An un-tested weapon?

Post #51,939 by Brandioch 9/16/02 4:59:54 PM Reply	An un-tested weapon? ...I've got enough to make 3. Let me waste a third of it to make sure the other 2 thirds is good. Yep...smart...smart dictator.</sarcasm> No. The test is NOT only to ensure that your material will fission. It is also a test to see if the mechanism works. Of course, it's up to Saddam. He can either "waste" .33% of his fissionable material and KNOW that the bombs work -or- He can "save" all of the material and HOPE that the bombs work. The same as deploying new systems in a production environment. You can HOPE that all the bugs are worked out -or- You can TEST the system prior to deployment. Now, seeing as how this is an invasion of Iraq, Saddam would have to be an idiot to NOT test his weapons. But you don't see that. Now, how many bombs DOES Saddam have? An illustration of this is when we bombed Japan.
Post #51,948 by Simon_Jester 9/16/02 5:28:29 PM Reply	Close... but I think you'll find the political manuvering even more to your advantage. Let's see, Saddam claims to have 3 nukes. (No one really knows anything.) Saddam test fires one of them - (and unless the US and others are VERY smart and claim it's an earthquake) - proves to the world that he has them.
Post #51,950 by Brandioch 9/16/02 5:38:55 PM Reply	Yup. That's "deterrent". If people know he has them, they are far less likely to attack (unless we're talking about India and Pakistan). "Cold War". Personally, I cannot see any reason for NOT testing a nuke.
Post #51,981 by wharris2 9/16/02 10:41:06 PM Reply	Good reasons. He tests a nuke, he's showed the world that he's got them and thus justifies some sort of military action. Holding them in reserve, he can claim he doesn't have them. Wherever he may have gotten them, if in fact he actually has any (either from former USSR stocks, or home-built), it would be dangerous. Me, given Saudi instability, and Saudi funded terrorism, I'm not real sure I'd be much in favor of spending our lives and money protecting them. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle
Post #51,987 by Brandioch 9/16/02 11:21:56 PM Reply	Even better. He tests a nuke, he's showed the world that he's got them and thus justifies some sort of military action. Holding them in reserve, he can claim he doesn't have them. A nuke is NOT a firecracker. A nuke takes a LOT of sophisticated engineering. He COULD hold them in reserve. But, as I said above, he'd be HOPING that they would work. The first time. Under combat conditions. Without testing. Again, he COULD do that. In which case, how is Iraq a threat to us? Me, given Saudi instability, and Saudi funded terrorism, I'm not real sure I'd be much in favor of spending our lives and money protecting them. We aren't. It's the oil. The Saudi's just happen to be sitting on it (and pretend to be, somewhat, US-friendly).

Welcome to IWETHEY!