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
 
2012-11-27 12:36:12 PM  
A country that does not want to be named provides a graph that I could find in a library as proof of a weapons program. Better send in the marines.
 
2012-11-27 12:40:37 PM  
Just wait until they see the graphs on Wikipedia. Those guys are working on everything.
 
2012-11-27 12:49:50 PM  
That computer was pretty stupid. There's a trick to playing tic-tac-toe where you win every time.
 
2012-11-27 12:54:02 PM  
Oh no! They have a graph! A graph they could have pulled from any physics textbook! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES THEY HAVE GRAPH MAGIC THEY WILL USE THEIR GRAPH WIZARDS TO DRESROY OUR FAMILESIN POH MY GID WEIHREN GOIUNBG TO DIE!E!!#!WEDUUJ!!!
 
2012-11-27 12:55:53 PM  

naughtyrev: A country that does not want to be named provides a graph that I could find in a library as proof of a weapons program. Better send in the marines.


It's more than we had for Iraq.
 
2012-11-27 01:00:25 PM  

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


The only winning move is not to play.
 
2012-11-27 01:05:50 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-27 01:10:28 PM  
Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a diagram obtained by The Associated Press.

There are currently somewhere between 15,000 - 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world, depending on how you define 'weapon'. Between 4,000 - 5,000 are considered 'operational', ie they could be fired at any time.

The US has approximately 2,000 - 3,000 of those. The smallest of which is still 50-60 times larger than the Hiroshima bomb.

If this is true, it's actually more heartening than concerning. It means that after all this time, at best they only have a weak fission bomb. Those are big, temperamental, require large bombers or rockets to be delivered, and tend to be very expensive to maintain. In short, they don't even have it yet, and if they did, it would be more trouble than it's worth.

Call me when they get a hydrogen bomb, a dependable delivery system, and the strategic circumstances where they would have the slightest hope of using it without facing immediate reduction to a self-illuminating glass parking lot.
 
2012-11-27 01:11:58 PM  
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.

It is utterly impossible and infeasible to stop Iran from making a nuke. This delusion with stopping them is idiotic and futile.
 
2012-11-27 01:16:08 PM  

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!
 
2012-11-27 01:21:22 PM  
It is a tragedy to see so much of nuclear science dedicated to finding new ways to destroy each other. If all of that time and money had been spent researching something useful to mankind, I wonder what advancements we could have made in space by now. Or medicine, or engineering. Hell, why does anyone bother to make/maintain nukes anymore? We as a race have enough conventional weapons to blow us up 100x over already.

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.
 
2012-11-27 01:28:52 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Just wait until they see the graphs on Wikipedia. Those guys are working on everything.


Good point. From wiki:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-27 01:44:22 PM  

mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: Just wait until they see the graphs on Wikipedia. Those guys are working on everything.

Good point. From wiki:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x400]


I hope Jimmy Wales has a good air defense system, because the Israelis are going to flatten his office otherwise.
 
2012-11-27 01:54:25 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-27 01:54:27 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: mrshowrules: Marcus Aurelius: Just wait until they see the graphs on Wikipedia. Those guys are working on everything.

Good point. From wiki:

[upload.wikimedia.org image 500x400]

I hope Jimmy Wales has a good air defense system, because the Israelis are going to flatten his office otherwise.


Airburst, 10,000 feet. Minimum of 500 kT. Even if the initial blast doesn't get him, the radiation and flash burns will surely do the trick right after. Bonus: the EMP will fry all of his servers and data systems.
 
2012-11-27 02:00:23 PM  
The curve peaks at just above 50 kilotons 1.7E13 kT/sec at around 2 microseconds,

That curve is power, not energy.
 
2012-11-27 02:06:07 PM  

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

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 very difficult, as is making one that's any small than a soda machine. The first and easiest chokepoint is the actual weapons-grade material, but it's not the only one. And since anyone that wants to make it and has the money cando it, we should focus less on that and more on the other chokepoints inherent in the system: deterrence and containment.
 
2012-11-27 02:08:08 PM  
IAEA: Shall we play a game?

Ahmadinnerjacket: Love to. How about Global Thermonuclear War?

IAEA: Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?

Ahmadoobiejam
: Later. Let's play Global Thermonuclear War.

Israel: Fine.


/got nothin' 
 
2012-11-27 02:10:46 PM  

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...
 
2012-11-27 02:13:22 PM  

whistleridge: From the Afterword:


That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.

There are about a half dozen ways to get a nuclear weapon, including going for uranium bombs and plutonium bombs.

This knowledge is impossible to keep secret. Iran will have a nuke unless they are invaded, which is even dumber than the pointless methods we are doing now.
 
2012-11-27 02:15:32 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.


OK, I was exaggerating. But it's a lot easier than the computer who had a tie with every game it played.
 
2012-11-27 02:16:11 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...


What made our first bombs so bad was the inability to model them. It's relatively easy to build computer models these days for nukes, so you don't have to rely on huge Hiroshima-style weapons that waste almost all of their energy. The first Iranian bomb probably won't fit into a MRBM, but they could get there in a few years. Testing still helps quite a bit - you can only model so much without experience.
 
2012-11-27 02:19:16 PM  
Wow, looks like someone plotted the integral of a normal distribution along with a normal distribution.

FYI Iranian scientists, I believe power output for nuclear detonation has a positive skew. Now redo the problem and assume it's on a train heading east at 30 mph. Show your work.


www.fas.org
ed-thelen.org
 
2012-11-27 02:20:13 PM  
Does anyone know if it's common for scientists (especially outside the US) to rate nuclear power in kT/sec?
 
2012-11-27 02:31:43 PM  
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 and has variables of time in micro-seconds and power and energy, both in kilotons _ the traditional measurement of the energy output, and hence the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

People actually believe this dreck? Those officials were Israelis or their lackeys in Washington feeding propaganda to Western media outlets. This is information that any physics major or military is going to have access to and be obligated to know and have written down. Why wouldn't Iran be looking at how powerful nuclear blasts are? I'm embarrassed that the bar is so low for warmongering propaganda. Neocons, this is what your masters think of you. This is what they think you're stupid enough to be baited by.

Pitiful....
 
2012-11-27 02:34:07 PM  

GAT_00: whistleridge: From the Afterword:

That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.

There are about a half dozen ways to get a nuclear weapon, including going for uranium bombs and plutonium bombs.

This knowledge is impossible to keep secret. Iran will have a nuke unless they are invaded, which is even dumber than the pointless methods we are doing now.


Agreed, on all points.

I don't know why everyone is fussing so much. They won't use them, for the simple logic that it's not possible to hide the origin of such weapons - the physics being immutable and all. If anyone uses a nuc, it's immediately known whose it was. Even if they overlook the heinous expense and make one and give it to, say, Hamas, and then Hamas were then to be so stupid as to park it in a truck in Tel Aviv, all it would do is guarantee an immediate Israeli response, international occupation of Iran, and the utter destruction of the current Islamist state there. They know that. They don't want that. And Tel Aviv isn't worth it.

Let them have them, I say. They're a waste of money. There's a reason Japan and Germany don't have them, and it has nothing to do with ability.
 
2012-11-27 02:42:07 PM  

impaler: Does anyone know if it's common for scientists (especially outside the US) to rate nuclear power in kT/sec?


Seeing as all the energy is released pretty much at the same time, you would think that they would measure it terms of energy released like joules (mega-joules, giga-joules, etc...).

/I'm not an scientist - probably obvious
 
2012-11-27 02:46:54 PM  
Remember when Iran's missile program got a hold of Photoshop?

Looks like their nuclear program just got Matlab.
 
2012-11-27 03:01:47 PM  

whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: From the Afterword:

That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.

There are about a half dozen ways to get a nuclear weapon, including going for uranium bombs and plutonium bombs.

This knowledge is impossible to keep secret. Iran will have a nuke unless they are invaded, which is even dumber than the pointless methods we are doing now.

Agreed, on all points.

I don't know why everyone is fussing so much. They won't use them, for the simple logic that it's not possible to hide the origin of such weapons - the physics being immutable and all. If anyone uses a nuc, it's immediately known whose it was. Even if they overlook the heinous expense and make one and give it to, say, Hamas, and then Hamas were then to be so stupid as to park it in a truck in Tel Aviv, all it would do is guarantee an immediate Israeli response, international occupation of Iran, and the utter destruction of the current Islamist state there. They know that. They don't want that. And Tel Aviv isn't worth it.

Let them have them, I say. They're a waste of money. There's a reason Japan and Germany don't have them, and it has nothing to do with ability.


As I pointed out to a certain hyper-Jew and immediately was denounced as wanting to destroy Israel and kill every Jew, Iran getting a nuke will stabilize, not destabilize the region. With the threat of nuclear war, people are forced to the table. As is, we have two nuclear powers, us and Israel, dictating to a slew of non-nuclear powers, and that is why the region is so unstable. Parity will lead to actual talks and force the powers to actually negotiate. Look at India and Pakistan; they've been much more stable and less warlike with each other since they've been able to blow each other to pieces.
 
2012-11-27 03:15:16 PM  

Fark It: 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 and has variables of time in micro-seconds and power and energy, both in kilotons _ the traditional measurement of the energy output, and hence the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

People actually believe this dreck? Those officials were Israelis or their lackeys in Washington feeding propaganda to Western media outlets. This is information that any physics major or military is going to have access to and be obligated to know and have written down. Why wouldn't Iran be looking at how powerful nuclear blasts are? I'm embarrassed that the bar is so low for warmongering propaganda. Neocons, this is what your masters think of you. This is what they think you're stupid enough to be baited by.

Pitiful....


It could just have likely been the Saudis or Bahrain both of who have major reservations about a nuclear Iran.

/just saying there are more actors in the pictures
 
2012-11-27 03:31:26 PM  
An interesting politics thread. The only winning move is not to post.
 
2012-11-27 03:39:23 PM  

zedster: Fark It: 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 and has variables of time in micro-seconds and power and energy, both in kilotons _ the traditional measurement of the energy output, and hence the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

People actually believe this dreck? Those officials were Israelis or their lackeys in Washington feeding propaganda to Western media outlets. This is information that any physics major or military is going to have access to and be obligated to know and have written down. Why wouldn't Iran be looking at how powerful nuclear blasts are? I'm embarrassed that the bar is so low for warmongering propaganda. Neocons, this is what your masters think of you. This is what they think you're stupid enough to be baited by.

Pitiful....

It could just have likely been the Saudis or Bahrain both of who have major reservations about a nuclear Iran.

/just saying there are more actors in the pictures


You're right, I forgot about ASAPAC and ABPAC throwing their weight around and pushing for America to spill blood over Iran.....
 
2012-11-27 03:44:54 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: 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.

OK, I was exaggerating. But it's a lot easier than the computer who had a tie with every game it played.


Huh? The only way to not tie is to screw up and lose, or have an opponent who screws up and loses. How does not screwing up make the computer stupid?

Chuck Norris wins tic-tac-toe every time, though.
 
2012-11-27 03:54:19 PM  
binaryapi.ap.org

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
 
2012-11-27 03:55:20 PM  

impaler: The curve peaks at just above 50 kilotons 1.7E13 kT/sec at around 2 microseconds,

That curve is power, not energy.


That is, verbatim, what I say when a woman sees my dick.
 
2012-11-27 03:56:10 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.

israel
 
2012-11-27 04:02:48 PM  

Fark It: You're right, I forgot about ASAPAC and ABPAC throwing their weight around and pushing for America to spill blood over Iran.....


Saudi tells U.N. Iran trespassing on its territory: report

The Saudi's and Bahrain want the US/Israel to keep Iran in check. They are scared of a stronger Iran weakening their governments along sectarian lines
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-27 04:09:13 PM  
By my calculations, the peak power of 7.1 x 10^22 watts is high enough to send 58 trillion Deloreans to the year 1985.

When you get there, tell the CIA not to sell arms to Iran. If one person does it, he's a nut and he goes to the asylum. If two people do it, they're both spies and they both go to prison. But if you get 58 trillion people singing in four part harmony, don't sell arms to Iran, they'll think it's a movement.
 
2012-11-27 04:16:14 PM  

GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: From the Afterword:

That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.

There are about a half dozen ways to get a nuclear weapon, including going for uranium bombs and plutonium bombs.

This knowledge is impossible to keep secret. Iran will have a nuke unless they are invaded, which is even dumber than the pointless methods we are doing now.

Agreed, on all points.

I don't know why everyone is fussing so much. They won't use them, for the simple logic that it's not possible to hide the origin of such weapons - the physics being immutable and all. If anyone uses a nuc, it's immediately known whose it was. Even if they overlook the heinous expense and make one and give it to, say, Hamas, and then Hamas were then to be so stupid as to park it in a truck in Tel Aviv, all it would do is guarantee an immediate Israeli response, international occupation of Iran, and the utter destruction of the current Islamist state there. They know that. They don't want that. And Tel Aviv isn't worth it.

Let them have them, I say. They're a waste of money. There's a reason Japan and Germany don't have them, and it has nothing to do with ability.

As I pointed out to a certain hyper-Jew and immediately was denounced as wanting to destroy Israel and kill every Jew, Iran getting a nuke will stabilize, not destabilize the region. With the threat of nuclear war, people are forced to the table. As is, we have two nuclear powers, us and Israel, dictating to a slew of non-nuclear powers, and that is why the region is so unstable. Parity will lead to actual talks and force the powers to actually negotiate. Look at India and Pakistan; they've been much more stable and less warlike with each other since they've been able to blow each other to pieces.


Then there are guys like Hitler- who decides to farking take down Germany with him.

MacManara noted that Castro was more than willing to start World War III over the Cuban Missle Crises..The Russians held back.

While I understand that smaller countries wanting the great leveler- (north Korea, Iran, and Iraq being called Axis of evil by w Bush, caused them to restart their programs. Especially since W Bush invaded Iran on a cherry picked intel.)

I'm not saying you're wrong: Likely hood it would settle down the region... But there is always the crazy factor in human behavior
 
2012-11-27 04:30:02 PM  
This graph came in a dossier with the whitey tape and the twoof about the Benghazi conspiracy.
 
2012-11-27 04:30:15 PM  
Iran has turned out to be a WOPR of a problem for the US.
 
2012-11-27 04:31:27 PM  
I am amazed that a country that is regularly threatened with military action by two nuclear armed powers might be doing calculations about the power of nuclear weapons.
 
2012-11-27 04:34:18 PM  

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


Only if you play first, and only if your opponent doesn't take the center square with his or her first move.
 
2012-11-27 04:39:02 PM  
It is difficult to keep 60 year old technology from people who really want it.

Did you hear? The Chinese just landed an airplane on a ship.

Whats next? A Hindu on the Moon?
 
2012-11-27 04:40:16 PM  
I wish we would just extend MAD to the world. If you use a nuke first we will glass parking lot you. If the reciever or any other country wants to join in the glass parking lot event, they can join in if they want.
 
2012-11-27 04:44:40 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-27 04:44:44 PM  
Iran has the bell curve! We need to stop them before they develop Stochastic processes and drop a sensitivity analysis on the feasible region of Monte Carlo.
 
2012-11-27 04:44:55 PM  
This was more than Iraq had. Look how well that turned out for us.

$12 trillion dollars later.
 
2012-11-27 04:45:45 PM  

naughtyrev: A country that does not want to be named provides a graph that I could find in a library as proof of a weapons program. Better send in the marines.


Call it a hunch, but I'm guessing that the country's name starts with "Is," ends with "real" and rhymes with "Qsrael."

Just a guess.
 
2012-11-27 04:47:48 PM  

vernonFL: Whats next? A Hindu on the Moon?


A rat done bit my sister अभिलाषा.
(with Kshatriya on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Kshatriya's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Kshatriya's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Kshatriya's on the moon)
 
2012-11-27 04:49:03 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.


Correct.

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. If they know the counter, it's a draw, every single time.

The computer knows the counter moves(or can simulate all possible moves, it isn't a very large set).

Cat's game. Every. Single. Time.
 
2012-11-27 04:49:40 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: I'm not saying you're wrong: Likely hood it would settle down the region... But there is always the crazy factor in human behavior


Arguably, if this was a big issue then Iran would be continuously firing missiles at Israel. Well, directly doing so with their MRBMs instead of supplying Hamas with shiatty Grad rockets. And again, Pakistan and India went to war quite a bit with each other before they got nukes. The situations aren't that dissimilar.
 
2012-11-27 04:49:59 PM  

Headso: vernonFL: Whats next? A Hindu on the Moon?

A rat done bit my sister अभिलाषा.
(with Kshatriya on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(and Kshatriya's on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Kshatriya's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Kshatriya's on the moon)


don't get me started on a Heron binge.
 
2012-11-27 04:50:45 PM  

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"?
 
2012-11-27 04:55:03 PM  

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.
 
2012-11-27 04:58:16 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.


I assure you that you can. Though if you were *both* trying to lose for some reason things might get stale-matey again.
 
2012-11-27 04:59:00 PM  

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?
 
2012-11-27 05:00:14 PM  

meat0918: 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.

Correct.

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. If they know the counter, it's a draw, every single time.

The computer knows the counter moves(or can simulate all possible moves, it isn't a very large set).

Cat's game. Every. Single. Time.


Obviously, you've never watched "Donald Duck in MathMagic Land". Because if you had, you would know the secret to winning at Tic-Tac-Toe
 
2012-11-27 05:01:27 PM  
Umm... if that is from Iran, why is all the text on the graph in english?
 
2012-11-27 05:02:02 PM  

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).
 
Bf+
2012-11-27 05:03:35 PM  
Mr. President, we cannot allow a graph gap!
 
2012-11-27 05:03:55 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Then there are guys like Hitler- who decides to farking take down Germany with him.

MacManara noted that Castro was more than willing to start World War III over the Cuban Missle Crises..The Russians held back.

While I understand that smaller countries wanting the great leveler- (north Korea, Iran, and Iraq being called Axis of evil by w Bush, caused them to restart their programs. Especially since W Bush invaded Iran on a cherry picked intel.)

I'm not saying you're wrong: Likely hood it would settle down the region... But there is always the crazy factor in human behavior


If by 'MacManara' you mean 'McNamara', then...kinda. More like, Castro's appraisal of what the US would and wouldn't do was less balanced and intelligent than Kruschev's. As you would expect from someone who was younger, less educated, vastly less experienced, and from a third-rate tropical island, not one of the world's traditional power players.

Yes, it's true that the spectre of a non-rational nuclear player is far more terrifying of a non-rational conventional player. But by the same token, because it is so terrifying, everyone takes it a lot more seriously.
Consider the history of the past 200 years:

1815: International peace-keeping was a joke prior to the Napoleonic Wars. However, after they were finished, the Congress of Vienna set up a system that prevented a major (ie, the Crimea doesn't count) war among the Great Powers (the Franco-Prussian war is more rightly the war of German independence under this view than an inter-power war) for a century.

1918: After the Great War steps were taken to make sure war never happened again. Unfortunately, they added reparations into the mix, thus destabilizing that possibility.

1945: Things Get Nuclear. Enter the UN, followed by a whole host of other letter-based organizations: NATO, WTO, G-20, G-8, etc etc. All more or less aimed at the same thing: to make damn sure that nothing like WWII ever happened again. And it has worked. Instead of border disputes and sparring armies, we get lawsuits in the WTO. No, it's not a perfect system, but by and large it works: pressure is continually eased, and so can never mount into a massive catastrophe.

In short, there's a reason people focus so much on the small crazy exceptions like Best Korea and Ahmadinnerjacket: they're the exceptions now, not the rule. The extreme outliers, even.

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?

The only wars these days are 1) internal disputes like Darfur, Rwanda, Bosnia, etc, 2) low-grade insurgencies like FARC, and 3) asymetric conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, Ossetia, Sierra Leone, etc. Big wars don't exist, small wars are dying off, and what few insurgencies there are really qualify more as especially violent police actions. The only real difference between Afghanistan and northern Mexico right now is that one involves Muslims and opium and the other involves Zetas and cocaine.
 
2012-11-27 05:04:21 PM  

whistleridge: I don't know why everyone is fussing so much. They won't use them.........all it would do is guarantee an immediate Israeli response, international occupation of Iran, and the utter destruction of the current Islamist state there. They know that. They don't want that. And Tel Aviv isn't worth it.


Exactly. The idea that the second Iran gets a nuke they will launch it at the first convenient target simply because they can is the stupidest idea ever. It makes no sense, it's the equivalent of committing suicide. And the idea that they would let such tech fall into terrorist hands is just as stupid, the radiation signature will still lead right back to them. Once they have one, which will happen eventually whether it's in 10 years or 100 years, it's in their best interest to make sure it never goes off if they want to continue existing as a country.
 
2012-11-27 05:04:36 PM  
i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-27 05:07:21 PM  

impaler: Does anyone know if it's common for scientists (especially outside the US) to rate nuclear power in kT/sec?


well, if it comes from a textbook, sure. Back in undergrad some of the diagrams still used horsepower and Fahrenheit, its considered something of a rite of passage to torture the students with oddball units.
 
2012-11-27 05:07:28 PM  
Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency? And if you say either, "one is our friend," or, "they need them to deter an enemy that possess them," that is not enough reason.
 
2012-11-27 05:10:56 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency?


Allow me to introduce you to my friend, Mr. Boogeyman. Together we are able to use fear to get people to do whatever we want.
 
2012-11-27 05:12:46 PM  
Holy shiat. What happens if they combine their photoshop technology with their graphing technology?
 
2012-11-27 05:13:17 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency? And if you say either, "one is our friend," or, "they need them to deter an enemy that possess them," that is not enough reason.


One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.
 
2012-11-27 05:14:02 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good
Iran, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: bad

Somebody care to explain this discrepency? And if you say either, "one is our friend," or, "they need them to deter an enemy that possess them," that is not enough reason.


No one I can think of (beyond Pakistan and it's supporters) believes that Pakistan having them is in any way, shape, or form good, but once they have them, what can you do? Same thing with India.

As someone else said, this is 70 year old technology we are dealing with here. The only hurdles are money and time.

I'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.
 
2012-11-27 05:17:30 PM  

LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.


What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?
 
2012-11-27 05:22:39 PM  

Grand_Moff_Joseph: It is a tragedy to see so much of nuclear science dedicated to finding new ways to destroy each other. If all of that time and money had been spent researching something useful to mankind, I wonder what advancements we could have made in space by now. Or medicine, or engineering. Hell, why does anyone bother to make/maintain nukes anymore? We as a race have enough conventional weapons to blow us up 100x over already.

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.


If we hadn't developed nuclear bombs and stockpiled them hundereds of millions more of us would have killed each iteration in wars since WW2.

Anti-bomb is anti-human.
 
2012-11-27 05:23:02 PM  

bluorangefyre: Pakistan, country primarily Muslim and known location of terrorists, possessing nuclear weapons: good


When has anyone ever said that this is good?
 
2012-11-27 05:24:08 PM  
I smell bullshiat. Zionist propaganda
 
2012-11-27 05:24:48 PM  

birchman: What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?


How about attack a neighbor and threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere? Not saying it would happen but it's hardly impossible.
 
2012-11-27 05:24:50 PM  
wasn't the whole world already operating under the assumption that they were working on a bomb?
 
2012-11-27 05:29:32 PM  

neenerist: birchman: What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

How about attack a neighbor and threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere? Not saying it would happen but it's hardly impossible.


Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.
 
2012-11-27 05:30:08 PM  

birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?


I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.
 
2012-11-27 05:34:21 PM  

SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.


images.fineartamerica.com
Yuh fired!
 
2012-11-27 05:34:33 PM  

SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.


Don't invade us or we'll nuke ourselves!

Having a nuke and having an effective long range nuclear delivery system are two completely different animals my friend.
 
2012-11-27 05:36:51 PM  

birchman: Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.


I honestly never considered the 'u r stoopid' defense. You're the living embodiment of Clausewitz.
 
2012-11-27 05:39:53 PM  
My GOD!!!! They've figured out how to plot a function on a graph.
 
2012-11-27 05:40:38 PM  

Bf+: Mr. President, we cannot allow a graph gap!


i.stack.imgur.com
 
2012-11-27 05:41:58 PM  

birchman: neenerist: birchman: What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

How about attack a neighbor and threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere? Not saying it would happen but it's hardly impossible.

Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.


Yeah, it's not like Iranian leaders are constantly claiming that Bahrain is Iran's 14th province or anything...

/Nuclear blackmail and annexation of neighboring shia arab states is the most likely outcome of a successful Iranian nuclear program
 
2012-11-27 05:47:18 PM  

birchman: SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.

Don't invade us or we'll nuke ourselves!

Having a nuke and having an effective long range nuclear delivery system are two completely different animals my friend.


You don't need long range to hit an army that's invading your borders, you just need enough range to hit their marshalling areas and/or supply lines in neighboring countries (with the added benefit of also nuking the country aiding your invaders). Unless the invasion is entirely airborne, that is, but no one's ever pulled that one off on any large scale.

As a backup option, you can have just enough range to be able to hit something the invader isn't willing to see destroyed. Then you essentially just hold that hostage, like North Korea does with Seoul.
 
2012-11-27 05:47:33 PM  

neenerist: birchman: Wow. I'm glad you're not in charge of anything important if you think that's something that has a snowballs chance in hell of

a) happening and
b) working

Iran may not like us or some of their neighbors, but they're not stupid. And what you're suggesting is really really stupid.

I honestly never considered the 'u r stoopid' defense. You're the living embodiment of Clausewitz.


Unless you think that sailing a nuke over to the US on a pirate ship undetected, somehow getting it onshore, and detonating it somewhere inside our borders is a foolproof plan, your idea is stupid. There's not much else to argue about. Let's not even get into the fact that, while tragic, such a plan wouldn't really put a dent in our ability to turn their entire country into a shiny glass parking lot in a matter of minutes. They know this just like everyone else does.
 
2012-11-27 05:49:23 PM  

SpaceButler: birchman: SpaceButler: birchman: LasersHurt: One has a favorable government in place that is mostly friendly, despite some rough patches, which controls the nukes. The other is a theocracy hellbent on hating us and most other western nations, which would control the nukes.

Not the same.

What do you suspect Iran would do with those nukes that, in any way, would work out well for them?

I suspect they'd use them as a trump card to keep other nations from invading them.

Don't invade us or we'll nuke ourselves!

Having a nuke and having an effective long range nuclear delivery system are two completely different animals my friend.

You don't need long range to hit an army that's invading your borders, you just need enough range to hit their marshalling areas and/or supply lines in neighboring countries (with the added benefit of also nuking the country aiding your invaders). Unless the invasion is entirely airborne, that is, but no one's ever pulled that one off on any large scale.

As a backup option, you can have just enough range to be able to hit something the invader isn't willing to see destroyed. Then you essentially just hold that hostage, like North Korea does with Seoul.


Why are we invading Iran again?
 
2012-11-27 05:50:44 PM  

birchman: your idea is stupid.


The US neighbors Iran? Is that you, Mitt?
 
2012-11-27 05:52:09 PM  

neenerist: birchman: your idea is stupid.

The US neighbors Iran? Is that you, Mitt?


Is the US a nation that might interfere if Iran attacked one of its neighbors?
 
2012-11-27 05:53:09 PM  

neenerist: birchman: your idea is stupid.

The US neighbors Iran? Is that you, Mitt?


You said "threaten nuclear retaliation against nations that interfere"

If we interfere, then I guess retaliation against nations that interfere means, well, us. Right?
 
2012-11-27 05:53:30 PM  

GAT_00: whistleridge: From the Afterword:

That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.


Wasn't the original material from Oak Ridge gas diffused?
 
2012-11-27 05:54:13 PM  

birchman: Unless you think that sailing a nuke over to the US on a pirate ship undetected, somehow getting it onshore, and detonating it somewhere inside our borders is a foolproof plan,


Most of the population is on the coasts. You don't have to ever take it off the ship. Just put it in the Hudson.
 
2012-11-27 05:54:34 PM  

impaler: birchman: Unless you think that sailing a nuke over to the US on a pirate ship undetected, somehow getting it onshore, and detonating it somewhere inside our borders is a foolproof plan,

Most of the population is on the coasts. You don't have to ever take it off the ship. Just put it in the Hudson.


Good luck with that.
 
2012-11-27 05:59:24 PM  

birchman: Good luck with that.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-11-27 06:09:22 PM  

birchman: Why are we invading Iran again?


Well, you'd have to ask the various political figures and nations who've rattled their sabres Iran-wards in recent years. Personally, I think it's a tragically stupid idea without any redeeming merits, and that the sabre-rattling has itself probably been a major factor in motivating Iran to try to develop nuclear weapons.

More advanced nations have basically put Iran in a position where its government's options are to (A) severely undermine their own power and standing both domestically and regionally by allowing foreigners unfettered access to their research facilities and meekly submitting to any related demands, or (B) actually develop a nuke in order to gain some leverage in negotiations over sanctions, and to get other nations to stop threatening invasion. (B) would probably also bring added power and status regionally, as a bonus.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but from their current situation, I can't see any good reason why Iran's government wouldn't try to develop nuclear weapons and then just sit on them, like every other nuclear nation since 1945 has done.
 
2012-11-27 06:26:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Is the US a nation that might interfere if Iran attacked one of its neighbors?


Is Iran limited to threatening the US if they interfere?

/must remember to wear the lawyer hat here. We are serious(ly limited) Fark.
 
2012-11-27 06:34:46 PM  
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.
 
2012-11-27 06:39:17 PM  

zarberg: GAT_00: whistleridge: From the Afterword:

That did occur to me, but this isn't the same. They were machining an existing bomb, which is even easier. Refining uranium is exceptionally harder. It can't be done chemically, isotopes are chemically identical. Centrifuges work, if you get them spinning hard enough, but it is very slow. It's the cheapest and safest way to get to enriched uranium for a bomb, and what Iran is apparently going for.

Wasn't the original material from Oak Ridge gas diffused?


Uranium hexafloride, which was used to enrich the uranium, which was then centrifuged if I remember right.
 
2012-11-27 06:39:49 PM  
Wanting a bomb is not the same as wanting a "global thermonuclear war." They most likely want it as a deterrent.
 
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?
 
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 150 of 150 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report