It’s all about payload and accuracy. It’s one thing to loft a “satellite” into orbit (anything that goes around the earth is a “satellite”, including cats, dogs, and monkeys); it’s another thing to loft a nuclear weapon (okay, any weapon) and have it “hit” the intended target.

The ruskies still have problems with accuracy, and they’ve been at this for longer than we have.

In no way do I intend to reduce the threat of an Iranian nuclear threat. That, I say smugly, is the intent of Star Wars.

Thanks, Ronnie. You were right years ago, and today still.

BobMbx on February 3, 2009 at 5:29 PM

I’m no rocket scientist… but do you really need to be that accurate with a NUCLEAR weapon???

dominigan on February 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Yes, actually. The largest “weaponized” nuclear bombs have a blast radius no more than a few miles. These are the extremely large weapons both in explosive weight (~9 megatons…the Ruskies have bigger ones, but they’re few in number and designed to produce EMP at high altitude). Most of our inventory is much smaller in explosive weight; thats due to the accuracy of our delivery systems. And BTW, an earlier poster is correct: nukes are heavy. The bigger the bomb, the shorter the range.

Stay with me here….the accuracy of a weapon is measured as a function of CEP (Circular Error Probablity). The most accurate ballistic weapons have a CEP on the order of…well….not far. Earlier designs had CEP on the order of miles (some in the 10’s of miles). The Iranian MRBMs and SRBMs are really nothing more than SCUD missiles of Desert Storm vintage. Quite frankly, without gravity these missiles would miss the planet completely.

Now, if the intent is to “take out” a target, you need to get close. If your intent is to merely detonate a weapon in somebody’s yard, who cares how accurate the delivery vehicle is, as long as it goes over the fence. This is Iran’s intent. They want to throw a nuke into Israels’ yard. And, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, no matter where it actually ends up, it may as well have been in downtown Tel Aviv, New York, London, or Moscow. The genie will be out, and Israel will not hesitate for a millisecond in launching a massive retaliatory strike. Believe it or not, this is what Iran is counting on. They know Israel will launch, as do the US, UK, and the rest of the nuclear club. It is the nuclear countries that will be forced to stop Israel from launching. Don’t forget, not everybody in the nuclear club likes Israel. I can think of 2 members who may launch their own strike on Israel soon after Iran launches.

Most “lay persons” have the image of an absolutely devastating explosion and fire and damage and fire and some more fire when a nuke detonates. They’re not as “big” as most people think. They’re big, but not the Hollywood big you might be familiar with.

BobMbx on February 3, 2009 at 10:32 PM

First of all, do you understand the implications of an EMP strike… BANG.. 2 seconds later we are a midieval society. the majority of electronics/electrical stuff ceases to function. Medicine goes back to the 1700’s … Air traffic stopp as airliners fall from the sky. Communications fail across the board.

Ah…yes and no. EMP is certainly a problem and will have the effects you detail, but not on a global scale. The effect is constrained by many factors (size of the weapon, altitude, air density, moisture among others). To have any sort of strategic value, an EMP attack has to be large and nearly simultaneous (minutes to hours apart, not days apart), and the weapons used have to be absolutely huge. Otherwise, a small burst will have a small radius, and the effect will be nothing more than a localized power outage (although mostly permanent).

BobMbx on February 3, 2009 at 10:45 PM

If the idea is to ignite global nuclear war and bring about the return of the 12th (or is it 13th or 14th?) Imam, does it really matter what part of the US you hit? The continental US is a pretty big target. I would think just about anywhere would do.

SKYFOX on February 4, 2009 at 5:18 AM

You’ve touched on the reality of nuclear weapons. While they are capable of massive damage to physical things, this is no longer the effect desired by those that want to sit at the nuclear table. Nukes have eclipsed their value as “bombs”, and have become political weapons. The mere possession of one affords the holder immense power on the politcal stage, regardless of the true state of the holders’ economic or military capability.

I may have mis-spoke earlier about the idea of igniting a global nuclear war. Even the loonies in Iran are aware that the first shooter is also the first loser.

The threat of a nuclear war (global or limited) is what will force the major world powers to deal with the rogue nations as equals, and contain their enemys for them. This is Iran’s intent.

This theory is only true for state actors. The huge unknown, and therefore the greatest threat, is the non-state actor (Al Qaeda) who cares nothing about power or “equality”. Nukes are just a really big hand grenade to them.

BobMbx on February 4, 2009 at 10:31 AM