not hard.

Thankfully, the storage, maintenance, and delivery are ...


I personally know everything necessary to build a nuclear device. It's not really all that complicated, it's just very difficult. Everything you need to know is readily available on the internet, and has been since well before Wikipedia's hay day.

It certainly would be horribly inefficient, less efficient even than the first nuclear devices in all likelihood, but the commonly-held idea that nuclear weapons are too complex for non-nuclear nations to easily develop and use is patently false. It's just a matter of obtaining the materials without incurring an explosive rainstorm.
 
2012-11-28 08:16:25 AM

MindStalker: Grand_Moff_Joseph: History tells us that the parties involved weighed the implications of using atomic bombs heavily before pulling the trigger. Their intention was indeed valid and understandable, but I dare say that they had no idea the kind of Pandora's box they were opening by ending the war a few months sooner.

It would have been invented eventually anyways. Now the world has seen is destructive force it wants nothing to do with its actual use. Had it not been used we'd probably already have had a full blown nuclear war by now... Or not, who knows.


You're assuming everyone is rational. As pointed out earlier in this discussion, states like North Korea are apparently willing to destroy the world as long as they can demonstrate their dick is bigger in the process. And do you really think an outfit like Hamas would hesitate to detonate a nuke in Israel, if they could get access to one? The martyr complex is highly irrational.

For that matter, I don't doubt there are any number of xenophobic militias and whatnot in the U.S. who would happily nuke Mecca (or Washington) simply from not bothering to consider the consequences.

It's not the existence of thermonuclear weapons that threatens the world, it's the esistence of non-rational individuals or groups or minor states willing to use them, no matter what.
 
2012-11-28 09:36:27 AM
The Iranians love their children, too.

It could be a stabilizing factor in the theater. All parties involved will now be forced to sit at the table and negotiate in good faith, and force a cease fire to hold.

My concern is the Iranians keeping it out of the hands of a nut job extremist group on either side of the political fence. If they can make it, and keep it secure, I'm really not concerned.
 
2012-11-28 10:11:26 AM
Iranian Scientists Plagiarizes a graph to get more funding for his department won't get him a Nobel Prize but it might win him a Israeli "Vacation".
 
2012-11-28 10:23:00 AM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-11-28 12:57:45 PM
Meh, judging by the timescales it is a fission bomb and not a fusion bomb so no biggy.
 
2012-11-28 03:20:42 PM

impaler: [binaryapi.ap.org image 460x413]

Boy, Iranian scientists suck.

That power density function produces over 2,200,000 kT of energy, not 50. That's not triple Big Boy, that's 137,000 Big Boys.

Or 22 Tsar Bombs.

Corrected graph:
[growlersoftware.com image 850x550]


OMGZZZZ YOU'RE PLOTTING TO BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONZZZZZ!!!!!!
 
2012-11-30 06:07:22 PM

meat0918: BeesNuts: meat0918: impaler: meat0918: There is a trick to playing were you can win every single time if you're opponent doesn't know the trick you are using.

Is the trick the "rules of tic-tac-toe"?

More or less.

You'd be surprised how many people don't see the pattern of moves and lose every single time until you explain step by step how you have won every game.

Or maybe I've only played against really, really, really short sighted people that don't see beyond one or two moves.

Or you type extraordinarily well for an 8 year old?

Actually, this is making me kinda depressed that I know adults that play tic-tac-toe worse than 8 year old kids (and aren't purposely losing against kids).


I can totally understand being crap for one game. But there are three rules, and if you both follow them, it's a tie. If one of you doesn't, it can get weird.

Rule 1: Take the middle.
Rule 2: If you can't take the middle, take a corner. It does not matter which one.
Rule 3: If your opponent is about to make 3, stop them.


But two people playing the way you should play goes like this:

_ 1 _ I _ 2 _ I _ 3 _ I _ 4 _ I _ 5 _ I _ 6 _ I _ 7 _ I _ 8 _ I _ 9 _
_|_|_ I O|_|_ I O|_|_ I O|_|O I O|_|O I O|X|O I O|X|O I O|X|O I O|X|O
_|X|_ I _|X|_ I _|X|_ I _|X|_ I _|X|_ I _|X|_ I X|X|_ I X|X|O I X|X|O
_|_|_ I _|_|_ I _|_|X I _|_|X I _|_|X I _|O|X I _|O|X I _|O|X I X|O|X


Voila.

Move 1: X takes the middle
Move 2: O takes any corner
Move 3: X takes any other corner
Move 4: O takes one of the two remaining corners

At this point, Circle has forced a tie. Both players spend the remainder of their time stopping their opponent from making 3, or trying to set up a 3.

The only way to win is to have two available ways to make 3 by the end of one of your turns. This strategy will prevent it 100% of the time.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report