Obama's Iran Nuke Deal

This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
Also, there are plenty of newer 'small reactor' designs. You would have been better served to bring up one of the many trashcan types used in our subs, aircraft carriers and at research facilities. But even those require infrastructure that couldn't be moved, and the neutron radiation they generate would leave tell tale signs.
Click to expand...

We don't use breeder reactors on aircraft carriers or subs. SL1 was smaller and more portable, which is why I mentioned it. It was designed to be deployed as a mobile device for the Army. The breeders needed for plutonium generation are smaller yet.

Berated poly and water would sufficiently block tell-tale neutron irradiation.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
We don't use breeder reactors on aircraft carriers or subs. SL1 was smaller and more portable, which is why I mentioned it. It was designed to be deployed as a mobile device for the Army. The breeders needed for plutonium generation are smaller yet.

Berated poly and water would sufficiently block tell-tale neutron irradiation.
Click to expand...
You know what the S in SL1 stands for, right? Hint: it isn't 'portable'. It was not designed to be a mobile device for the army, it was designed to be put in remote locations. There is a big difference.

Which breeders are you talking about, what is their foot print including power, water, waste, and infrastructure needs? What is their capacity?

I'm talking about after these hypothetical reactors have been moved. There would still be plenty of evidence of a nuclear operation after the reactor was moved.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
You know what the S in SL1 stands for, right? Hint: it isn't 'portable'. It was not designed to be a mobile device for the army, it was designed to be put in remote locations. There is a big difference.

Which breeders are you talking about, what is their foot print including power, water, waste, and infrastructure needs? What is their capacity?

I'm talking about after these hypothetical reactors have been moved. There would still be plenty of evidence of a nuclear operation after the reactor was moved.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it stands for stationary. I've been to where it was, have you? Have you been to EBR-1? Do you know the history of Qom? Do you know that Iran successfully hid an enrichment facility that was only suspected in 2003? Do you know we already have an "unannounced visit to nuclear facilities" treaty with Iran from December of 2003, the kind John Kerry said Sunday never existed anywhere before, but Iran won't honor it? What would make this time different?
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
We don't use breeder reactors on aircraft carriers or subs. SL1 was smaller and more portable, which is why I mentioned it. It was designed to be deployed as a mobile device for the Army. The breeders needed for plutonium generation are smaller yet.

Berated poly and water would sufficiently block tell-tale neutron irradiation.
Click to expand...

This_person said:
Yes, I know it stands for stationary. I've been to where it was, have you? Have you been to EBR-1? Do you know the history of Qom? Do you know that Iran successfully hid an enrichment facility that was only suspected in 2003? Do you know we already have an "unannounced visit to nuclear facilities" treaty with Iran from December of 2003, the kind John Kerry said Sunday never existed anywhere before, but Iran won't honor it? What would make this time different?
Click to expand...

I see a lot of distractions, but no answers to the questions. I am guessing that means those were indeed 'hypothetical reactors'.

if they successfully hid it how do we know?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
I see a lot of distractions, but no answers to the questions. I am guessing that means those were indeed 'hypothetical reactors'.

if they successfully hid it how do we know?
Click to expand...

You highlighted the stuff about SL-1, so I will tackle that first. The plant was designed to be stationary, but how do you think it was going to be built? Do you think it was going to be a multi-year project? No, it was going to be flown out on planes, then thrown on a few trucks, then set up.

Did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
You highlighted the stuff about SL-1, so I will tackle that first. The plant was designed to be stationary, but how do you think it was going to be built? Do you think it was going to be a multi-year project? No, it was going to be flown out on planes, then thrown on a few trucks, then set up.

Did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
Click to expand...

what did you tackle? Sl1 was never meant to be mobile. Once it was there it needed and became permanent infrastructure. But that's all moot as only one was built and it is wasn't 'off site'. So we are back to those hypothetical portable reactors :yay:
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
what did you tackle? Sl1 was never meant to be mobile. Once it was there it needed and became permanent infrastructure. But that's all moot as only one was built and it is wasn't 'off site'. So we are back to those hypothetical portable reactors :yay:
Click to expand...

If it wasn't going to be a mobile reactor plant, how were they going to get it to be in remote locations?
Did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
If it wasn't going to be a mobile reactor plant, how were they going to get it to be in remote locations?
Did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
Click to expand...


you do realize you are talking about a reactor that exploded killing three and no others were ever built, AND that was half a century ago, right?
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
you do realize you are talking about a reactor that exploded killing three and no others were ever built, AND that was half a century ago, right?
Click to expand...

I do. That's why I said that it was in the 1950s that it was designed, and imagine the technological advances since then. Our carrier plants were designed in the 1960s (except CVN 78). And none of those are non-power-producing breeders that can be even smaller!

Now, did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
I do. That's why I said that it was in the 1950s that it was designed, and imagine the technological advances since then. Our carrier plants were designed in the 1960s (except CVN 78). And none of those are non-power-producing breeders that can be even smaller!

Now, did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
Click to expand...


you keep saying that but you can't show that any portable reactors have been built.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
you keep saying that but you can't show that any portable reactors have been built.
Click to expand...

Other than the ones both of us have talked about, I agree.
Now, did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
 
Midnightrider

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
This_person said:
Other than the ones both of us have talked about, I agree.
Now, did you look up what happened in 2003, because a couple of pretty significant things did happen. Did you look up Qom? When you do, get back with me on how great a deal this is. If you still believe it's a great deal, I have awesome oceanfront property I will sell you in Arizona that you will find beyond your wildest dreams for the price. I will let you look at it 24 days after we close the deal.
Click to expand...

so after 500 posts you are going to agree that Iran could not build a clandestine reactor and keep it hidden even after 21 days, or even 30. :sad:

if you want to make an argument about Qom make it. Please present it succinctly so that I can dispel it with less of your dancing around.
 
This_person

This_person

Well-Known Member
Midnightrider said:
so after 500 posts you are going to agree that Iran could not build a clandestine reactor and keep it hidden even after 21 days, or even 30. :sad:

if you want to make an argument about Qom make it. Please present it succinctly so that I can dispel it with less of your dancing around.
Click to expand...
I never made such a declaration. It's clear to anyone that they can.

Look up Qom and get back to me.

Look up the December 2003 deal and get back with me.

Look up the enrichment facility they hid, but very minor mistakes (from which they've surely learned) made the IAEA question, unsuccessfully, and get back with me.
 
stgislander

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
Subaru_kid.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top