That part I can't say. I imagine knowing the seriousness of corruption in China is, like most economic data, just a black hole of guestimates. Corruption is probably a problem for their miilitary, but not the most significant one. But again, just guestimates because China.
No, it is not 'damn near impossible' to hide an underground nuclear test. How many kilotons? How deep underground? A 2 kiloton underground nuclear explosion would be hard to detect. How would you even know it is nuclear? It could be a conventional explosion. Do you think any underground activity is monitored in Siberia? Aren't Russia and Iran allies? Are the Russians helping Iran with their nuclear program, much like Israel helped South Africa with theirs? Think through your statements...
Saudi Arabia has already put an order in with Pakistan for 24 nuclear armed missiles if Iran is proven to have gone nuclear. Keep up with the news. Nothing moronic about that. How would the U.S. stop this sale? It wouldn't. It can't. Saudi Arabia has the same right to go nuclear as India and Pakistan, only difference being that they paid for their nuclear missiles. No, they are not rumors, it is called a cover up. Like the Israelis not admitting or denying the possession of nuclear weapons. Weapons that have never been tested.
Boy, that is the understatement of the year.
So, you are saying Iran can attack the U.S. and the U.S. would do nothing for fear of going to war? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
OK, which countries have successfully pulled off secret nuclear weapons tests? There's debatebly one, and that occurred in a location far more remote than Russia, and was at sea, which means seismic evidence is less. I'm not sure you understand how seismographs work if you if think Siberia is not monitored. And the other issue with underground tests is they require extensive earthmoving (hard to hide) and there is almost always radioactive leakage, which is easily detectable. And the excuse of conventional explosions doesn't get you far as, spoiler, kiloton range detonations are pretty goddamn rare. Correct me if I"m wrong, but no military has ever fielded kiloton yield conventional weapons.
Why would a country need to pull off a secret nuclear weapons test? Again, did Israel do it? Yeah, you are referring to the 'Vela Incident' from 1979 when the Israelis helped South Africa with their nuclear program and testing. The 'double flash' signature of a nuclear explosion was detected by satellite.
I understand how seismographs works. It is not just for nuclear purposes, you have earthquakes, oil drilling, and volcanoes. No, there is no radioactive leakage from underground tests -- if done correctly and deep enough. 1 kiloton = 1 thousand tons of TNT. Volcanic activity alone is way higher than that. Only 6 countries have thermonuclear weapons: U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, and India -- megaton range. The other countries are all atom bombs in the kiloton range.
...an ally in the Middle East? A Russian air or naval base in the region?
Boy, you are naïve...
I'm not saying you need to test nukes. You are the one who said Russia might let Iran test one on Russian soil. And again, proving my point about how you don't understand seismographs. Nukes, volcanic activity, earthquakes, they all have different signatures. And if you are digging deep enough to contain radioactivity, that's quite obvious. And a base in Iran is straight up not worth nukes. That's what plain ol conventional weapons sales are for. If the US won't trade nukes for bases, why would Russia. And naive is believing Pakistan parts with a third of its stockpile...jesus dude
Ah, yes. I never said they were equal. That is your assumption.
You seem to be having a real hard time understanding my point. One has to do with Iranian nuclear tests outside the country (if any) and the other the sale of nuclear weapons (Pakistan). Where is this idea that Russia is going to give Iran nukes in exchange for an air or naval base coming from? I never said that. What does the U.S. have to do with Russia? By the way, the U.S. keeps nuclear weapons and military bases in these five countries: Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey. The weapons belong to the U.S., not the host country.
I mispoke, I meant that Russia sure as hell wouldn't trade a nuclear weapons test and breaching several treaties for an airbase. That's dumb. And my earlier point is that no way Pakistan deals nukes to both Saudia Arabia and Iran. One or the other, if any, which is already questionable as the U.S. would strongarm Pakistan into not dealing with Iran on that matter at this point.
I consider Hillary Clinton a conservative. Her policies don't align with true liberal beliefs.
