Iran to react if US prevents lifting arms embargo as per nuclear deal: President Rouhani

[Philosopher]

Yes, that has been my point since the very beginning. Thank God that you have finally understood what I meant. Because a conventional warhead is indeed simpler than a nuclear warhead.

I know that is your claim and I have told you from the beginning it is not true. It does not matter what the warhead is, the RV can be the same. If you think a nuclear warhead needs a more advanced RV systems, then this is incorrect.

 

[QWECXZ]

I know that is your claim and I have told you from the beginning it is not true. It does not matter what the warhead is, the RV can be the same. If you think a nuclear warhead needs a more advanced RV systems, then this is incorrect.

Okay. Now tell me why it's incorrect. I told you why I think it should be correct, now it's your time to say why it doesn't matter.

 

[ChennaiDude]

still he is dreaming of that dead deal . USA will try her best to block arms

Iran just needs to hold on until Nov 2020- Come Jan 2020 things will get better.

 

[Philosopher]

Okay. Now tell me why it's incorrect. I told you why I think it should be correct, now it's your time to say why it doesn't matter.

Because an RV system that can deliver nuclear system, can deliver a non-nuclear system and vice versa. The thermal and protection against g forces is the same concept. There is no technical proof that a nuclear RV has to be different. Do you have any direct sources to claim otherwise? Do you have examples of an RV being suited for conventional weapons but not nuclear?

 

[Dariush the Great]

Iran just needs to hold on until Nov 2020- Come Jan 2020 things will get better.

Trump will win again anyway Iran shouldnt care who is in office just continue its plans

 

[QWECXZ]

Because an RV system that can deliver nuclear system, can deliver a non-nuclear system and vice versa. The thermal and protection against g forces is the same concept. There is no technical proof that a nuclear RV has to be different. Do you have any direct sources to claim otherwise? Do you have examples of an RV being suited for conventional weapons but not nuclear?

Good. Now you are talking rationally and calmly again.

Actually, I can think of nuclear reentry vehicles that were modified for non-conventional warheads. An example that I can remember off the top of my head is the conventional version of the Trident missile. They spent nearly 30 million dollars or so on designing a new reentry vehicle for it. The purpose was to increase its accuracy obviously.

The problem is that there aren't any operational conventional ICBMs that I can think of. Do you know any ICBM designed specifically for conventional warheads? I don't know any such example. Hence, it is difficult to give an example of a conventional RV that was modified for nuclear warheads as ICBMs are designed to be used for nuclear strikes.

But I still think that turbulence, heat and atmospheric conditions can damage the warhead. I mean we all have experienced flight turbulence and how it can damage stuff inside the airplane. It is not impossible to imagine that a reentry vehicle flying at such a high speed can fail to protect its warhead. Is it?

 

[Philosopher]

Good. Now you are talking rationally again.

Actually, I can think of nuclear reentry vehicles that were modified for non-conventional warheads. An example that I can remember off the top of my head is the conventional version of the Trident missile. They spent nearly 30 million dollars or so on designing a new reentry vehicle for it. The purpose was to increase its accuracy obviously.

That is a different issue, like you said it was due to improvement to an already working systems.

The problem is that there aren't any operational conventional ICBMs that I can think of. Do you know any ICBM designed specifically for conventional warheads? I don't know any such example. Hence, it is difficult to give an example of a conventional RV that was modified for nuclear warheads as ICBMs are designed to be used for nuclear strikes.

No, there are not. This is because the nations that develop ICBM historically are nuclear powers. That is why I had extrapolated using lower tier systems. Having said that, today nations are developing ICBMs using conventional weapons, i.e the hypersonic glide warheads. And those are nuclear capable too.

But I still think that turbulence, heat and atmospheric conditions can damage the warhead. I mean we all have experienced flight turbulence and how it can damage stuff inside the airplane. It is not impossible to imagine that a reentry vehicle flying at such a high speed can fail to protect its warhead. Is it?

What do you think is more sensitive to thermal and g forces, a nuclear weapon, or a conventional chemical reaction bomb? If you create a RV that is able to house a conventional weapons, I see no reason why it should be unable to house a nuclear system. I would argue given the sensitivities of a chemical reaction bomb, if they are not more sensitive to re-entry effects, they are certainly not less.

 

[Kastor]

Trump will win again anyway Iran shouldnt care who is in office just continue its plans

What plan the highway to ruin plan?

 

[QWECXZ]

That is a different issue, like you said it was due to improvement to an already working systems.

No, there are not. This is because the nations that develop ICBM historically are nuclear powers. That is why I had extrapolated using lower tier systems. Having said that, today nations are developing ICBMs using conventional weapons, i.e the hypersonic glide warheads. And those are nuclear capable too.

What do you think is more sensitive to thermal and g forces, a nuclear weapon, or a conventional chemical reaction bomb? If you create a RV that is able to house a conventional weapons, I see no reason why it should be unable to house a nuclear system. I would argue given the sensitivities of a chemical reaction bomb, if they are not more sensitive to re-entry effects, they are certainly not less.

Yes, I admitted it was a different issue. But it clearly shows that the RV must be specialized for its warhead.

Are you referring to Avangard? Isn't that launched from an ICBM anyway?

You are both right and wrong. Yes, a chemical reaction bomb should be more sensitive to heat than a nuclear bomb, but there's little that can go wrong with a chemical reaction bomb. At the worst case scenario, it will explode prematurely.
On the other hand, a nuclear bomb is more sensitive due to the complexity of the system that is required to detonate it. There are chemical explosives that even hitting the ground can provide the required energy for them to explode. But for a nuclear bomb, you need a complex system that creates the critical mass and provides the first neutrons to start the chain reaction. If any component of your system gets damaged, it can lead to a premature detonation or a low yield detonation.

 

[Kastor]

2.68 million barrels of oil per day, foreign investments, booming tourist sector, less unemployment.



Of course media coverage is a huge deal, Shah was portrayed favorably by the media until he stopped becoming dependent of US, then the accusations against him began. What I am saying is we should not repeat his mistakes.

Zarif was one of the top contenders for the Nobel Peace Price according to Peace Research Institution in Norway. (The Nobel Peace Price is awarded in Norway). What do you mean who gives a f'ck. I'm saying image matters, we went from being holocaust denying, jew hating terrorists to almost receiving the Peace Price



Look at these videos and you will understand what I mean. Instead of learning from them, we are repeating his mistakes.

When I watch these videos, I'm reminded how intelligent he was, he really knew the layout of the world...but alas he miscalculated the power and depravity of the foreign actors that he was irking. Nevertheless, amazing answers to the lady interviewer....world class answers. My god,....how did we go from him to Ahmadinejad?

 

[Philosopher]

But it clearly shows that the RV must be specialized for its warhead.

Yes, but not in the sense that we are discussing here. But anyway, we cannot discuss that system because it did not house a conventional weapons for us to compare.

Are you referring to Avangard? Isn't that launched from an ICBM anyway?

Avangard is one such system, Americans are developing them too. Although they are used to fire conventional warheads, they are also nuclear capable.

You are both right and wrong. Yes, a chemical reaction bomb should be more sensitive to heat than a nuclear bomb, but there's little that can go wrong with a chemical reaction bomb. At the worst case scenario, it will explode prematurely.
On the other hand, a nuclear bomb is more sensitive due to the complexity of the system that is required to detonate it. There are chemical explosives that even hitting the ground can provide the required energy for them to explode. But for a nuclear bomb, you need a complex system that creates the critical mass and provides the first neutrons to start the chain reaction. If any component of your system gets damaged, it can lead to a premature detonation or a low yield detonation.

There are sensitive in different ways, but a chemical reaction bomb is extremely sensitive to something like heat. That is why if you create an RV that is adequate enough to shield the conventional systems then it should also work for the nuclear weapons too.

Going back to what I said initially in this thread, this concept of missiles "designed to carry nuclear weapon" is not an accurate description, even the likes of Michael Elleman were contenting that.

Because capability does not equal intent, the MTCR guidelines should be just the first step in an assessment of Iran’s intentions for its missiles. When the United Nations Security Council drafted a new resolution in July 2015 to accompany the Iran nuclear agreement finalised that month, an element of intent was added to previous sanctions resolution language that prohibited launches of Iranian missiles that were ‘capable of delivering nuclear weapons’. The 2015 resolution calls upon Iran not to engage in activity concerning missiles ‘designed to be’ capable of delivering nuclear weapons.

What it means ‘to be designed’ is undefined. Judging intent is partly subjective, but technical clues and intelligence information can guide analysis. The soundest approach is to disaggregate Iran’s various missile systems, and to assess design intentions on the basis of the technical capabilities and lineage of the different missiles.

https://www.iiss.org/blogs/research-paper/2018/02/iran-missiles-nuclear-capable

However, missiles can be 'nuclear capable' if they are able to deliver the payload (in terms of mass). The wording of that UNSC resolution were changed to allow Iran continue working on its conventional missiles. I recall an interview with Dr Zarif were he (not directly) said as much.

 

[QWECXZ]

Yes, but not in the sense that we are discussing here. But anyway, we cannot discuss that system because it did not house a conventional weapons for us to compare.

Avangard is one such system, Americans are developing them too. Although they are used to fire conventional warheads, they are also nuclear capable.

There are sensitive in different ways, but a chemical reaction bomb is extremely sensitive to something like heat. That is why if you create an RV that is adequate enough to shield the conventional systems then it should also work for the nuclear weapons too.

Going back to what I said initially in this thread, this concept of missiles "designed to carry nuclear weapon" is not an accurate description, even the likes of Michael Elleman were contenting that.
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/research-paper/2018/02/iran-missiles-nuclear-capable

However, missiles can be 'nuclear capable' if they are able to deliver the payload (in terms of mass). The wording of that UNSC resolution were changed to allow Iran continue working on its conventional missiles. I recall an interview with Dr Zarif were he (not directly) said as much.

Yes. I acknowledged already that a chemical reaction bomb is more sensitive to heat. But an RV does not face only heat as a threat to its warhead. What about turbulence?

From the article you quoted, he says "and to assess design intentions on the basis of the technical capabilities and lineage of the different missiles.". So, there seems to be different technical capabilities based on use.

But why shouldn't be a missile able to deliver the payload in terms of mass? There are nuclear warheads that weigh less than 100 kg or even 50 kilograms. Any missile can deliver that much.

 

[Philosopher]

Yes. I acknowledged already that a chemical reaction bomb is sensitive to heat. But an RV does not face only heat as a threat to its warhead. What about turbulence?

Yes, but the RV is still designed to counter such forces, whether it contains a nuclear system or not should not alter the need for these design parameters.

From the article you quoted, he says "and to assess design intentions on the basis of the technical capabilities and lineage of the different missiles.". So, there seems to be different technical capabilities based on use.

There he is basically trying to explain the UNSC claims of a missile "designed to carry nuclear weapons". If you read the whole article, you see see he essentially is saying this is all about intent and not to do with the capability of the missiles.

But why shouldn't be a missile able to deliver the payload in terms of mass? There are nuclear warheads that weigh less than 100 kg.

Sure, what I mean is the main issue as far as the missile itself is concerned is payload, if the missile can carry a necessary nukes of that certain mass, then that is what is important. The missile itself does not otherwise require a special design.

 

[QWECXZ]

Yes, but the RV is still designed to counter such forces, whether it contains a nuclear system or not should not alter the need for these design parameters.


There he is basically trying to explain the UNSC claims of a missile "designed to carry nuclear weapons". If you read the whole article, you see see he essentially is saying this is all about intent and not to do with the capability of the missiles.

Sure, what I mean is the main issue as far as the missile itself is concerned is payload, if the missile can carry a necessary nukes of that certain mass, then that is what is important. The missile itself does not otherwise require a special design.

I never disagreed that the underlying concept is the same, but the degree can be different. And an ICBM travels at a much faster speed in its reentry phase than our current missiles. Unfortunately, we can't make a case by case comparison here as there are no conventional ICBMs in use. And because of this really fast reentry speed we can't conclude that Iran has ICBM capability. There is no evidence that suggests Iran has mastered hypersonic aerodynamics.

Honestly, I'm not convinced that mass is the only factor here.

 

[Philosopher]

There is no evidence that suggests Iran has mastered hypersonic aerodynamics.

Honestly, I'm not convinced that mass is the only factor here.

Although not an ICBM, do note that the warheads of missiles Sejill and Khoramshahr do travel at hypersonic speeds. The warhead of Sejill for example as been given at around mach 11/12. I agree Iran has not directly demonstrated an ICBM level RV, but I have no doubt it has this capability, And that RV can carry either nuclear or non nuclear systems. Obviously should Iran ever test an ICBM overtly then the west will use that to "prove" Iran must be after nukes, but that is a different discussion.